THE
MIDDLE EASTERN BALANCE OF POWER MATURES
Recently, a coalition of
predominantly SUNNI ARAB countries, primarily from the ARABIAN PENINSULA and
organized by SAUDI ARABIA, launched airstrikes in YEMEN. The airstrikes target YEMENI
AL-HOUTHIS, a SHIITE sect supported by IRAN, and their SUNNI partners, which
include the majority of military forces loyal to former President ALI ABDULLAH
SALEH. What made the strikes particularly interesting was what was lacking:
U.S. aircraft. Although the UNITED STATES provided intelligence and other
support, it was a coalition of ARAB states that launched the extended air
campaign against the AL-HOUTHIS.
Three things make this
important. First, it shows the UNITED STATES' new regional strategy in
operation. WASHINGTON is moving away from the strategy it has followed since
the early 2000s — of being the prime military force in regional conflicts — and
is shifting the primary burden of fighting to regional powers while playing a
secondary role. Second, after years of buying advanced weaponry, the SAUDIS and
the GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL countries are capable of carrying out a fairly
sophisticated campaign, at least in YEMEN. The campaign began by suppressing
enemy air defenses — the AL-HOUTHIS had acquired surface-to-air missiles from
the YEMENI military — and moved on to attacking AL-HOUTHI command-and-control
systems. This means that while the regional powers have long been happy to
shift the burden of combat to the UNITED STATES, they are also able to assume
the burden if the UNITED STATES refuses to engage.
GROWING
CONFLICT BETWEEN SUNNIS AND SHIITES AS WELL AS GROWING TENSION WITHIN SUNNI AND
SHIITE GROUPS
Most important, the
attacks on the AL-HOUTHIS shine the spotlight on a growing situation in the
region: a war between the SUNNIS and SHIITES. In IRAQ and SYRIA, a full-scale
war is underway. A battle rages in TIKRIT with the SUNNI ISLAMIC STATE and its
allies on one side, and a complex combination of the SHIITE-dominated IRAQI
army, SHIITE militias, SUNNI ARAB tribal groups and SUNNI KURDISH forces on the
other. In SYRIA, the battle is between the secular government of President BASHAR
AL ASSAD — nevertheless dominated by Alawites, a SHIITE sect — and SUNNI groups.
However, SUNNIS, DRUZE and CHRISTIANS have sided with the regime as well. It is
not reasonable to refer to the SYRIAN opposition as a coalition because there
is significant internal hostility. Indeed, there is tension not only between
the SHIITES and SUNNIS, but also within the SHIITE and SUNNI groups. In YEMEN,
a local power struggle among warring factions has been branded and elevated
into a sectarian conflict for the benefit of the regional players. It is much
more complex than simply a SHIITE-SUNNI war. At the same time, it cannot be
understood without the SUNNI-SHIITE component.
Background
Information: Sunni versus Shiite
SUNNI
VERSUS SHIA: THE MIDDLE EAST’S NEW STRATEGIC CONFLICT
SAUDI
ARABIA CREATED ITS OWN GEOPOLITICAL FRANKENSTEIN
THE
MIDDLE EAST IS PERVADED AND INCREASINGLY INFECTED BY THE SECTARIAN RIVALRY
BETWEEN THE SHIITE PERSIANS AND THE WAHHABI SAUDIS
IRAN'S
STRATEGY AND THE SAUDIS' RESPONSE
One reason this is so
important is that it represents a move by IRAN to gain a major sphere of
influence in the ARAB world. This is not a new strategy. IRAN has sought
greater influence on the ARABIAN PENINSULA since the rule of the SHAH. More
recently, it has struggled to create a sphere of influence stretching from IRAN
to the MEDITERRANEAN SEA. The survival of the AL ASSAD government in SYRIA and
the success of a pro-IRANIAN government in IRAQ would create that IRANIAN sphere
of influence, given the strength of HEZBOLLAH in LEBANON and the ability of AL
ASSAD'S SYRIA to project its power.
.jpg)
For a while, it appeared
that this strategy had been blocked by the near collapse of the AL ASSAD government
in 2012 and the creation of an IRAQI government that appeared to be relatively
successful and was far from being an IRANIAN puppet. These developments,
coupled with WESTERN sanctions, placed IRAN on the defensive, and the idea of
an IRANIAN sphere of influence appeared to have become merely a dream.
RISE
OF ISLAMIC STATE HAS PARADOXICALLY REINVIGORATED IRANIAN POWER
However, paradoxically,
the rise of the ISLAMIC STATE has reinvigorated IRANIAN power in two ways.
First, while the propaganda of the ISLAMIC STATE is horrific and designed to
make the group look not only terrifying, but also enormously powerful, the
truth is that, although it is not weak, the ISLAMIC STATE represents merely a
fraction of IRAQ'S SUNNI community, and the SUNNIS are a minority in IRAQ. At
the same time, the propaganda has mobilized the SHIITE community to resist the ISLAMIC
STATE, allowed IRANIAN advisers to effectively manage the SHIITE militias in IRAQ
and (to some extent) the IRAQI army, and forced the UNITED STATES to use its
airpower in tandem with IRANIAN-led ground forces. Given the AMERICAN strategy
of blocking the ISLAMIC STATE — even if doing so requires cooperation with IRAN
— while not putting forces on the ground, this means that as the ISLAMIC
STATE'S underlying weakness becomes more of a factor, the default winner in IRAQ
will be IRAN.
A somewhat similar
situation exists in SYRIA, though with a different demographic. IRAN and RUSSIA
have historically supported the AL ASSAD government. The IRANIANS have been the
more important supporters, particularly because they committed their ally, HEZBOLLAH,
to the battle. What once appeared to be a lost cause is now far from it. The UNITED
STATES was extremely hostile toward al ASSAD, but given the current
alternatives in SYRIA, WASHINGTON has become at least neutral toward the SYRIAN
government. AL ASSAD would undoubtedly like to have U.S. neutrality translate
into a direct dialogue with WASHINGTON. Regardless of the outcome, IRAN has the
means to maintain its influence in SYRIA.
Background
Information: ASSAD
EX-CIA
CHIEF: ASSAD WIN MAY BE SYRIA'S BEST OPTION
ASSAD
WINNING THE WAR
ASSAD
FIRM IN THE SADDLE (January 2013)
SYRIAN
REGIME LIKELY TO SURVIVE UPRAISE (June 2011)
THE
SYRIAN EQUATION
ASSAD
FIRMLY IN CHARGE IN SYRIA (March 2012)
SYRIA'S
ASSAD, 'THE MAN WHO CAN DELIVER A MIDDLE EAST SOLUTION'
YEMEN:
SAUDIS AND THE GULF STATES FACING A SHIITE OR IRANIAN ENCIRCLEMENT
When you look at a map
and think of the situation in YEMEN, you get a sense of why the SAUDIS and GULF
COOPERATION COUNCIL countries had to do something. Given what is happing along
the northern border of the ARABIAN PENINSULA, the SAUDIS have to calculate the
possibility of an AL-HOUTHI victory establishing a pro-IRANIAN, SHIITE state to
its south as well. The SAUDIS and the GULF countries would be facing the
possibility of a SHIITE or IRANIAN encirclement. These are not the same thing,
but they are linked in complex ways. Working in the SAUDIS' favor is the fact
that the AL-HOUTHIS are not SHIITE proxies like HEZBOLLAH, and SAUDI money
combined with military operations designed to cut off IRANIAN Supply lines to
the AL-HOUTHIS could mitigate the threat overall. Either way, the SAUDIS had to
act.
SAUDIS
ARE FRIGHTENED BY RISING IRANIAN AND SHIITE POWER
During the ARAB SPRING,
one of the nearly successful attempts to topple a government occurred in BAHRAIN.
The uprising failed primarily because SAUDI ARABIA intervened and imposed its
will on the country. The SAUDIS showed themselves to be extremely sensitive to
the rise of SHIITE regimes with close relations with the IRANIANS on the ARABIAN
PENINSULA. The result was unilateral intervention and suppression. Whatever the
moral issues, it is clear that the SAUDIS are frightened by rising IRANIAN and SHIITE
power and are willing to use their strength. That is what they have done in YEMEN.
Background
Information: Saudi Arabia and Iran
FOR
THIRTY YEARS, SAUDI ARABIA HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN A PROXY WAR WITH IRAN
MIDDLE
EAST UNDER THREAT AS IRAN ENCOURAGES SHIITE UPRISING IN SAUDI ARABIA?
In a way, the issue is
simple for the SAUDIS. They represent the center of gravity of the religious SUNNI
world. As such, they and their allies have embarked on a strategy that is
strategically defensive and tactically offensive. Their goal is to block IRANIAN
and SHIITE influence, and the means they are implementing is coalition warfare
that uses air power to support local forces on the ground. Unless there is a
full invasion of YEMEN, the SAUDIS are following the AMERICAN strategy of the
2000s on a smaller scale.
THE
U.S. STANCE
The AMERICAN strategy is
more complex. The UNITED SATES has undertaken a strategy focused on maintaining
the balance of power. This kind of approach is always messy because the goal is
not to support any particular power, but to maintain a balance between multiple
powers. Therefore, the UNITED STATES is providing intelligence and mission
planning for the SAUDI coalition against the AL-HOUTHIS and their IRANIAN allies.
In IRAQ, the United States is providing support to Shiites — and by extension,
their allies — by bombing Islamic State installations. In Syria, U.S. strategy
is so complex that it defies clear explanation. That is the nature of refusing
large-scale intervention but being committed to a balance of power. The United
States can oppose Iran in one theater and support it in another. The more
simplistic models of the Cold War are not relevant here.
.jpg)
All of this is happening
at the same time that nuclear negotiations appear to be coming to some sort of
closure. The United States is not really concerned about Iran's nuclear
weapons. As mentioned many times, we have heard since the mid-2000s that Iran
was a year or two away from nuclear weapons. Each year, the fateful date was
pushed back. Building deliverable nuclear weapons is difficult, and the
Iranians have not even carried out a nuclear test, an essential step before a
deliverable weapon is created. What was a major issue a few years ago is now
part of a constellation of issues where U.S.-Iranian relations interact,
support and contradict. Deal or no deal, the United States will bomb the
Islamic State, which will help Iran, and support the Saudis in Yemen, which
will not.
IRAN’S
GROWING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA, INCLUDING YEMEN
The real issue now is
what it was a few years ago: Iran appears to be building a sphere of influence
to the Mediterranean Sea, but this time, that sphere of influence potentially
includes Yemen. That, in turn, creates a threat to the Arabian Peninsula from
two directions. The Iranians are trying to place a vise around it. The Saudis
must react, but the question is whether airstrikes are capable of stopping the
al-Houthis. They are a relatively low-cost way to wage war, but they fail
frequently.
The first question is what the Saudis will do then. The second
question is what the Americans will do. The current doctrine requires a balance
between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the United States tilting back and forth.
Under this doctrine — and in this military reality — the United States cannot
afford full-scale engagement on the ground in Iraq.
TURKEY'S
ROLE
Relatively silent but
absolutely vital to this tale is Turkey. It has the largest economy in the
region and has the largest army, although just how good its army is can be
debated. Turkey is watching chaos along its southern border, rising tension in
the Caucasus, and conflict across the Black Sea. Of all these, Syria and Iraq
and the potential rise of Iranian power is the most disturbing. Turkey has said
little about Iran of late, but last week Ankara suddenly criticized Tehran and
accused Iran of trying to dominate the region. Turkey frequently says things
without doing anything, but the development is still noteworthy.
It should be remembered
that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has hoped to see Turkey as a
regional leader and the leader of the Sunni world. With the Saudis taking an
active role and the Turks doing little in Syria or Iraq, the moment is passing
Turkey by. Such moments come and go, so history is not changed. But Turkey is
still the major Sunni power and the third leg of the regional balance involving
Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Background
Information:TURKEY
TURKEY'S
IMPERIAL FANTASY OF ESTABLISHING THE IKHWAN (MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD) BELT FROM
TUNISIA TO GAZA
TURKEYS
CURRENT MIDDLE EAST POLICY MAKES ENEMIES WITH EVERYONE
WHY
IS TURKEY SUPPORTING ISLAMIC STATE FIGHTERS IN IRAQ?
DOES
TURKEY WANT KOBANE TO FALL?
The evolution of Turkey
would be the critical step in the emergence of a regional balance of power, in
which local powers, not the United Kingdom or the United States, determine the
outcome. The American role, like the British role before it, would not be
directly waging war in the region but providing aid designed to stabilize the
balance of power. That can be seen in Yemen or Iraq. It is extremely complex
and not suited for simplistic or ideological analysis. But it is here, it is
unfolding and it will represent the next generation of Middle Eastern dynamics.
And if the Iranians put aside their theoretical nuclear weapons and focus on
this, that will draw in the Turks and round out the balance of power.
By George Friedman via Stratfor
No comments:
Post a Comment