The Middle East is on the cusp of deep uncertainty, volatility and insecurity

The shifting constellations of power and politics in the Middle East conform and correspond to the adage that, “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. This is perhaps best reflected in Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s, assertion that “Israel is Arabs’ best ally against Iran”. That this statement is an egregious and an outrageous lie is to state the obvious but the realm of international relations and geopolitics is defined by surprise, even of the outrageous variety.

Stripped of accretions, Israel which has always claimed to be a “western outpost” in a “sea of oriental despotism” has defined itself against Arab Muslims and the post-colonial states that constitute the Middle East’s firmament. In fact, the wars between Israel and these states have often been referred to as the “Arab Israeli wars. What then explains Netanyahu’s assertions? Do these constitute a change in heart in the nature of a fundamental departure from the past? And, does this, in turn, mean that the Middle East is on the cusp of far-reaching change and peace?

No.

The Middle East is more fluid and, to some degree, more anarchic than before. The real reasons that account for the Israeli Prime Minister’s assertions pertaining to the evolving dynamics, permutations, combinations and configurations in the region.

The most important of these is the prominence and salience of the sectarian conflicts (or schisms). The reference here is to the Shia Sunni divide which has emerged as the major fault line that divides the Middle East. In the schemata of this divide, the major protagonists or players are Saudi Arabia and Iran and the attendant rivalry, in its modern avatar has taken the clash or battle for hegemony in the region.

Post the second Gulf War, Iran’s influence and clout in the Middle East grew substantially. Be it Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or even Yemen, Iran asserted itself and attempted to morph into a pole of power and influence. Its alleged quest for nukes was perhaps an attempt to amplify its power and develop a security paradigm for state and regime survival. The name of the game for the country appeared to have been to be a hegemon in the region.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

But, this quest would naturally rile the Saudis who have their own fears and goals. However, it was and is Israel that feared Iran’s rise the most. If the balance of power would shift to Iran in the Middle East, then the country would have to contend with Iran’s power and influence, and perhaps even have to deal with its dispute with the Palestinians in a different and a novel combination.

Against this backdrop, the “natural” reflex of Israel would be to undercut and undermine Iran. Here, Trump came to the rescue of the country by putting Iran in the crosshairs of the United States.

The overall thrust of Trump’s strategy appears to have been to put intense pressure on Iran to the extent of “regime change”. In this, primarily because of the Shia Sunni divide and the attendant clash of hegemonies in the Middle East, the Arab states rallied around the United States and even appear to have made implicit or tacit overtures to Israel.

It is here that Netanyahu’s remarks assume significance.

The Israeli Prime Minister (plagued by corruption scandals), has no love lost for the Arabs but is piggybacking on the elemental and fundamental faultline of Shia Sunni antagonisms and the age-old divide thereof, all of which correspond to sheer raison d’etat and not a change of heart or new found love for the Arabs.

But, the sands of geopolitics are shifting in the Middle East. Against these changes, as ephemeral they might be, what can be said about peace in the region?

The answer is bleak and takes us into the domain of domestic politics in the United States and Israel. As Trump becomes more isolated in the United States and as his visceral reflexes crowd out rationality, he might take recourse to extreme measures.

One such kind would be to attack Iran toward the tether end of his presidency. This would gel with Netanyahu’s insecurities in the wake of corruption charges against him and the permutations and combinations of Israeli politics. What might ensue is a “meeting of minds” between Trump and Netanyahu which might make war against Iran almost imminent.

The sad denouement of all this would be an even more unstable and anarchic the Middle East which, in the final analysis, and obviously would not amplify but actually decrease security for all. This, more than anything, else could be the legacy that Trump and Netanyahu will bequeath upon the region.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)