MIDEAST MIRROR 12.05.15, SECTION B (THE ARAB WORLD)
1-No consolation for the deceived
2-Old delusions, premature expectations
1-No consolation for the deceived
[The U.S.] acts in accordance to its interests first, and second, based on the ability of those who are asking it for something to impose their demands and conditions. The White House’s various residents, including Obama, have promised the Arabs much. The ink of his two famous speeches to the Arab and Islamic worlds in Cairo and Ankara and his promise to establish the Palestinian state has dried a long time ago without any such promises being fulfilled. Rather than starting a number of small proxy wars with 'Iran's Arab minions' and uselessly asking for help from the U.S., the Gulf's leaders would have done better to launch a 'political Decisive Storm' based on a collective and united Arab position that imposes a direct dialogue with Tehran as an equal. That could have restored the lost balance and forced Washington to reconsider many of its Arab axioms--Amin Qammouriyyeh in Lebanese an-Nahar
While the Americans wish to concentrate on issues having to do with a missile defense shield, the offer of guarantees of the Gulf's security and the sale of weapons, the Gulf states' real concern extends beyond that and has to do with the regional repercussions of the U.S./Iranian deal. In other words, the Gulf is concerned about Washington's attitude towards Iranian influence and its current expansion in the Arab region. Such demands and concerns, of course, require the U.S. to back down from President Barack Obama's current policies that not only lead towards a nuclear agreement with Iran; but to its appeasement and avoiding anything that would annoy it, refraining from confronting its efforts to expand its regional influence. These policies, in other words, appear akin to a barter deal, one that trades Iran’s nuclear bomb in return for an Iranian regional role. And this is what annoys the Saudis and Gulf Arabs specifically; and it is this that Obama seems unwilling to concede or to appease the Gulf Arabs about--Mohammad Abu-Rumman in Jordanian al-Ghad
Throughout, [President Obama] was seeking a strategic alliance with Iran at the expense of his traditional Arab allies. Well, let him and Iran enjoy their alliance; but there will be no consolation for the deceived. Had he been really serious about 'appeasing' his guests and confirming his respect for them, their states and his alleged strategic alliance with them, President Obama would have done better to go to them himself, to Riyadh for example, and meet with them there. This would have been better than summoning them to the notorious Camp David retreat that has been linked in the minds of the Arabs – including the Gulf Arabs – to the agreements of humiliation, shame and absolute surrender to Israel, squandering all fixed Arab and Islamic principles, tearing up the Arab region, and sowing the seeds of breakup and division in them--'Abdelbari 'Atwan on pan-Arab www.raialyoum.com
Because these [Arab Gulf] fears are legitimate, and since their signs have begun to loom on the horizon, the GCC states want a clear American position regarding the U.S. approach to the various issues; one that is not shrouded in mystery or ambiguity. Therefore, they call for specific American guarantees that Washington will not place its interests above any consideration or conclude agreements and strike deals that may secure its own interests regardless of the interests of others. There are many precedents to this effect and a long record of American policies whereby friends and allies have been let down. The only exception is the U.S.'s strategic relations with Israel, which have not changed or altered, and are based on a single fixed principle – namely, that Israel's security is part of U.S. national security--Emirates’ al-Khaleej
The Arab Gulf leaders who are heading to Camp David to hold talks with U.S. President Barack Obama later this week will be focused on Iran and the means of restraining its influence in the region, while Obama will try to convince them of the benefits of the nuclear agreement with Tehran, maintains a Lebanese commentator. But the Arabs are focusing on the wrong issue and opting for the wrong policies. The absence of some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders from the summit is an indication of new alliances that are taking shape in the region, suggests a Jordanian commentator. There are indications that the UAE and Oman are not in full agreement with Saudi policies in Yemen, while Riyadh has drawn closer to Doha and Ankara regarding Syria. The GCC leaders who have refused to comply with President Obama's 'summoning' of them to Camp David were right to do so, maintains the editor-in-chief of a pan-Arab online daily. For Obama has deceived them and is dealing with them in an arrogant and condescending manner like all previous American presidents. The GCC member states have legitimate fears that the U.S. may be about to abandon them in pursuit of its own narrow interests, as it has done with many of its friends and allies in the past, maintains the editorial in a UAE daily. This is why they need unequivocal guarantees that the U.S. will take a clear stance on Iranian expansionism and the conflicts in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
ILL REPUTED VENUE: "Obama is slated to meet with Gulf leaders at Camp David [on Thursday]," writes Amin Qammouriyyeh in Tuesday's Lebanese daily an-Nahar.
This venue, which has a bad name in the Arab world, is where Egypt left Arab ranks [after the 1978 peace agreement with Israel]. It was also there that the Palestinians were dragged into making concessions that did not lead even to a project for establishing a mini-state [in 2000]. And nothing indicates that the third Arab experience will produce any better result than the two previous ones.
Iran will be the main course at the attendees' table. The U.S. president has already spoken frankly about this before specifying a date for the meeting: 'The real threat to the Gulf is not from foreign attack, but from the anger of the youth inside its states.'
In other words, Obama will not share his guests' views that Iran is an absolute evil. Instead, he will try to sell them his awaited nuclear agreement and convince them that this achievement is also in the Gulf's interest. He will reassure them that the U.S. will not cast aside its deep 'friendship' with their states after signing this agreement. He will tell them that the American concern is to maintain the balance in the region, and that there is no difference – as far as the U.S. is concerned – between an Arab, a non-Arab, and a Jew, except to the extent by which they abide by Washington's policies and do not 'sing out of tune.' And he will promise them security cooperation and to open up the U.S. arms industries for concluding deals with them, which means they will have to pay the highest price for old wares.
For their part, the Gulf Arabs will try to restrict the discussion on how to contain Iran’s expanding influence in the region. They will warn against its further expansion thanks to the financial returns that the nuclear agreement will provide Tehran and as a result of America’s likely withdrawal from the region. They will also urge the president to intervene effectively in Syria and back the armed opposition on the grounds that defeating the regime in Damascus is the necessary 'cauterization' that will treat the Iranian 'ailment.'
But the president will explain at length the benefits of reaching an agreement and opening up to Tehran. He will focus on ISIS and its sister organizations, and ask the Gulf Arabs for greater involvement in his international coalition's campaign against terrorism (which has consolidated the Iranian role in Iraq rather than cutting it down to size as hoped). And he will urge them to restrain their 'decisiveness' in Yemen even before their 'storm' achieves any of its aims of confronting Iran's Yemeni friends.
Washington is not a 'supermarket' that sells its clients whatever political positions and weapons they need for cash. Nor is it a charity organization that provides aid to the needy. It acts in accordance to its interests first, and second, based on the ability of those who are asking it for something to impose their demands and conditions.
The White House’s various residents, including Obama, have promised the Arabs much. The ink of his two famous speeches to the Arab and Islamic worlds in Cairo and Ankara and his promise to establish the Palestinian state, has dried a long time ago without any such promises being fulfilled.
Rather than starting a number of small proxy wars with 'Iran's Arab minions' and uselessly asking for help from the U.S., the Gulf's leaders would have done better to launch a 'political Decisive Storm' based on a collective and united Arab position that imposes a direct dialogue with Tehran as an equal.
"That could have restored the lost balance and forced Washington to reconsider many of its Arab axioms," concludes Qammouriyyeh.
End…
CLEAR SIGNAL: "A Washington Post report has explained the absence of Saudi monarch King Salman bin 'Abdulaziz from the awaited U.S./Gulf Camp David summit scheduled for the day after tomorrow as a clear signal of Saudi Arabia's dissatisfaction and displeasure with the U.S.," writes Mohammad Abu-Rumman in Tuesday's Jordanian daily al-Ghad.
What lends credence to this explanation is that the announcement that Crown-Prince Mohammad bin Nayif will attend the summit instead of the king came only hours after the White House had announced that the king would attend. But what lies behind this message on the summit's eve, when there were great hopes and high expectations of results that would diminish and limit Saudi Arabia's concern about the recent Iranian/American rapprochement?
The answer, apparently, is that there is a gap between the Saudi/Gulf and the American side's understanding of what is required from this summit. While the Americans wish to concentrate on issues having to do with a missile defense shield, the offer of guarantees of the Gulf's security and the sale of weapons, the Gulf states' real concern extends beyond that and has to do with the regional repercussions of the U.S./Iranian deal. In other words, the Gulf is concerned about Washington's attitude towards Iranian influence and its current expansion in the Arab region.
Such demands and concerns, of course, require the U.S. to back down from President Barack Obama's current policies that not only lead towards a nuclear agreement with Iran; but to its appeasement and avoiding anything that would annoy it, refraining from confronting its efforts to expand its regional influence. These policies, in other words, appear akin to a barter deal, one that trades Iran’s nuclear bomb in return for an Iranian regional role. And this is what annoys the Saudis and Gulf Arabs specifically; and it is this that Obama seems unwilling to concede or to appease the Gulf Arabs about.
And here lies root of the problem according to (American analyst) John Alterman. What the Gulf Arabs are asking for, the U.S. is unable – or 'unwilling' – to provide. This does not mean that we are heading towards a Gulf/U.S. divorce; on the contrary, this may diminish the intensity of the growing crisis between the two sides. However, it confirms at least the deep suspicions that have begun to eat into this historical alliance and to raise questions about its future and point.
For his part, American expert on Iranian affairs, Karim Sadjadpour, goes beyond the phase of questions and suspicions and speaks of 'a new realization' that is growing in the White House that 'the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are friends but not allies, while the U.S. and Iran are allies but not friends.' It is clear therefore that the imminent summit will not alleviate the 'doubts' that some used to describe as mere illusions in the past. It will consolidate them as real facts that everyone must recognize instead. Foremost among these facts is that significant changes have occurred and much water has passed under the various U.S. administrations’ bridges with Saudi Arabia since 9/11, leading to Obama's foreign policy that coincides with the major upheavals in the region.
These doubts are not limited to Saudi Arabia's relationship with the U.S., pushing both sides to recognize the gap that separates them from each other. It will also affect relations within the Arabian Gulf itself. According to Saudi politicians and intellectuals, the statements by [Dubai's Head of General Security] Dahi Khalfan regarding former Yemeni president Ali 'Abdullah Saleh reveal the Emiratis true attitude towards the current war on Yemen, despite Emirati Foreign Minister 'Abdullah bin Zayid's attempts to contain these statements. The same goes for Omani positions and Saudi Arabia's relations with its Arab friends. Riyadh's relations with Turkey and Qatar have improved greatly after the clear change in the Saudi foreign agenda.
"Alliances, relations, and priorities are being redrawn in tandem with developments on the battlefields, but without making much noise, and despite the fact that these changes are not being clearly and frankly announced by the parties and the international and regional powers concerned," concludes Abu-Rumman.
End…
LITTLE WEIGHT: "The summit that will be hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama with a number of GCC leaders, reflects what little weight he accords us Arabs, both as peoples and rulers," writes Editor-in-Chief 'Abdelbari 'Atwan on Tuesday on the pan-Arab www.raialyoum.com.
Therefore, the fact that some Gulf leaders will not attend this summit represents a strong slap to the American president's face and a strong response to this insult that comes at the appropriate moment, whether these leaders have intended this or not.
President Obama engaged in all sorts of arrogance and conceit when he issued a decree 'summoning' the GCC leaders to Washington, as if he were the headmaster of an elementary school. His aim was to 'appease' these leaders and sugar-talk them after he 'betrayed' and deceived them and stabbed them in the back when he negotiated with Tehran behind their backs, and in one of their capitals (Muscat).
And he did this while beating the war drums and mobilizing aircraft carriers and concluding arms deals with these same leaders to the value of over 150-billion dollars in preparation for a confrontation he insisted was inevitable. But it later became clear that, throughout, he was seeking a strategic alliance with Iran at the expense of his traditional Arab allies. Well, let him and Iran enjoy their alliance; but there will be no consolation for the deceived.
Had he been really serious about 'appeasing' his guests and confirming his respect for them, their states and his alleged strategic alliance with them, President Obama would have done better to go to them himself, to Riyadh for example, and meet with them there. This would have been better than summoning them to the notorious Camp David retreat that has been linked in the minds of the Arabs – including the Gulf Arabs – to the agreements of humiliation, shame and absolute surrender to Israel, squandering all fixed Arab and Islamic principles, tearing up the Arab region, and sowing the seeds of breakup and division in them.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the architect and godfather of this meeting, said recently that his president would offer 'a new security agreement to the Gulf states,' adding that 'we are formulating a series of new commitments that will create a new security era.' This sort of talk effectively means concluding more arms deals in which the Arabs will purchase arms that are less advanced than those the U.S. sells Israel. It means spending tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars and the establishment of additional [U.S.] military bases in the Arabian Peninsula, transforming the Gulf states into American 'protectorates' – a move of more than one-hundred years back to the era of the British Empire-- in a new 'blackmail' operation that is even greater than the preceding ones.
This new security agreement that Secretary Kerry speaks of and his president Obama will propose at the Camp David summit will not halt Iranian expansion in the region. On the contrary, it will consolidate it, assuming it is a reality to begin with. This is because anyone relying on the U.S. or any other foreign power is certain to be disappointed. We, in the Arab region, are among those who have been scorched most by the U.S.'s fire and 'bitten' worst from the American snake pit.
Based on a review of still relevant precedents, we ask: Has the U.S. and its missile defense shield protected Ukraine from Russian expansion, or prevented Moscow from taking over the Crimean Peninsula? Did the U.S. prevent Russia from expanding in Georgia and annexing Southern Ossetia?
So far, the only state to which the U.S. has been faithful has been Israel. But even Israel will face what Ukraine or Vietnam (Saigon) or Afghanistan or post-Saddam Iraq has faced, in the near future. We are good at reading history, and the coming days will prove how right we are.
If Washington were truly serious about preventing Iranian expansion in the region, why did it occupy Iraq and topple the president of an Iraqi regime [Saddam Hussein] that fought Iran for eight consecutive years, preventing its revolution’s flood from spilling over into the western part of the Arabian Gulf? Why did it hand over power in Iraq to Iran's friends?
Our problem as Arabs is that everyone deals with us as if we are stupid, and we confirm this fact to them on a daily basis. So we should not be surprised if President Obama and other Western leaders were to deal with us based on the same logic.
I have followed all the Gulf and American analyses and statements regarding the proposed summit throughout the past month in the hope that I would find a single signal to confirm – if only peripherally – that its agenda will include the Palestinian cause, Israel’s aggression on Arab and Islamic holy sites in Palestine, or the settlements that are swallowing up Jerusalem. And as God is my witness, I have not found a single reference, if only a passing one, to this effect; nor have I heard any of those who will take part in the summit say that they will demand that the U.S. administration and its president should respect their promises and commitments regarding the Palestinian cause. Is it not our right to express our friendly disappointment, not to say our anger, at such disregard?
If Iranian expansion actually occurs on the ground, it will do so for many reasons, including this clear – not to say deliberate – disregard for the central Arab cause that embodies the Arab nation's honor and dignity as we, along with tens not to say hundreds of millions of Arabs like us, believe.
In an interview with The New York Times and with one of its most prominent journalists, Thomas Friedman, President Obama said that Iran does not pose the greatest threat to the Gulf states and that the domestic threat stemming from these states' youths' anger at the absence of reforms, job opportunities, and equality is much greater. We add to this the absence of [the Arab Gulf states’] concern in the manner that we would hope for the central cause that is the sole cause that unites all or most Arab peoples behind it.
Like all previous U.S. administrations, President Obama's administration has sold out the Gulf states and the Arabs behind them twice: Once to Israel, and once to Iran. Acceptance of the first sale is what has led to, and is leading to, the second. Any attempt to 'patch matters up' is doomed to failure.
There are those who may deem us to be idealistic or claim that we are raising issues that they have long left behind. But we believe the exact opposite. For Jerusalem, its Aqsa Mosque, and the whole of Palestine has always been the compass of the honorable and upright.
"May you enjoy your stay in Camp David in President Obama's company and enjoy his hospitality. But please excuse us if we were to remind you of what you wish to forget, at least for the moment," concludes 'Atwan.
End…
COMPLICATED AND DANGEROUS CONDITIONS: "The Camp David summit between the GCC and the U.S., is undoubtedly exceptional because it is being held in extremely complicated and dangerous conditions, and in the shadow of unusual regional developments that will have repercussions for the region as a whole over the coming months and years," writes the editorial in Tuesday's UAE daily al-Khaleej.
For this reason the discussions between the two sides will deal with the hot and important issues that affect the security of the region's states and the common interests shared by the summit's participants. And for these reasons as well, the GCC states view the summit as a focal point for determining the horizon of bilateral relations with the U.S. and for specifying the means for confronting the likely challenges for which we must prepare.
There are heated and urgent issues that call for a decisive and clear position such as the Iranian nuclear file whose final agreement is currently being drafted. And there are the conflagrations in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, all of which affect the Gulf states' security. These issues are thorny and complex, affecting regional and international relations. In addition, we have direct regional intervention in the domestic affairs of GCC states as evident from the Iranian role in Yemen and elsewhere; a role that has become suspicious and that cannot be passed over in silence, or disregarded for the sake of narrow American concerns.
In light of this, the GCC states fear the likely consequences of such issues and their impact on the regional conditions in general. These are legitimate and justifiable fears, especially if the threats facing these states were to develop and worsen, becoming difficult to confront in the absence of prior coordination at every level. Such coordination is necessary so to ensure that their repercussions do not come as a surprise or beyond all calculations.
Because these fears are legitimate, and since their signs have begun to loom on the horizon, the GCC states want a clear American position regarding the U.S. approach to the various issues; one that is not shrouded in mystery or ambiguity. Therefore, they call for specific American guarantees that Washington will not place its interests above any consideration or conclude agreements and strike deals that may secure its own interests regardless of the interests of others. There are many precedents to this effect and a long record of American policies whereby friends and allies have been let down. The only exception is the U.S.'s strategic relations with Israel, which have not changed or altered, and are based on a single fixed principle – namely, that Israel's security is part of U.S. national security.
Since the U.S. cannot establish other relations equal in status to those with Israel for reasons stemming from the nature of the exceptional relationship between the two because of the role that Israel plays in the region – the GCC states believe that the U.S. should refrain from pursuing a policy based on double standards in specifying its regional options.
It must deal with all problems that concern the GCC states transparently and honestly, since the region's heated issues are heading towards further escalation and their threat will spare no one – especially since terrorism has begun to be an additional source of danger. All this calls for a common effort since the battle against this terrorism is one and the same.
"At the Camp David summit, the issues will be posed clearly because the current phase calls for a frank confrontation in which the correct choices must be made," concludes the daily.
Ends…
2-Old delusions, premature expectations
The Syrian ‘moderate’ opposition is reviving its former delusions of replacing the regime, but this is a highly unlikely prospect in any future scenario, says ‘Urayb ar-Rintawi in today’s Jordanian ad-Dustour
The Syrian National Coalition (SNC) is reviving its old delusions that it makes much difference on the ground in Syria or anywhere else, maintains a leading Jordanian commentator. But it is clear that it has no place in Syria whether the regime wins or whether the armed Islamic opposition factions manage to take hold of the country.
RAISING ITS TONE: “The opposition SNC has raised the ‘tone’ of its discourse and positions,” writes ‘Urayb ar-Rintawi in Tuesday’s Jordanian daily ad-Dustour.
For one thing, it has informed the UN secretary-general that it is boycotting the Geneva-3 consultations UN Syria Envoy Staffan de Mistura is holding; for another, it has decided to boycott the Cairo-2 conference scheduled in a few days’ time; and for a yet third, it has not only returned to its impassioned talk of ‘toppling Assad and his gang,’ but has revived, and with even greater passion, its claim to be the Syrian people’s ‘sole legitimate representative.’
Feeling self-satisfied with the victories that the [al-Qa’ida-affiliated] Nusra Front has achieved in the northwestern countryside and in some southern provinces, the SNC is once again climbing up to the top of the tree. It dismisses the UN, its envoy, the ‘political process,’ and ‘Geneva-3,’ and now gives priority to the clatter of gunfire and the discourse of a decisive military victory and terms such as ‘topple’ and ‘overthrow.’
This is despite the fact that only a few months ago, its lexicon was subject to much change and adjustment in line with the 'balance of power' on the ground, and in harmony with the international community's tendency towards dealing with Assad as part of the solution, and not only as part of the problem.
Ecstatic with the gains achieved by the 'martyrdom-seeking' fighters of the Nusra Front and other jihadi organizations, the SNC is once again dealing with the remaining constituents of the Syrian opposition in a condescending manner, based on the assumption that it is the 'sole legitimate representative' of the Syrian people. And once again, this is despite the fact that it all but identified with the smallest of these constituents in the recent period, treating them all as equals.
The SNC is now back to its old habits. Its members have returned to the path taken by the former National Council, which had barely brought thirty opposition figures together, before granting itself the role of 'sole legitimate representative' excluding all other forces and dismissing their weight, presence, history, and sacrifices.
The SNC's problem today, which is an extension of its problem ever since its foundation, is that it is no good at reading developments and that it confines itself to listening to the communication officers of the Turkish and friendly Arab security agencies. These same agencies had once convinced it to begin the countdown to the last days of Assad and his regime. It did so then with great enthusiasm; but the countdown went on and on without a ray of hope suggesting that this goal would be achieved. Today, and against the background of Operation Decisive Storm and the 'breakthroughs' on the Idlib/Jisr-ash-Shughour front, and heeding the advice of its same backers, the SNC is once again resuming the countdown to the regime's last days.
This does not mean that the regime is currently in the best of conditions; nor does it mean that the 'balance of power' in Syria is fixed and will never change. Under no circumstances should the impact of the painful blows administered by the armed Islamist factions to the regime over the past few months be underestimated. In fact, we may agree with many assessments that suggest that the regime is passing through a phase of confusion the likes of which it did not experience even when it was at its weakest in 2012.
But we do wish to stress two things:
--First, that it is too early to write the regime's 'obituary' or spread the illusion that its fall is inevitable or imminent. The regime continues to have its hands on the main levers of Syria’s geography and the country's main centers of life, economy, and population. Moreover, the regime has regional and international allies who have not yet had their final say. More importantly, it is still able to take the initiative on the ground and wage counter-offensives, and to advance on numerous fronts, in fact.
--Second, those who are achieving the advances or, more accurately, 'breakthroughs' on the ground are not from the SNC; nor do they recognize it or are loyal and subservient to it. The strike force with the clearest imprint on these achievements is the Nusra Front and it holds the SNC to be an apostate force just like the regime. And it is certain that the Front's next bullet after 'toppling Assad' – assuming it ever manages to do so – will be aimed at the SNC and its members' chests, and the remaining few who still view it as the 'sole legitimate representative.' In fact, the Nusra Front may decide to fire the bullet at the SNC's chest or back and put it out of its misery before it wins 'the mother of all of its battles' with the regime in Damascus.
The polarization in the Syrian crisis has reached such a point where the SNC and its ilk are now totally irrelevant. They have no place if the regime continues to hold the reins of power in Syria; and they have no place if the armed Islamist factions led by the Nusra Front – ISIS's little sister – take hold of the country and its people. And this renders the SNC's exaggerated machismo posturing no more than pathetic and risible nonsense. For the SNC's participation in the Geneva dialogues will not advance or delay matters one iota, and its boycott of the Cairo-2 conference will make no difference either.
"The dynamics of the Syrian crisis are somewhere else the SNC has yet to put its finger on," concludes Rintawi.
Ends…
Copyright: Mideast Mirror.
This email is intended for the recipient only.
Access to this message by any other person is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely upon this email.
The materials available through Mideast Mirror are the property of Alef Publishing Ltd or its licensors, are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws.
Mideast Mirror - Alef Publishing Ltd.
Tel: 020 7052 96 00
Fax: 020 7052 96 09
Editorial and Enquiries:
Tel: ++ 44 773 4426 113
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.