“All’s fair in love and war”
French Proverb
War is
coming yet again to the troubled region of the Middle East and there is little
that could be done to prevent it. At least that’s what the general perception
is based on the political developments and most recent speeches at the UN
produced by some leaders.
As was
expected Iranian president Ahmadinejad took a defensive and fiery stance
against what he described as mingling by the West in Iran’s internal
affairs. In the same time the clock is
ticking and the world (not to mention Israel) is getting ever more weary of the
ongoing stockpiling of enriched uranium- one claim that Tehran still vehemently
denounces and insists that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful
purposes.
Strangely
the current atmosphere bears a striking resemblance to the jingoistic rhetoric
that preceded both World Wars. Just like in the 20th century there is a talk of
a “red line” that can‘t be crossed and there is much vitriol, grandstanding and
lack of flexibility currently on display in various countries in the Middle
East as well as Russia. Even more unfortunate is that Syria effectively is
being caught in the cross fire between the local super powers and sadly is
unable to complete the miracle called “Arab Spring” and rid itself of a
ruthless dictator like Bashar Assad whose rule has caused enormous suffering to
the population.
In order to
comprehend the regional dynamics and the “why” of current developments one need
to dig deeper in history and be able to see a much broader picture of the
causes that seem to instill a never ending conflict in the Middle East and the
Gulf. Only then some solutions
concerning Syria and Iran could be found that would be short of simply going to
war.
There are
several major players in the area who historically have had a significant role
in the political development of the region. For the purpose of this study I
will focus on Turkey, Iran and Russia as they are the ones whose actions will
have a noticeable impact in the short and long run.
Traditionally
whatever entity has had power over the Bosphorus (Constantinople) and Asia
Minor has been at odds with Persia (later Iran). The Byzantine Empire fought
many a war for influence over Syria, Armenia and Mesopotamia (Iraq) with its rival
to the East. After its demise the Ottoman Empire took over the mission so to speak
of continuing the fight with its eastern neighbor. Russia entered the stage a
bit later (historically speaking) but proved to be a formidable foe
nevertheless. Moscow proclaimed itself to be the “Third Rome” and set forward a
goal to ultimately regain Constantinople and make it again the center of
Orthodoxy that it has been for centuries. The so called Sykes-Picot Agreement
from 1916 actually allotted Constantinople and all Armenian vilayets to Russia
(see map-Green being the Russian, Blue-French and Red-Brittish gains).
Only the
Bolshevik Revolution prevented it from becoming a reality.
Additionally
as years went by it turned out that control of Damascus (Syria) holds the key
to ultimately having a strategic advantage over Asia Minor, Constantinople as
well as the Levant and the Holy Land-that’s how Syria became the battleground
of the empires vying for influence in the region.
Understanding
the importance of Syria would explain the fact that Iran is covertly supporting
the dictatorial regime there and the reason why Russia would veto any
resolution in the UN Security Council that tries to condemn Bashar Assad. Both
powers fear that the loss of Assad will drag Syria closer to Turkey and the
Sunni countries in the Gulf and undermine Moscow and Tehran’s “gentleman’s
agreement” to act as a deterrent to the West and Ankara in the region. The
world is bound to see more and more cooperation between Russia and Iran with a
possible benevolent silent partnership with Beijing that will counter balance any
unilateral or multilateral action initiated by the US, Ankara, Israel and even
some Sunni Muslim countries in the region.
It is
curious that strategically speaking Iran has always been considered a threat to
the Sunni countries in the Gulf. It exudes power through its military might and
also via the vast network of shia minorities or majorities (as in Iraq)
spreading from Baghdad to Saudi Arabia. This fact produces an interesting
development in the region-slowly but surely Israel is starting to resemble its
neighbors or becoming more “Middle Eastern” so to speak. It is at odds with a
shia off shoot like Hesbollah in Lebanon in the same time that Saudi Arabia is
coping with a shia discontent in Bahrain. This could lead to a possible pact of
“mutual understanding” between Tel Aviv and Riyadh directed at containing
Tehran in its strife for domination in the region.
So is war
imminent? It all depends on the willingness of the regional and world leaders
for once to forget strategic interests and historic realities and think about
a peaceful prosperity of their respective populations rather than hegemony and
domination. Another option would be for the Sunni countries and Israel to reach
a real rapprochement and given the formidable threat posed by Iran reach a
viable agreement with regards to the state Palestine and present a united front
in world affairs. As far-fetched as it may sound history has seen many an
example of bitter enemies becoming allies. If the region decides to go to the brink of
each other’s patience, only the future generations will be able to judge what
might have gone awry. As the French once said: ”A la guerre comme a la guerre”
or “All’s fair in love and war”. Let’s hope that there will be enough wisdom in
the world as to prove the latter proverb wrong.
