The Curse of the Middle East – Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
Why is the Middle East a place of conflict? Why has the Arab world and not others suffered since the end of World War II? To what extent is this region coveted by the great powers? Is there no alternative that fulfills the desire of these powers to dominate and control resources? Questions asked in councils, studies, and media programs. Unfortunately, there is no single convincing answer. Rather, there are opinions and interpretations, some of which are objectively scientific and some of which are based on conspiracy theories, and which are usually easy and circulating among the common people.
My humble point of view is that labels have a role in generalizing diagnosis. The Middle East, the Arab world, and the Islamic nation are emotional descriptions that conflict with the concept of a modern, sovereign state. If we want an objective reading, we must be a little humble and call things by their proper names. The Arab world was invented and consolidated by Arab nationalists, and they spread it as a concentrated feed in the morning queues in schoolyards, “Arab countries are my homelands.” The Islamic nation was molded by political Islam groups lamenting over the ruins of the Islamic Caliphate. The Middle East was used by the Americans in the Eisenhower Doctrine in 1957 AD, and one of the justifications for its political popularity was the integration Israel is in an environment with one address, due to the observed aversion of its surroundings towards it as an occupying state.
Because labels represent a problem, the Arab world has been associated in the mind of others with backwardness, the Middle East with conflicts and chaos, and the Islamic nation with terrorism and extremism, and I do not believe that other regional groupings in this world are treated according to this unjust stereotyping. Not only that, but Arabic-speaking countries bore the burdens of defending an Arab world or nation that only existed in the romances of the last century. Islamic countries bore the ambitions and burdens of the Islamic Caliphate, and the Middle East bore the adventures of rogue countries that do not recognize international order and law and do not respect the sovereignty of neighboring countries.
Because the Middle East had become a problem, America, which had been on the throne of the world since the end of the Cold War, had to try its utmost efforts to find radical solutions to the problems. Initiatives and approaches continued from Kissinger to Blinken, and they all failed miserably. Soft and rough. In the context of his dealings with the Middle East, Warren Christopher once said, “Avoid confrontation in favor of negotiation with friends and enemies alike.” During his reign and his president Clinton, peace initiatives were active, and during his period as US Secretary of State (1993-1997), he visited Middle Eastern countries 100 times. ; Five visits to the Kingdom, eight to Jordan, the same to the Palestinian National Authority, 15 visits to Egypt, 29 visits to Syria, and 34 visits to Israel. In contrast, Clinton’s successor adopted a rough doctrine. President Bush Jr.’s doctrine consisted of three axes: conquest, democracy, and dominoes. In other words, overthrowing the rulers of the Middle East (except Israel), and establishing temporary governments of opposition exiles abroad, so that these countries will be models of prosperity and democracy, and then the rest of the countries will become infected and all “dictatorship” regimes in the region will fall like dominoes, and everyone will become friends of Israel. .
The result was that Iraq was handed over to Iran, as part of the formation of the Greater Middle East, and the fires of hell were unleashed on the “Arab world.” Instead of prosperity, terrorism spread, chaos spread, and the bases of players expanded beyond the scope of the state. Then came Barack Obama’s doctrine. The Arab Spring was based on Sunni and Shiite political Islam groups, with claims of their ability to cultivate democracy in a barren land, and then Israel would be surrounded by democratic forces beholden to America that brought about change, and the Jewish state would enjoy security and welcome.
With everything we were treated, the medicine only made our ailments more miserable, because the approaches are wrong, the diagnosis is hypothetical, and the gap between reality and ambition is very large. Neither the Arabic-speaking countries have been able to create an Arab world that has embraced Arabs since the Nasserist era, nor have the Muslim-majority countries given up their national sovereignty to form the Islamic nation, nor has the Middle East been able to swallow Israel, as it was like a nail in the throat, difficult to integrate into the context. General.
Political theories will be of no use in diagnosing the chronic situation in the Middle East unless we reconsider liberalizing terminology, which requires dealing with sovereign states, some of which have achieved progress in the fields of security, stability, and well-being over long periods, and some of which have not, and a third category mired in chaos and internal strife. Conflicted by the ambitions of elites and foreign interference, it is the only occupying state in the twenty-first century. Countries can organize their relations and blocs in state and regional organizations without the need for loose, romantic labels that create problems without contributing to solving them, such as the Arab world, the Islamic nation, and the Middle East. These countries can cooperate and even unite, but through contemporary tools that govern multilateral international relations.
