I remember very clearly an ad on CNN, just days after 9/11. The ad said something like this; “do not forget it is not PLA, it is not Al-Qaida , it is not Hezbollah or Hamas that we are fighting ; what we are fighting is hatred” , then the announcer of the ad stopped a little bit and then added “and it is winning…”
At the time of 9/11, I was just another 19-year old just about to start my life in college; but that particular ad had remained fixated in my memory and as I start to write this just two hours before the 10-th anniversary on 9/11 would commence, the message of that ad still remains fresh in my mind.
Leaders of America had the support of the whole world behind them after 9/11, so much shocked and horrified the World was at those attacks that even the Islamic republic of Iran , the avowed enemy of America ; had offered them cooperation and a permanent end to hostilities in exchange of equal treatment.
What was the reaction of President Bush? Instead of accepting the gratitude of the World, he acted with a mindset to remake the World. He declared Iran as part of an “axis of evil” and followed up with sanctions and covert operations for “regime change”. America would remake the World into her own democratic image, he thundered to the World in his now famous 2002 “axis of evil” address. Maybe it was the outburst of that quintessential American attitude called “American exceptionalism” which always considers itself as part of a divine mission to outdo all wrongs in the World as well as converting the whole World into America’s image.
But what about the American people? What about the average American? Why did he not come to the same understanding the rest of the World had about some of the policies that his leaders were taking on his name? 9/11 not only changed America but it also changed the average American. The average American went into a retreat into a make believe world where he restricts his education about the world to the posts in social networking sites and demagogic websites. In the end, the average American did not bother much when Iraq was invaded on false pretexts, when those obscenities from Abu Gharib shocked the World, when those who caused the global economic recession in 2008 went home with their compensations intact. In the end, in the land of consumerism and individualism, the average American converted himself from a citizen into a consumer and individual. And the reason why it happened? It was the same old reason as shown in that ad after 9/11, it was the sense of hatred; it was the sense of fear; it was the sense of “being wronged” ; it was this sense which did not allow America to become normal and has not allowed her to become normal ever since. The primitive sense of taking revenge and the more primitive sense of existential fear had overpowered the average American so much that he remains stuck to his viewpoint about a cruel World coming to destroy his beloved America.
America was always considered a land of abundant opportunities for the worthy to take; it was the land where you can think about taking your chances in life that you want to take. America believed about opening herself to the World. Now what has happened ever since that fateful day? America did not allow its ports to be operated by Dubai Port City because it feared that terrorists might snick in; America closed its doors to the people of Gaza when they elected Hamas in a democratic election in 2006; President Bush is alleged to have even threatened to bomb the Al-Jazeera offices because he was not happy with the news.
In short, 9/11 was a day that made America stop being America. It was the day that de-Americanized America.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-2
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status-quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status-quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-1
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey:
The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows:
The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up:
The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey:
The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows:
The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up:
The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)