Middle Eastern Interventionism Galore: Neither US Nor Chinese Policies Alleviate

Support SouthFront

Middle Eastern Interventionism Galore: Neither US Nor Chinese Policies Alleviate

Illustrative Image

Written by James M. Dorsey.

A recent analysis of Middle Eastern states’ interventionist policies suggests that misguided big power approaches have fueled a vicious cycle of interference and instability over the last decade.

Those approaches are abetted, if not encouraged by US and Chinese strategies that are similar, if not essentially the same, just labelled differently. The United States has long opted for regime stability in the Middle East rather than political reform, an approach China adopts under the mum of non-interference in the internal affairs of others.

As a result, both the United States and China de facto signal autocrats that they will not be held accountable for their actions. This week’s US response and Chinese silence about the suspension of democracy in Tunisia illustrates the point.

The policies of the two powers diverge, however, on one key approach: The US, unlike China, frequently identifies one or more regimes, most notably Iran, as a threat to regional security. In doing so, US policy is often shaped by the narrow lens of a frequently demonized ‘enemy’ or hostile power.

The problem with that approach is that it encourages policies that are based on a distorted picture of reality. The Obama administration’s negotiation of a 2015 international nuclear agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program proved that amending those policies constitutes a gargantuan task, albeit one that is gaining traction with more critical trends emerging in both the Democratic Party and among Evangelists.

The recent study, ‘No Clean Hands: The Interventions of Middle Eastern Powers, 2010-2020,’ published by the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, suggests by implication that China has at the vey least allowed instability to fester in the Middle East that is fueled as much by destabilizing Iranian interventions as by similar actions of various US allies.

The study was authored by researcher Matthew Petti and Trita Parsi, the Institute’s  co-founder and executive vice president and founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council.

To be sure China may not have been able to influence all interventionist decisions, including the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but potentially could have at times tempered the interventionist inklings of regional players with a more assertive approach rather than remaining aloof and focusing exclusively on economic opportunity.

China demonstrated its willingness and ability to ensure that regional players dance to its tune when it made certain that Middle Eastern and Muslim-majority countries refrained from criticizing Beijing’s brutal attempt to alter the ethnic and religious identity of its Turkic Muslim population in the north-western province of Xinjiang.

Taking Syria as an example, Li Shaoxian, a former vice president at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, articulated China’s approach in 2016 as Chinese President Xi Jinping paid his first visit to the Middle East. “China doesn’t really care who takes the presidency…in the future—as long as that person could stabilize and develop the country, we would agree,” Mr. Li said.

To be fair, the Quincy Institute study focuses on the interventionist policies of Middle Eastern states and recommendations for US policy rather than on China even if the report by implication has consequences for China too.

A key conclusion of the study is that the fallacy of US policy was not only to continue to attempt to batter Iran into submission despite evidence that pressure was not persuading the Islamic republic to buckle under.

It was also a failure to acknowledge that Middle Eastern instability was fueled by interventionist policies of not just one state, Iran, but of six states, five of which are US allies: Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. The US allies, with the exception of Turkey and to a lesser degree Qatar, are perceived as supporters of the regional status quo.

On the other hand, the United States and its allies have long held that Iran’s use of militant proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen; its intervention in Syria and support of Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip; and its armament policies, including its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs, destabilize the Middle East and pose the greatest threat to regional security.

They assert that Iran continues to want to export its revolution. It is an argument that is supported by Iran’s own rhetoric and need to maintain a revolutionary façade.

Middle East scholar Danny Postel challenges the argument in a second paper published this month by the University of Denver’s Center for Middle East Studies that seems to bolster the Quincy Institute’s analysis.

“The view of Iran as a ‘revolutionary’ state has been dead for quite some time yet somehow stumbles along and blinds us to what is actually happening on the ground in the Middle East. A brief look at the role Iran has played over the last decade in three countries — Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria — reveals a very different picture: not one of a revolutionary but rather of a counter-revolutionary force,” Mr. Postel argues.

The scholar noted that Hezbollah, the powerful Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon, and pro-Iranian armed groups in Iraq responded in similar ways to mass anti-government protests in 2019 and 2020 in Lebanese and Iraqi cities that transcended sectarian divisions and identified the Iran-aligned factions with widespread corruption that was dragging their countries down.

They attacked the protesters in an attempt to salvage a failed system that served their purpose and suppress what amounted to popular uprisings.

Do they really think that we would hand over a state, an economy, one that we have built over 15 years? That they can just casually come and take it? Impossible! This is a state that was built with blood,” said an Iraqi official with links to the pro-Iranian militias. A Hezbollah official speaking about Lebanon probably could not have said it better.

Iranian support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal suppression of a popular revolt is no less counter-revolutionary and illustrative of the length to which Iran is willing to go to protect its interests.

“Indeed, for all the talk of Iran’s ‘disruptive’ role in the region, what the cases of Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon reveal is instead an Islamic Republic hell-bent on keeping entrenched political establishments and ruling classes in power while helping them quell popular movements for social justice, democratic rights, and human dignity,” Mr. Postel concludes.

“The idea that Iran is a revolutionary power while Saudi Arabia is a counter-revolutionary power in the region is a stale binary. Both the Islamic Republic and the Saudi Kingdom play counter-revolutionary roles in the Middle East. They are competing counter-revolutionary powers, each pursuing its counter-revolutionary agenda in its respective sphere of influence within the region,” Mr. Postel goes on to say.

Counterterrorism expert Matthew Levitt appeared to contradict Mr. Postel in a paper published this week that asserted that Hezbollah remained a revolutionary pro-Iranian force in its regional posture beyond Lebanon.

“Hezbollah’s regional adventurism is most pronounced in its expeditionary forces deployed in Syria and elsewhere in the region, but no less important are the group’s advanced training regimen for other Shi’a militias aligned with Iran, its expansive illicit financing activities across the region, and its procurement, intelligence, cyber, and disinformation activities,” Mr. Levitt said.

Mr. Postel’s analysis in various ways bolsters the Quincy Institute report’s observation that tactics employed by Iran are not uniquely Iranian but have been adopted at various times by all interventionist players in the Middle East.

The Quincy Institute study suggests further that a significant number of instances in the last decade in which Middle Eastern states projected military power beyond their borders involved Turkey, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar on battlefields that were as much related to competition for regional influence among US allies or the countering of popular movements as they were to rivalry with Iran.

“Iran is highly interventionist, but not an outlier. The other major powers in the region are often as interventionist as the Islamic Republic – and at times even more so. Indeed, the UAE and Turkey have surpassed in recent years,” the report said.

The report’s publication coincided with the indictment of billionaire Thomas  J. Barrack, a one-time advisor and close associate of former US President Donald J. Trump, on charges of operating as an unregistered foreign agent in the United States for the UAE, widely seen as another case and form of intervention by a Middle Eastern state.

By implication, the study raises the question whether compartmentalizing security issues like the nuclear question and framing them exclusively in terms of the concerns of the West and its Middle Eastern allies rather than discussing them in relation to diverging security concerns of all regional players, including Iran, will lead to a sustainable regional security architecture.

There is little indication that thinking in Washington is paying heed to the Quincy Institute study or Mr. Postel’s analysis even though their publication came at an inflection point in negotiations with Iran suspended until President-elect Ebrahim Raisi takes office in mid-August.

That was evident in a proposal put forward this month by former US Middle East peace negotiator Dennis Ross on how to respond to Iran’s refusal to discuss its ballistic missiles program and support of armed proxies  as well as Mr. Al-Assad as part of the nuclear negotiation. Mr. Ross suggested that the United States sell to Israel the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound mountain-buster capable of destroying hardened underground nuclear facilities.

Members of Congress last year offered legislation that would authorize the sale as a way to maintain Israel’s military edge as the United States moves to reward the UAE for its establishment of diplomatic reltions with Israel by selling it top-of-the-line F-35 fighter jets.

The administration is expected to move ahead with the sale of the jets after putting it on hold for review when Joe Biden took office In January.

The Quincy Institute and Mr. Postel’s calls for a paradigm shift in thinking about the Middle East and/or Iran take on added significance in the light of debates about the sustainability of the Iranian clerical regime.

Contrary to suggestions that the regime is teetering on the brink of collapse as the result of sanctions and domestic discontent, most recently evidenced in this month’s protests sparked by water shortages, widely respected Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour argues that the Iranian regime could have a shelf life of at least another generation.

Mr. Sadjadpour draws a comparison to the Soviet Union. “Post-Soviet Russia… didn’t transition from the Soviet Union to a democratic Russia, but it essentially became a new form of authoritarianism which took Communism and replaced it with grievance driven Russia nationalism—led by someone from the ancient regime and a product of the KGB, Vladimir Putin,” Mr. Sadjadpour argues.

“Likewise, if I had to make a prediction in Iran, I think that the next prominent leader is less likely to be an aging cleric—like an Ayatollah Khamenei or Ibrahim Raisi—and more likely to be someone who is a product of either the Revolutionary Guards or Iran’s intelligence services. Instead of espousing Shiite nationalism, they will substitute that with Iranian nationalism—or Persian nationalism,” he goes on to say.

An Iranian nationalist regime potentially could contribute to regional stability. It would likely remove the threats of Iranian meddling in the domestic affairs of various Arab countries by empowering Shiite Muslim groups as well as support for political Islam. Iranian nationalism would turn aid to groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen into a liability rather than an asset.

Mr. Sadjadpour’s prognosis coupled with the Quincy Institute report suggests that the Biden administration has an opportunity to reframe its Middle East policy in the long-term interests of the United States as well as the region and the international community.

The nuclear talks are one potential entry point to what would amount to the equivalent of turning a supertanker around in the Suez Canal – a gradual process at best rather than an overnight change. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan may be another.

Concern in Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran about the fallout of the withdrawal suggests that stabilizing the greater Middle East in ways that conflicts can be sustainably managed if not resolved creates grounds for China, Russia and the United States to cooperate on what should be a common interest: securing the free flow of oil and gas as well as trade.

China, Russia, and Iran may be bracing themselves for worst case scenarios as the Taliban advance militarily, but the potential for some form of big power cooperation remains.

China scholars Haiyun Ma and I-wei Jennifer Chang note that in the case of Afghanistan “despite the Taliban’s advancement on the ground and its call for Chinese investment, the current military situation and the political process have not yet manifested a power vacuum created by the US retreat, which makes Chinese entry and gains…largely symbolic in nature.”

A podcast version of this story is available on Soundcloud,Itunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, Spreaker, Pocket Casts, Tumblr, Podbean,Audecibel,  Castbox, and Patreon.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and a senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore and the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute as well as an Honorary Senior Non-Resident Fellow at Eye on ISIS.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
farbat

hahahahaha the stupidity

Muay Thai

“The United States has long opted for regime stability in the Middle East rather than political reform” – really? this author is delusional and a disinfo agent.

farbat

they are ignoring the obvious issue which is that the american and zionist project is after balkanization of the region and therefore they are counter revolutionary because irans islamic revolution is about unification of islam not seperation and balkanization divide and conquer style strategy which is going on by usa and lackeys such as saudi and co in fact the west did nothing but put one against another lets not forget the entire nato france britain etc pp they all have dirty hands in this meanwhile we have china which is hurting itself more than it could hurt others that is the truth of china the dragon way to often becomes the ouroboros biting its own tail

Last edited 2 months ago by farbat
farbat

this is about conceptual retardedness and its really part of the jewish agenda it just shows that most people coming out of their universities are as retarded as one can be they are “educated” to be ignorant towards the realities its a system of mass brainwashing and it creates retarded masses

farbat

their understanding of revolution is the same understanding one would have of division and they apply it on many fields be it ethnically linguistically etc pp never on themselves obviously but on others this ideology is pushed into their small brains and they perceive it as just revolution and try to connect it constantly to other revolutionary movements this here is one example of it they understand nothing about the islamic revolution but they project and they basically try to sell their ideology as ours this cancer is dying right now painfully this liberalism but it fights back obviously in all its slimy leech like manners and while dying it even projects its failures to us

Last edited 2 months ago by farbat
farbat

their lack of understanding what the revolution means is amazing and it shows the lack of understanding what they are talking about they obviously never have listened to one iranian strategist who is revolutionary probably no contact in any way or form with any revolutionary ideology of irans to come up with this kind of nonsense in fact if your counter revolution is considered the real revolution than basically your revolution is the deal of the century and basically a 100 little uae like entities all over west asia that wont ever happen so forget it

Jim Allen

US propaganda at it’s finest.

Muay Thai

i’ve noticed this a lot lately. even on sites you least expect.

The Objective

The U.S and Russia are already cooperating in trying to stop the rise of what they call political Islam. But in essence, their efforts are mainly to prevent unity among SUNNI Muslims not Shiites, by keeping their countries in a state of war, attacking the economy and governments of SUNNI Muslim countries who join in the struggle, such as Turkey, Qatar, and Pakistan. They also exert all efforts to prevent the flow of tech know-how to these Muslim countries, especially military tech. Turkey is their major target as it is the most technologically advanced SUNNI Muslim and has a leader that is willing to take on the challenges of the Kuffaar and hypocrites.

Putin simply doesn’t know what to make of Erdogan. On the one hand, Putin doesn’t want a U.S puppet ruling Turkey as that will derail Turkish-Russian cooperation on economic and military issues such as Syria’s territorial integrity, arms purchases, and cooperation on nuclear technology. On the other hand, Putin doesn’t want a true Muslim ruling Turkey. It is a Russian policy to keep Islam in its current weak position. I think by the latest actions of Russia, Putin has chosen to have a pro-Western president in Turkey rather than a true Muslim by heart. Hence, Putin regrets tipping Erdogan off about the coup – that’s if he ever did, because I’m not sold on the idea of Putin helping to save a Muslim-Brotherhood aka Terrorist president of the most powerful Muslim country. That explains Russia-U.S cooperation in Syria and Libya, their cooperation on strengthening dictatorship in the Muslim world (Haftar, Sisi, MBZ, MBS, etc), and their opposition to what they call political Islam.

We can see that all the major players of the world and Middle East have united against Turkey and that Sunni Muslim world. The GCC, EU, U.S.A, Russia, and Iran, are all fighting the Sunnis throughout the Middle East and North Africa. China is the only exception, despite all Russian attempts to convince the Beijing to join this war against the Sunni Muslim world. This particular article, on which I’m commenting, is only echoing Russian voice that China should join in this oppression of Muslims. Yes, China does oppress Muslim. But this is strictly within Chinese borders. The U.S, Russia, Iran, EU, and Israel on the other hand does this at a global scale. For example, Russia will not hesitate to send its forces into say Egypt, U.A.E, etc in the event of a war against the dictators.

Every Sunni Muslim must understand what’s going on. We are a target of massive disinformation, especially by Russia and Iran. They aim to keep as many Muslims in the dark as possible about the tumultuous events rocking the Muslim world. If possible, they will deceive us into supporting them even though they are fighting us. They have deployed hundreds of websites for this purpose, such as SouthFront, Globalresearch.ca, thesake.is, inforamtionclearinghouse, colonelcassad, Iranian news and websites, etc. We must be careful of these websites as they employ propaganda smartly and at a sophisticated level.

Thakfully, a majority of the Muslims understand who our enemies are. That explains the popularity of Erdogan, Qatari emir, Mahathir, and others.

Last edited 2 months ago by The Objective