By Aden Ismail
In November 2011, President Obama officially unveiled the pivot to Asia plan to usher in what then-foreign secretary Hillary Clinton called “America’s Pacific Century.” A strategic reorientation meant to shift focus on the economic potentials of Asia, counterbalancing China’s growing influence, checking North Korea’s belligerent behaviours and reassuring regional allies, while simultaneously extricating Washington from the fatiguing Middle East entanglements.
Having silenced the Arab streets with the liquidation of Osama Bin Laden to emasculate violent political Islam followed by the elimination of Muammar Gadhafi to mark the end of the era of combative Arab leaders and the ruinous Arab Spring diminishing Arab spirit of revolutionary resurgence. The only challenger Washington thought worth dealing with as far as the Middle East and North Africa is concerned, is the Islamic Republic of Iran. But unlike Iraq in the past, Iranian policies toward the West were tactfully measured for decades, if Tehran’s behaviours are anything to go by. Despite their determination to supplant Westerners from the region, Iranians employed strategic patience, avoiding any recklessness of provoking an armed conflict that would give standby Israel a free ride to unleash devastation.
Even in the face of bold provocations, such as the assassination of their revered General Qassim Soleimani and the attack on their consulate in Damascus, Iran has skilfully navigated the situation, avoiding direct military confrontation with the United States and its allies. During the Obama administration, Tehran’s strategic restraint and isolation sickness met Obama’s Pacific fever and America’s Middle East fatigue syndrome, marking a meeting of minds to cultivate a common ground. Efforts to resolve the Iran-Western deadlock, with the nuclear issue at its core, culminated in the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015.
This landmark agreement marked a significant breakthrough for the signatories despite sharp criticisms from Israel and Arab countries, who viewed the deal as empowering a weakened Iran. Confident that the negotiations were progressing well, Washington moved to a gradual disengagement from the Middle East. A long overdue policy which President George W. Bush was inclined to implement before the disruptions of the 9/11 tragedy and the subsequent Global War on Terror.
‘Friendly’ Sabotages
It appears that America is trapped in a vicious Middle East circle, impossible to extricate itself. Its involvement in the region’s affairs has evolved into somewhat of a doctrine of faith. Washington is at a disorienting juncture where the interests of its regional allies, particularly Israel, and global rivals converge, and both wish to see it pinned down. While the manoeuvres of global rivals to frustrate America are understandable – deflect attention from their spheres – intriguing is the ‘friendly’ backstabbing role of allies. Events do not occur merely by coincidences but choreographers hatch them to match with convenient time.
Amid the Iranian nuclear negotiations, the relatively unknown Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) launched a blitz in 2014, swiftly declaring a Caliphate in the Iraqi city of Mosul. By effacing national boundaries and rejecting the concept of the nation-state, the rise of ISIS profoundly shook the global security order as tens of thousands of multinational fighters flocked to the Middle East. The rise of ISIS forced the United States to remain engaged and lead the Operation Inherent Resolve campaign, with Iran and Russia participating separately in the conflict. ISIS was decisively defeated in that brutal campaign that left Iraq and Syria in deep tatters. This hard-won victory ultimately provided Washington with yet another opportunity to exit the Middle East after decades of bloody involvement.
Rather than simply walking out of the regional cauldron, Washington began laying the groundwork for an Israeli-Arab domestic alliance aimed at deterring any future Iranian aggressions; a move intended to appease Israel and the Arab allies who harbored multitudes of reservations against the JCPOA agreement. In pursuit of an American-pushed Arab-Israel alliance under the Abrahamic banner, four Arab countries successively reached normalization deals with Israel from 2020 under the heat of Covid-19. When long-standing Egyptian and Jordanian peace deals with Israel were added, the Arab crowd grew to six with more signalling readiness to join the Abrahamic caravan.
The Accord was being put to final touches when optimism dashed on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched its Al-Aqsa Operation. Arab-Israeli acrimonies suddenly resurfaced, reaching a fever pitch. Americans were once again forced to refortify their regional posture with new personnel, technology and billions of dollars besetting another strategic setback. It is reasonable to believe that a covert collaboration between Gulf Arabs and Israel led to the sudden rise of ISIS to block the exit door of an ally whose departure presented nightmares. A day in the Middle East without Americans roaring and Iranian clerics at the helm, Israel and Arab monarchies see a doomsday.
Naturally, Zionism and Islamic radicalism in the Middle East share a symbiotic relationship, with Gulf Arabia serving as the ideological nucleus of Islamic fundamentalism. Tel Aviv depends on Islamic radicals to justify its apartheid system, particularly following the end of symmetrical threats from Arab nations. If covert Israeli and Gulf involvement in the rise of ISIS is treated as a faulty assumption, the Hamas factor clears any lingering doubt. The New York Times’s “Buying Quiet” reveals that Israel helped Hamas grow. Through channelling millions of dollars from Gulf countries, Israel created thriving conditions for Hamas precisely to obscure Palestinian voices of reason and rival the legitimate Palestinian Authority.
Israel prefers to have a recalcitrant group that rivals its legitimate neighbor rather than coming to terms with a sovereign Palestinian state that can legally challenge the system of occupation. This preference for radical groups rather than a sovereign Palestinian State to peacefully coexist aligns with the Herzlian Doctrine of state preservation, which predates the formation of Israel. The Hungarian founder of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), identified two fundamental elements essential for the survival of a future Jewish State: a permanent alignment with a great power outside the Middle East and the non-recognition of an Arab identity in Palestine. Israel religiously adheres to this doctrine. Pursuing these two challenging objectives necessitates that Israel constantly shelters the American shadow of might while simultaneously obstructing the establishment of a legitimate Palestinian state through a cycle of violence.
When American attention is drifting away as with the pivot to Asia, Israel raises the stakes for a new holocaust, by deploying problem assets of radical groups to keep Americans toed.
Only through the warmth of the American might does Israel feel secure and keeping them consumed in regional crises is a noble job. No matter how Americans push for an Arab-Israeli alliance as an alternative to their frontline involvement, or Arab regimes grovel before Israel for security partnerships, Zionist instincts harbour deep racial distrust of Arabs whom Herzl viewed as ‘primitives’ and for that reason, Tel Aviv does not view security reliance with Arab regimes as a guarantor of its survival.
ISIS’s repudiation of the concept of a nation-state in the Middle East to explicitly threaten Israel marked a tremendous success for Tel Aviv in line with its unscrupulous policy of keeping Americans engaged. Similarly, Hamas’s October operation, which resulted from intentionally leaving security loopholes for the group to exploit after ensuring they had sufficient capabilities, achieved another objective of justifying the occupation under the pretext of fighting ‘savages’ hellbent on a new Jewish holocaust and keeping Americans occupied.
Today, as Israelis confront their greatest self-inflicted existential threat while pursuing two exhausting objectives, they are once again attempting to carve out a new path, which is yet another of Israel’s endless innovations to buy new life for the occupation. As usual, Tel Aviv is leveraging the support of Western powers while dragging along confused Arab regimes.
The Horn of Africa Mission
It all traces back to 1979 when Iranian Islamic revolutionaries came to power, signalling a rising giant. With his ascension to the leadership of this ancient Persian civilization, the Ayatollah began vehemently denouncing Arab monarchies, Israel, and the West.His staunch opposition to the regional establishment raised significant concerns among Arab sheikhdoms, who grew wary of Iran-inspired Islamic revolutions potentially sweeping through the desert. This suspicion was soon validated with the seizure of the Grand Mosque of Mecca in November 1979 by a Wahhabi fundamentalist.
Equally apprehensive of Ayatollah’s Islamic revolutionary rhetoric were Western powers who had economic and strategic interests in the region. Israel, which had hitherto maintained unrivalled military dominance in the region, sensed the ambitions of the Ayatollah projecting as a beacon of a global Islamic resurgence and predicted the impossibility of coexisting with Islamic Iran in the region. Among all those concerned about the Iranian rise, Israel was the most troubled due to its survival instincts. Iran’s determination to dominate the region weighed heavily on Israeli policymakers, who feared the looming threat of being ejected from the region. In response, they sought to drag Americans into a Middle East trap and subsequently entangle them to provide a permanent shield.
Akin to the fact is that Israel had a hand in instigating the first Gulf Crisis to open a regional pandora box and irrefutably convincing that Tel Aviv concocted the Weapons of Mass Destruction narrative that paved the road for the invasion of Iraq. Lobbied by pro-Israeli Hawks in Washington, the Iraq invasion had two long-range strategic goals for Israel. The first goal was to galvanize American involvement in the region, while the second was to eliminate a weighty and ambitious Arab power that could pose a future threat to Israel’s existence. Ultimately, according to Israeli calculations, this meant pre-empting a future scenario of Tel Aviv being caught between the jaws of two militant and formidable regional foes—Iran and Iraq.
Read more: The dawn of the Israeli era in the Horn of Africa and its inherent dangers
Aden Ismail
Email: aden.mohedi@gmail.com
We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on WardheerNews.com. WardheerNews will only consider articles sent exclusively. Please email your article today . Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WardheerNews.
WardheerNew’s tolerance platform is engaging with diversity of opinion, political ideology and self-expression. Tolerance is a necessary ingredient for creativity and civility.Tolerance fuels tenacity and audacity.
WardheerNews waxay tixgelin gaara siinaysaa maqaaladaha sida gaarka ah loogu soo diro ee aan lagu daabicin goobo kale. Maqaalkani wuxuu ka turjumayaa aragtida Qoraaga loomana fasiran karo tan WardheerNews.
Copyright © 2024 WardheerNews, All rights reserved
