1
JUST when we thought there were already too many wars and conflicts bubbling away, more threats to world peace keep emerging, stoked by irresponsible leaders. Anyone listening to some of the speeches delivered recently in the United Nations General Assembly could be excused for thinking this was a forum for warmongers, not peacemakers.
Trump made the most provocative speech heard in the UN for decades when he painted both Iran and North Korea with the same brush. From his bellicose speech, it would seem that the 2015 nuclear treaty with Iran, hammered out after years of arduous negotiations, is about to collapse. Although the other signatories insist they will stick to the agreement, America wields a lot of influence, especially in the financial world, and can cause Iran much pain. How Tehran will react to such an American move remains to be seen: if it reactivates its nuclear programme, it risks triggering UN and European sanctions. But if the ayatollahs fail to act, they will be seen as weak in the face of American bullying. So clearly, this is a lose-lose situation for Tehran.
However, if the Americans do pull out unilaterally, they will be sending a signal to North Korea that a dialogue on that country’s nuclear ambitions is a waste of time as the US can renege on any agreement. This message of unreliability would also cast a shadow over any other diplomatic negotiations the Americans enter.
So what is it about the nuclear accords, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, that has incensed Trump so much? After all, he has been attacking the agreement since his election campaign, and now threatens to tear it up just as he had promised. Basically, he and many Republicans complain that by lifting a number of sanctions without forcing Iran to stop its support of Bashar al-Assad as well as other militant groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, Obama conceded too much without getting enough from Tehran.
But those who peddle this simplistic approach to a complex issue fails to grasp that the negotiations were aimed specifically at Iran’s nuclear programme, and not at other regional issues. At the time, Israel was threatening to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, and was secretly being egged on by Saudi Arabia. A negotiated renunciation of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was the best way of resolving the matter peacefully. Obama paid a high political price but went ahead and approved the deal despite hysterical opposition from Tel Aviv and Riyadh, to say nothing of the pro-Israel lobby in America. Now Trump, in his zeal to dismantle his predecessor’s legacy, has targeted Obama’s finest foreign policy achievement.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Asian continent, the war of words continues, with Trump threatening to destroy North Korea. Kim Jung-Un, for his part, dismisses Trump’s threats as “the barking of a dog”. As long as the conflict is confined to such juvenile threats, we can breathe easy. But with a volatile and unpredictable man in charge of the US nuclear codes, we can’t write off nasty surprises.
However, despite Trump’s combative words, he can also play the peacemaker: according to a Bloomberg report, he intervened when Saudi Arabia and the UAE were close to declaring war on Qatar, the tiny emirate that has been a thorn in their sides. Apparently, Trump called the rulers in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to tell them to back off. According to Bloomberg’s anonymous sources in the Trump administration, the president was advised by the three senior (and sane) advisers — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Defence Secretary James Mattis — that an armed conflict would give Iran an opening. Also, such a war would complicate the conduct of anti-IS operations. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have denied the Bloomberg story.
Thus far, better sense seems to have prevailed. Trump has recently met the Qatari emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, in Washington, and told him to stop his support for extremist rebels in Syria. While denying any role in reducing tensions, Trump has suggested that the crisis would be soon over. But in fact, he is the one who first precipitated the conflict by publicly lecturing Qatar on his visit to Riyadh a few months ago.
The truth is that the Middle East is in greater turmoil than ever before with the elevation of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman — or MBS as he likes to be called — to all the key positions in the Saudi regime. He is now the de facto ruler of the kingdom, and has put possibly hostile rival princes into house arrest. Two powerful and popular clerics have been arrested. Thus, MBS has consolidated his position, and nobody is likely to challenge his authority.
As his ruthless destruction of Yemen demonstrates, MBS is unlike his predecessors in projecting Saudi power. True, his ambitions are aided and abetted by the US and the UK who not only supply him arms, but train his pilots and guide his planes to their targets. Clearly, these efforts have failed to enhance Saudi flying skills as many bombs and missiles have destroyed schools, hospitals, markets and homes, killing thousands of civilians. The Saudi-led blockade of Yemen has prevented food and medicines from being unloaded, causing famine and disease on a massive scale.
Thus, the Middle East is aflame from Yemen to Syria. Palestinians have been told by Netanyahu that he has no intention of vacating any illegal settlements. Neither the Israelis nor their American supporters now mention peace talks to finally deliver on their long-standing promise for a two-state solution.
We seem to have entered an era where hostilities are the norm, while peace is an aberration.
Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2017
