Ahead of US President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East next month, it is imperative that he and his team undertake a deep reading of the ideologies that guide the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and the current Israeli government.
Recent history is rife with instances in which Washington played on the region’s sectarian divisions and either supported or tolerated fundamentalist forces in countries ranging from Israel to Afghanistan – the consequences of which have been dire for the Middle East and the world. So if Mr Trump intends to turn the page on US strategy in the region, there needs to be a serious reckoning with the outcomes of previous administrations’ policies in this regard. For this, the Trump team needs to think of the region in geopolitical terms rather than merely economic ones.
Take Jordan, for example, where Jewish fundamentalism is intersecting with Islamist fundamentalism in targeting the country. On the one hand, Israel’s far-right government is pursuing an expansionist project that, among other things, requires making Jordan an alternative Palestinian homeland. At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to overthrow King Abdullah in order to control the country.
In a way, Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood are reinforcing each other. Israel is taking advantage of the movement and its affiliates to serve its own goals in Jordan – just as it once did in Egypt and beyond. While it is well known that the Trump administration is committed to fulfilling Israel’s demands, the US President is even more invested in the principle of “America First”. It would be a huge mistake for him to allow this Israeli government to proceed with its plans, as that would amount to abandoning a strong ally in King Abdullah, which would be a strategic error.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s sustenance is not in America’s interest. Its resurgence in parts of North Africa is alarming – particularly in Libya, which has become a fertile ground for extremism on the African continent, on the shores of the Mediterranean, and at the gates of Europe. It would be unwise for Washington to entertain the simplistic equation, as past US administrations have, that supports or tolerates extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood variety as a counterbalance to extremism of the kind fostered by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Speaking of which, it is important that US policy on Iran not be limited to securing a deal with Tehran to curb its nuclear weapons programme. Postponing a discussion about its regional behaviour, which involves aiding and abetting the spread of armed proxies aligned to its ideological doctrine, to a later stage – just because it could interfere with what was already agreed upon on the nuclear file – would be a dangerous gamble.
The Trump team should be clear from the outset that it won’t repeat the mistakes of former US president Barack Obama, who had submitted to Iranian conditions that prohibit any discussion of the doctrine of proxies. The current ambiguity in Washington has further emboldened Hezbollah to double down on its policy of bearing arms and operating as a state within the Lebanese state.
Jewish fundamentalism, meanwhile, may not exert influence through proxies. Nonetheless, it is the kind of fundamentalism that flagrantly violates international law and moral norms, and is driven by racism and confidence in American protection from international accountability.
Arrogance is a common denominator shared by all three fundamentalist streams and their patrons. And this puts the region, and the world, in danger – particularly with these ideologies headed for a collision. It is, therefore, essential for the Trump team to think strategically and find ways to contain them all in the long term.
The Iran-Israel equation remains the most dangerous of them. Tehran will not hesitate to launch military strikes against Israel – pre-emptive or retaliatory – if its ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration fail, or if Israel decides to bypass diplomacy and launch attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. Military readiness and preparations, thus, accompany the negotiations.
This is an especially pertinent point following an explosion that tore through Iran’s largest commercial port at Bandar Abbas on Saturday, killing at least 25 people and leaving hundreds more injured. While Tehran appears to be treating the blast as an accident, at least thus far, this has occurred against the backdrop of years of a shadow war with Israel.
In all of this, Arab diplomacy has been noteworthy. Oman has acted as an able mediator in the US-Iran negotiations. Saudi Arabia has taken the lead in providing a space for talks and mutual understandings not just among major powers, but also between Riyadh and Tehran. But such leadership does not mean tolerating a repeat of the disastrous alliance between key European powers and the Obama administration, as well as an understanding with other powers such as Russia and China, which may have led to the 2015 nuclear deal but, ultimately, also enabled Iran’s deep interference in Arab affairs through its proxies.
Gulf diplomacy must be making significant efforts – quietly and behind the scenes – to inform and enlighten the Trump administration about the Middle East’s complexities. Their ultimate goal will be to ensure that the US President’s visit to the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia next month is visionary and productive, rather than being derailed in the maze of extremist and fundamentalist ideologies across the region.
