by Gary Sick
A series of events, some of which got little attention in the media, suggest that the wheels may be coming off the Trump administration’s Middle East policy. Admittedly, that policy is not very well articulated, and many knowledgeable observers would regard it as dysfunctional. Yet even a random collection of actions constitute a policy, so let me offer my own interpretation of where we are.
The essential core of the Trump Middle East policy is the alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The effort to bring the two Arab states into close association with Israel was the most innovative element of this policy, as was the blatantly transactional nature of the relationship with the two wealthy Arab states. President Trump defined it quite simply as “Just take the money.”
My understanding of the importance of this alliance was to promote and sustain the Deal of the Century, which was to resolve the Israel-Palestinian dispute once and for all. Israel was obviously an essential player in this process, but Arab cover and money was required to lend the process legitimacy and agency.
The one common interest that tied these parties together was fear and hatred of Iran. None of the Middle East countries could deal with Iran by itself. But the United States could take the lead in weakening and deterring Iran, and perhaps even fomenting regime change in Tehran.
So together, Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman (MbS, crown prince and effective ruler of Saudi Arabia), and Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ, crown prince of Abu Dhabi and effective ruler of the UAE) were going to restructure the landscape of the Middle East.
Reality, of course, intruded.
Prime Minister Netanyahu found himself embroiled in a corruption scandal and was required to call early elections while trying to avoid indictment.
Mohammad bin Salman launched a war in Yemen that created the worst humanitarian disaster of modern times. This eventually attracted the attention of the U.S. Congress and other parliaments which began pushing to terminate arms sales to Saudi Arabia. MbS and MbZ, however doubled down on the war and Trump gave them unstinting support.
MbZ and MbS imposed a blockade of their neighbor and fellow Gulf Cooperation Council member, the fabulously wealthy tiny state of Qatar. Although Qatar was not a member of the Trump alliance, it was the home of Al-Udeid, the largest U.S. air base in Southwest Asia and a critical component of all U.S. military activities in the Middle East, including the fight against the Islamic State (IS or ISIS).
Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist and contributor to the Washington Post, was slaughtered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The CIA and a United Nations investigation concluded that MbS had been associated with the killing. Although President Trump resisted blaming MbS, congressional opposition to Saudi arms sales grew.
The United States did its part in the economic onslaught against Iran. Trump withdrew from the nuclear arms deal negotiated by his predecessor, restored all sanctions that had been removed, and imposed the most severe sanctions ever levied against a state during peacetime. Iran called it economic warfare.
The objective of this campaign, which was enforced by financial threats against every major country in the world, was never clear. President Trump said he just wanted negotiations; his advisors were on the record as favoring regime change. But whatever the outcome, Trump seemed determined to avoid another war in the Middle East.
Iran didn’t cooperate. As its oil markets were closed down, there were mysterious attacks against tankers in the Persian Gulf. Iran denied responsibility. Washington said it was Iran’s work. An Iranian tanker was impounded at Gibraltar; Iran reportedly took a UAE-based tanker in retaliation. Iran began exceeding the limits of the nuclear deal, and it warned it would depart the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely unless it got relief from sanctions.
On June 20, an Iranian surface-to-air missile shot down an unmanned U.S. reconnaissance drone near the Strait of Hormuz. The vehicle had taken off from a U.S. base in the UAE. The two sides disagreed about whether or not it was in Iranian territorial waters. President Trump reportedly ordered a retaliatory strike against several Iranian military sites, but then he called off the strike at the last minute, reportedly to avoid casualties. On July 18, less than a month later, the U.S. Navy claimed that it shot down an Iranian drone after the aircraft allegedly approached the USS Boxer amphibious assault ship in the Strait of Hormuz.
We are not privy to the understandings that may have accompanied the informal U.S.-Israeli-Saudi-UAE alliance, but there is no evidence that any of the states hosting American bases in the Persian Gulf have any voice in Washington’s decision-making. Recent events have made it crystal clear that those host countries, especially the UAE and Qatar, will be regarded by Iran as accessories to U.S. military actions.
The UAE has conspicuously separated itself from Washington and Saudi Arabia. The UAE announced that it does not have sufficient evidence to determine what party was responsible for the tanker bombings. More significantly, the UAE has now announced that it is withdrawing its forces from the civil war in Yemen (though not from its anti-terrorist operations against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).
The “Saudi-led alliance” in Yemen today consists of the Saudi air force and a rag tag collection of local militias and mercenaries who are there for the money. This is the moment when MbS should declare victory and accept a UN-brokered peace settlement.
Yemen was supposed to yield to overwhelming power. Qatar was supposed to collapse under siege. Iran was supposed to fold when faced with maximum economic pressure. Even the presentation of the economic portion of the Deal of the Century in Bahrain failed to attract the level of investors that had been expected.
There are major shifts in the balance of power underway in the Persian Gulf. They are not what the Trump administration anticipated.
On this debate regarding Shia Sunni dispute I agree with Cyrus. There is an undeniable religious scholarly dispute between Shia and Sunnis. But this current dispute is political corrupt arab Monarchies and secular republics have no religion to care for an scholarly inter religion dispute, they are taking orders from their western masters to widen the difference
and divide the arab street for their own security. Is the old british divide and rule strategy. Iranian and Shia leaders cleverly didn’t play the game drawn by western planers. Few days ago i was in a Bazaar in Tangier Morocco, on the street they all lover Iran for standing up and defending muslims they Love Ali Karimi and Ali Daeie.
Kooshy
And I suppose constant attacks against Shia in Afghanistan and in Pakistan are carried out by Arabs?
I agree that North Africa Arabs are different but that does not negate what I have written. The wars are against the Party of Ali in the Middle East. The war is waged by Sunni and Protestants and Jews, let us be very clear.
The distinction you & Cyrus make between religious and political in case of Islam, is one without merit. It certainly is not supported empirically as one looks at Ottoman expansion or Safavid consolidation. Even the European history, more faintly perhaps, displays analogous incidences.
Excellent article to which I would add what I see as the context for the Trump decision process.
Trump’s Iran policy emerged with the 2016 election campaign. Key Trump supporters were strongly opposed to JCPOA and wanted Trump to take a stand against Iran. After the election Trump sought expert opinion to craft a policy leading to a better deal with Iran. Tillerson, Kelly, McMaster and others counseled not exiting JCPOA unless Iran violated the agreement. Bolton, however, has called for bombing Iran and in July 2017 addressed the Mujahedeen Khalq urging overthrow of the theocracy. A month later Bolton published his plan to exit JCPOA in the National Review. Trump hoped that Rubio and others in Congress that had opposed JCPOA would offer a better deal that he could approve, but Congress punted the question back to the WH. Trump accepted Bolton’s plan to exit JCPOA and impose maximum sanctions on Iran without the consent of Congress and the without the authorization of the Security Council. In April 2018 Trump hired Bolton as National Security Advisor to implement his plan, which is fundamentally a plan to force regime change in Iran.
Trump’s own position on Iran, rather than Bolton’s, can be seen in the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria that led to the resignation/firing of Mattis. Bolton had been seeking to build up U.S. forces in Syria to counter Iran. During one interchange Trump made the statement “I don’t care what Iran does in Syria.”
It is clear Trump does not want to be mired in the Middle East and he does not want war with Iran. Bolton, on the other hand, is focused on regime change in Iran and damaging Iran. For Bolton Trump is the opportunity of a lifetime to push regime change in Iran. Trump’s reelection prospects are secondary for Bolton.
Iran’s political organization is what is hated by Saudi and UAE absolutist monarchies, and is has nothing to do with Shia’ or Sunni apparent irreconcilable divide. The fact is Iran is a republic born out of revolution.
The ultimate authority there is the Islamic Law as interpreted by the council of guardians and the elected supreme ayatollah (a parallel could be made with the chief justice of US supreme court), but ultimately the Ayatollah has a little bit more executive umph backing his decisions. But for regular life, they have elections, with parliament, with president, with government drawn from the elected people, etc. and where the national wealth is benefiting in a larger measure the entire nation, not just an army of prince-lings. This is why the two monarchies hate Iran, because they are afraid the revolution will visit them as well.
Israel hates Iran because it provides strategic depth to Syria, Lebanon, and more recently to Iraq.
And the US is acting now like Tsarists Russia, defending the ancient regimes of monarchies against the revolutionary flame. If Americans would be told these facts, would be dying in shame, for they, the sons of daughters of a revolutionary country, that fought against the tyranny of the English King, are now defending even worst kind of monarchs against what the Idea of a republican Iran (which hasn’t even attacked these countries) might do to them.
Kouros
The anti Iran posture predates the Iranian Revolution, the Arabian Gulf fakery started in 1950s.