The article published in Foreign Affairs provides insight into the guiding principles that the US administration should follow in reformulating its strategy to achieve stability in the Middle East. Starting again from the crucial issues of Palestine and Iran
Even six weeks ago, Washington’s strategy for stabilizing the Middle East seemed to be working. The dimensions were multiple. There was the implicit agreement reached with Iran, which required it to halt its nuclear development program in exchange for partial relief from sanctions; There was a joint defense agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, conditional on the normalization of the latter’s relations with Israel. There was the India-Middle East Economic Corridor (Imec) project, which would have linked India to Europe, increased economic well-being in the Middle East and limited Beijing’s space to operate in this theatre. Then came October 7, and Washington’s strategy involved a complex tactical response.
If the United States truly wants to stabilize the Middle East, it cannot simply follow a preexisting path. A new strategy is needed. They expressed their opinion on the points on which this strategy should focus Maria Fantappieprogram director The Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Africa From the Institute of International Affairs, H Governor of NasrProfessor of International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, as well as Senior Advisor to the US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan between 2009 and 2011. In reformulating its new strategy in the Middle East, Washington will not reformulate its new strategy in the Middle East. We must completely reject what has been adopted so far, but rather identify new priorities to focus our political and economic resources.
Starting with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If a prisoner and hostage exchange between Israel and Hamas is the urgent necessity, the main short-term goal of the United States should be to end the hostilities in Gaza, the prolongation of which has already deteriorated (and continues to deteriorate). What has been achieved so far, as well as the American position in the region. Achieving this first result will guarantee the minimum conditions for working to find a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question, a solution that can only be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state. To achieve this goal, according to the analysis, the United States must use Saudi Arabia as a mediator, whose diplomatic position remains one of the strongest in the region today, a factor that allows Riyadh to interact with all interested actors and thus lead. The cool-down process is long and tiring. Its goal is to create Domain A security capable of ensuring lasting peace on Israel’s borders and limiting the spread of extremism among the Palestinians, but also capable of containing the “unburned war” between Iran and Israel and putting an end to the axis of resistance (or at least weakening it significantly). Led by Tehran.
Iran represents another priority for Washington. This is not to say that things are not the same as they used to be: but if the American approach so far follows a logic… ContainsNow, logic training. Riyadh’s role will also be in this dimension pivotalAnalysts say.
The détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia was of profound importance to the stability of the Middle East, and expanding this détente to other countries in the sector would lead to the economic and diplomatic integration of the Shiite state. Among the possible consequences of this process are a reduction in hostilities in the Middle East (similar to what happened in Yemen thanks to the agreement between Riyadh and Tehran) and the resumption of dialogue between Washington and the Ayatollah regime.
These remain the main axes of the organization’s long-term action plan, the implementation of which will not be easy at all. Whatever Washington does, there will be resistance to its vision of the Middle East. Iran will remain hostile to Israel and the United States. Saudi Arabia’s Gulf neighbors will never be happy with the kingdom’s hegemony. Israel and Turkey will also calculate what it means for Saudi Arabia to amass so much power and what US commitment to the Saudis means for their interests. “And they will respond accordingly, perhaps in ways that Washington does not expect.” But even if all of these countries want more power, what they want most is to maintain the stability of their regimes. They want to commit to a vision that ends local conflicts, promotes economic growth, and eases internal pressures. “If the agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia is valid, they will accept it in the end.”
“The United States is now focusing heavily on hostage diplomacy, which is important, but it cannot necessarily lead to a solution to this conflict. In fact, it could help prolong it. Washington continues to pursue short-term measures, and is not guided by a larger vision that includes the entire region.” Maria Fantappiewhich made itself available to comment on the latest developments in formish.net.
“The United States must reconsider its approach to the region. The method used in recent years has not worked because the normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia, although an important line of action, did not include, or did not do so sufficiently, the Palestinian issue. This deficiency backfired against the United States, because it was then exploited by other local and regional actors not only to undermine the normalization process, but to undermine the regional stability project that Washington was working on. The stability the United States needs because it translates into less commitment Military, allowing them to refocus elsewhere, but above all because it offers Washington the possibility of assuming the role of a true peacemaking power, a role to which China now aspires.
“Prone to fits of apathy. Introvert. Award-winning internet evangelist. Extreme beer expert.”
