By Vestnik Kavkaza
The unstable situation in the Middle East creates conditions for “a new generation” of terrorists who will act against the United States and other Western countries. The head of the National Anti-Terrorist Center of the U.S., Mathew Olsen, expressed the idea in Congress. However, Russian experts are sure that the situation in the region is being stirred up by the Americans themselves.
Alexei Fesenko, senior scientist of the Institute of International Security Problems of the RAS, drew Vestnik Kavkaza’s attention to the fact that “in the last 6 months the mass media presented an interesting myth that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have begun playing an enormously big role; and that the U.S.A., Saudi Arabia and Qatar have disputes. I think this is ridiculous. Their potentials are unequal. I remember that in 2003 the Americans discussed whether Saudi Arabia would remain a united state or not. They think in America that if they withdraw from the country, the revolution of 1995, a rebellion of the youngest princes, could be repeated, and this would definitely lead to the dissolution of Saudi Arabia.”
Fesenko believes the myth is beneficial either for Moscow or Washington: “On the one hand, we are playing our own game. I think it’s beneficial for us to present the situation in such a way to have an opportunity to say that we have no disputes with the United States, but we have disputes with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. On the other hand, the U.S. is playing its own game. The Americans constantly demonstrate to these countries that if they weaken their support, the countries will remain face to face with Iran. So, guys, don’t be afraid of big and mean Iran and maintain an American presence in the Persian Gulf by any means. In fact, the essence of the American policy in the Middle East hasn’t changed since 1980. In 1980, right after the Islamic revolution in Iran, when Khomeini issued a fatwa on the possibility of overthrowing the Sunni regimes in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, President Carter stated in his annual address to Congress that the goal of American policy was protection of three Persian Gulf countries – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. And the U.S. was ready to use any arms to reach the goal, including a nuclear weapon. That’s how important these countries are for them from the energy point of view.”
Considering this, Fesenko believes that “the Americans will continue to play the same game. On the one hand, they the kindle the threat coming from Iran. On the other hand, it is a constant presence in the monarchies of the Gulf. And I believe the most interesting aspect is Israel. Since 2003, disputes have begun to appear in Israeli-American relations. The Israelis feel that they have become a fifth wheel for America. They prevent the Americans from building normal relations with the Islamic world. If the Israeli factor is eliminated tomorrow, nobody will prevent America from building normal relations with loyal Arab countries, like the Trans-Atlantic Partnership. After the Road Map of 2003, which was described by Israeli Premier Netanyahu as “a Munich Pact for the 21st century”, after the position of the U.S. on the Palestinian autonomy, the U.S. position on the Lebanese war, when they didn’t actually veto anti-Israeli resolution 1701, which was developed by France, Israel began to feel that at some moment America could betray Israel. So, the fact that Israel will create new crises, including in relations with Iran, will grow. The point is not in Iran or Arab countries. Israel needs crises to make America say that “we will protect you and guarantees of Israeli security are strong.” And probably the game over these guarantees can become uncontrollable at some point.”
Andrey Sidorov, the deputy dean of the International Politics Department of MSU, thinks that “at the beginning of the second term of Obama’s administration, people who included a watering-down of relations with Iran, an attempt to influence Iran softly for it to eliminate its nuclear program into the agenda came in office. From this point of view, Obama’s second administration step forward in comparison with administration of Bush and the first administration of Obama. At the same time, the step was small, and the new Iranian president is not counted on. It is difficult to predict the situation because there are still forces in the U.S. and Congress, which have anti-Iranian views, think that Iran is the main problem for the whole region, including settlement of the problems which were caused by Arab Spring.”
As for Syria, Sidorov believes that “after Russia proposed its option for settlement of the Syrian problem, the Syrian issue was postponed by America. The decision is most important for Obama who has a wider agenda. He made strict statements that when H-hour came, the United States would strike; and these statements are not supported either by the American public opinion or Congress, considering their financial troubles. I mean the debt ceiling advance, which is money for social programs and for providing foreign policy. From this point of view, the way out proposed by Russia on Syria gave an opportunity to Obama to save face and avoid big losses.”
