Reflection

The Middle East. Photo: WikiCommons

The single largest view I previously had of the Middle East which has now been changed during the course of the unit is that the Middle East is not a monolith.

For example, I was extremely surprised that Lebanon has 18 different religious groups represented in a parliament, with these religious groups comprised of a variety of ethnicities.

I also found it fascinating that Lebanon has been plagued by extremist Christian terrorists.

Prior to uncovering this, I had the default view that many in Western countries possess of all states in the Middle East, that they are exclusively comprised of Arab Muslims with Islamic terrorism has the only major religious extremism issue.

But in terms of which specific topic which challenged my preconceptions the most, it was the fortnight on Israel/Palestine.

I had previously thought those who were criticising Netanyahu and his government over the treatment of Palestinians were exaggerating, as he had avoided condemnation from many Western leaders who are supposedly bastions of human rights.

I was shocked to learn how openly the Israeli military were using violent techniques, like blanketing white phosphorus over Palestinian civilian population areas, without any penalties from the international community.

Having my preconceptions challenged so drastically in such as short amount of time made me feel both enlightened and uncomfortable.

But overall, I don’t think Israel or any other current state has had the most impact on the modern Middle East, rather from my studies in this unit I believe colonialism has had the greatest influence.

It was eye-opening to see how that with almost every country that was analysed in the weekly case study and via my assessments, the creation artificial state boundaries by colonial powers and their disregard for the traditional tribe system of power sharing has a direct link to sectarian conflicts and tensions that persist today.

I think going into the future, world leaders, policy makers and political scientists should be aware of this lingering colonial influence when devising solutions for regional issues.

 

 

U.S sanctions on Iran could be a self-inflicted wound in the long run

 

Oil refinery on the outskirts of Tehran. Photo: Euronews

Motivated by the United States’ shift towards a pro-Israeli stance on Middle Eastern foreign policy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu held a conference at the end of April stating that Iran had “lied” about its nuclear weapons program and implored the U.S to take action.

The Trump administration has seemingly agreed with Netanyahu’s sentiment, announcing soon after that it would leave the U.S-Iran nuclear agreement put in place under the Obama presidency and impose sanctions on Iran’s oil industry.

A superficial look at Iran’s situation would suggest that these sanctions will give the U.S leverage in future negotiations with Iran and other actors in the broader Middle East region.

Iran’s oil industry is responsible for 80 per cent of the goods it sells overseas and with unemployment moving into double digits and an annual inflation rate hovering about 8 per cent, Iran cannot afford sanctions that would cripple its biggest export market.

But many of Iran’s largest trading partners are allies of the U.S, such as the European Union, who have conducted an average of €6 billion worth of trade with Iran since 2013.

The EU has sought to maintain this robust trade by signalling a desire to remain in the nuclear deal with Iran and disregard the U.S’ sanctions.

However, some analysts predict that the plethora of multinationals that operate in the EU will comply with the Trump administration’s sanctions, at least to some extent, in order to maintain good political relations within the U.S.

Consequently, in order to preserve consistent trade, Iran will seek to move away from exporting to the U.S and its allies.

Iran will have to bolster its pre-existing economic links with adversaries of the U.S, such as the al-Assad regime, Hamas and Hezbollah.

As Iran has few alternative export options, these actors will likely get a substantially better deal than they would without the sanctions, thus strengthening their economic and security position in region.

Gaza the latest victim of Israeli-Iranian geopolitical chess

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the 72nd UN General Assembly. Photo: Times of Israel

At the United Nations’ annual general debate in September last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly that the organisation had fostered the “epicenter” of “Antisemitism”, particularly among its Middle Eastern members.

On the surface, this aggressive rhetoric seems at odds with the current situation between Israel and its traditional border-sharing adversaries; Palestine’s UN status remains unchanged since 2012, Egyptian-Israeli relations are at “their highest level in history”, Syria is preoccupied with a devastating civil war and Jordan with the ensuing refugee crisis.

Although Lebanon has expressed a desire to increase its military presence on the Israeli border after Netanyahu’s announcement, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri said the current budget won’t allow it.

However, behind the broad accusations, Netanyahu primarily directed the blame for the perceived rise in Antisemitism towards one state, declaring that a “dark shadow will be cast over the entire Middle East” due to an “Iranian curtain”.

Netanyahu has been emboldened by the Trump administration’s pro-Israel stance towards issues in the Middle East.

The shifting of the U.S embassy to Jerusalem is an obvious example, but President Trump’s commitment to send $75 million of military aid to Israel, in addition to the U.S’ record military outlay to Israel of $38 billion over the next decade, may be what has encouraged Netanyahu the most.

Netanyahu has capitalised on Trump’s support to aggressively pursue a reversal of the nuclear deal the Obama administration signed with Iran.

With the wind of the U.S’ global military and economic influence behind Israel’s sails, Iran’s options of wide-scale retaliation are extremely limited.

Instead, Iran has sought to disrupt Israel’s interests close to its borders through a proxy, by re-establishing financial and military support for Hamas on the Gaza Strip.

However, Israel has seen an opportunity to exploit Iran’s ties with Hamas in order to aggressively suppress opposition in Palestine, evidenced by its response to recent protests in Gaza which left at least 64 Palestinians dead in one day.

Israel knows that while perceptions of Palestine are mixed in the U.S and broader Western world, nearly 80 per cent of U.S voters have an unfavourable view of Iran, so it has framed the protests as part of an Iranian-sponsored terrorism campaign.

With a full-scale war between these two Middle Eastern states unlikely to occur due their considerable military power and influence, more vulnerable areas like Gaza will likely bear the brunt of these tensions.