| T |
he unprecedented Israeli attack on Iran last month raised many a question about the future of the Middle East. However, the most pertinent inquiry revolved around the tenets of realist thought in international relations: have the winds shifted in the Middle East?
Israel’s attack on Iran highlights its perception of the power balance in the region. Should the Zionist regime now be regarded as a hegemon? It is not entirely clear whether the attack came without a green signal from the White House. The clash represents not only a change in the power balance between Iran and Israel, but is also an indication of the way the Middle East is like to change. The trajectory of the transformation has been a near constant since the US invasion of Iraq.
President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia in May this year seemed to have a very different agenda. The deals between the two countries in the past have revolved around oil and arms. This time, however, things looked different. A $600 billion investment package was announced besides the defence deals. The investments are related to AI, big tech and infrastructure development. The signalling from US the foreign policy was clear: there is more to the Middle East than oil.
Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s Vision 2030 foresees a culmination of transformative change at home. His policies also reflect a progressive transformation in the drift from Saudi sponsorship of trans-national Islamism. The toppling of the Assad regime by the forces of Ahmad al Shara and the ‘end’ of the Syrian civil war are a further testament to the transformation. Chatham House has called the meeting between Trump and Shara a sign of the “shifting of balance of power in the Middle East.”
A significant aspect of the metamorphosis in the region is the fall of trans-national forces and revolutionary ideologies that have long driven the political theatre in the Middle East. Iran’s Axis of Resistance has been weakened. Israel’s attack on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is seen by many as the beginning of the dismantling of another hostile regime.
President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia in May this year seemed to have a very different agenda. The deals between the two countries in the past have revolved around oil and arms. This time, however, things looked different. A $600 billion investment package was announced besides the defence deals.
Support for the Palestinian Liberation Organisation since the 1967 war has been important for Arab nationalism. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Baath Party were once the most prominent movements throwing up the Pan-Arab cause. These movements supported national governments in some of the countries across the region. Later, Libya’s Col Gaddafi was accused of sponsoring the destabilisation of certain governments in the region. Even given the tradition, Iran has been - for the longest perhaps - a sponsor of trans-national militias.
For long, the Middle East has been riddled with turmoil, civil wars and military occupation. However, the winds seem to have shifted. Iraq has been destroyed by wars and US occupation. Hezbollah that once drove Israel out of south Lebanon has yet to recover from the assassination of its charismatic leader and recent attacks by Israeli forces. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party is preparing to lay down arms and engage in political dialogue.
It has been claimed that Iran is going through a significant transformation at home. The Israeli attacks have eliminated some of the top brass of its military leadership. Even the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was said to have been on Israel’s list.
The erosion of the Pan-Arab structure in the Middle East is evidence of a change that can be traced back to the Arab Spring. This development can also be described as a triumph of realism as struggling states fall back to narrow self-interest rather than rallying around ideological values or some supranational cause.
It is important to understand the post-pan Arab order. Its essence is not ideological unity but fragmentation of these states. The history’s lesson perhaps is that statehood should be prioritised over idealism. It is important also to comprehend that in the absence of cooperation, fragmentation can lead to loss of all hope for progress. The challenge ahead for the Middle East is for sovereign national interests to deal with the volatility of regional cooperation.
The writer, a graduate of the University ofWarwick, is aresearcher in politicalscience. His work explores international relations and political psychology.He can be contacted at:Muhammaddawoodkhan7gmail.com