|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Welcome to The Geopolity’s What We’re Watching (3W), our daily look at the interconnected worlds of Geopolitics, Economics and Energy. Curated from the world’s leading sources of information, our analysis and commentary is designed to help you make sense of the events driving the major developments in the world.
Back in August, following the signing of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) by Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan, at 3W we argued that it was most likely a move “coordinated with the US” and “designed to enable the US to militarily pull out of the Middle East region”.
We also called this a very a dangerous development, because:
“it pitches a ‘Sunni Triangle’ against the ‘Shi’a Axis of Resistance’. In other words, it gives the war, that was started to enable Israel to become the dominant power in the Middle East region, the characteristic of a regional sectarian conflict. It would make Iran face Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan, rather than the US and Israel. And it could quickly escalate and suck in the other countries in the Middle East, especially those such as Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain and Kuwait whose societies are divided along religious lines. While such an outcome would be a disaster for the Middle East region, it would give the US a convenient excuse for packing up and leaving, while for Israel and its Greater Israel project”
Support for our assessment that the Mecca JDA was aligned with the US, rather than a move to oppose the US, originally came from US president Trump himself. “Very happy to see that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have recently, and finally, signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement,” Trump wrote on Truth Social a few days after the signing ceremony, wrote Al Jazeera. “It shows that the Middle East is coming together and how Countries will finally be able to defend themselves in a more meaningful way.”
More recently, one of US president’s key men in the Middle East, Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy to Syria and Iraq, echoed the same sentiment. Last week, 3W noted that at the Global Security Forum in Doha, Qatar, Barrack said the “grand bargains with the US” that have underpinned global security for decades are undergoing major transformation, and countries in the Middle East and elsewhere should focus on securing themselves via regional partnerships.
Barrack followed this up with an appearance on the Mario Nawfal podcast, in which he said US foreign policy is shifting from the US being the global “security guarantor” (owning and controlling regions) to acting as an “insurer” (facilitating regional alliances and stepping in dynamically when needed).
Further as to the US effort to “offload” Middle East security to pact of Muslim states under control of Washington DC, Turkiye, Pakistan, Indonesia and Qatar this week signed a defense agreement that seeks expands the capabilities of the Mecca JDA, writes Nikkei Asia. The Badr Pact signed among the four countries in Doha aims to provide the funding and military technologies to complement the Mecca JDA. Qamar Cheema, executive director of the Sanober Institute, an Islamabad-based think tank, told Nikkei Asia that “the Mecca Pact is about defense, while the Badr pact is about providing technological and industrial support to the Mecca Pact”.
3W notes all this confirms that indeed the US is seeking to establish a new security arrangement for the Middle East. It does not want to exit the Middle East, as in handing over control over the region to others. But it wants to maintain this control by putting in charge others who can be controlled from Washington DC.
all this confirms that indeed the US is seeking to establish a new security arrangement for the Middle East. It does not want to exit the Middle East, as in handing over control over the region to others. But it wants to maintain this control by putting in charge others who can be controlled from Washington DC
This insight is of critical importance when looking at the recent meeting between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan with Iran in Tehran on Monday. Saudi Arabia was represented by Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, younger brother of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman; Pakistan by army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir; and Turkiye by intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin, writes Reuters. They met with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. Saudi Arabia said the visit was intended to open negotiating channels to “prevent the return of military escalation”. In our 3W view, this indicates that as we discussed previously, the most likely reason for the very public US “saber rattling” recently is to motivate Iran to compromise at the negotiation table: The US threatens to attack, while US clients offer a negotiated settlement, with the hope being that the fear of a US attack will make Iran more willing to accept US conditions.
Seen in this light, it becomes quite easy to predict the outcome of the diplomatic move by the Mecca JDA partners. Iran was willing to compromise before the US – Israel Alliance attacked on February 28. At the time, Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusaidi, the main interlocker between the US and Iran at the time, told CNN a negotiated “peace deal is within our reach”. Since then, Iran’s position has clearly shifted, with its overarching objective having become the removal of the US as a security guarantor from the Middle East, as part of which Iran was cast as “the enemy”, and establishment of a new security arrangement for the region that includes Iran as an equal partner to the Arabian Gulf states. This is unacceptable for the US, since, as explained above, it merely seeks to change the way it maintains dominance in the Middle East. It does not seek a departure from the region, as Iran now wants. The US and Iran therefore are now in fundamentally opposing positions.
The room to manoeuvre in order to achieve a compromise solution that existed before February 28, has been removed by the US – Israel Alliance War on Iran. Therefore, as long as the Mecca JDA partners negotiate on the basis of alignment with the US, they cannot achieve a negotiated deal with Iran. This can only be achieved if they negotiate independently from the US, based on their own national interests, not on the basis of the US and Israeli interests.
It can be asked, “does this US ambition not conflict with the Israeli plans for the Middle East?”, which 3W recently analysed and explained. At 3W we would answer saying, “indeed it does”. Which is why, we note, Tom Barrack has come under immediate pressure from the Israel Lobby for his comments. An opinion piece in the Israel National News questioned whether he was the right man to represent the US in the Middle East, while the Zionist Organization of America called for him to be removed from his position over his “hostility to Israel”, writes The JCA. This is because Israel’s National Security Doctrine calls for continued conflict across the Muslim world, to keep the countries surrounding Israel weak. It also says that to achieve this, Israel should cause internal divisions and civil strife in countries such as Jordan, Syria, and beyond to countries such as Turkiye and Iran. The Israel Lobby is therefore pushing the US maintain its past strategy for the Middle East, which was about excluding Iran, since Israel knows this will continue the conflict.
The Israel Lobby is therefore pushing the US maintain its past strategy for the Middle East, which was about excluding Iran, since Israel knows this will continue the conflict
It will also spread the conflict across the Middle East. For example, Egypt’s parliament has now agreed with president Abdel Fattah El Sisi’s wish to send troops to Saudi Arabia, to defend Saudi Arabia’s “territory, sovereignty and holy sites against any external aggression”, writes The National. Moves such as this will slowly but steadily suck the entire region into exactly the kind of conflict Israel would like to see.
Jordan’s response to the terrorist attack on a church in the city of Karak on Friday, which killed nine Arab Christians, similarly aligns with Israel’s strategy for the Middle East. Jordan on Monday carried out airstrikes on southern Syria in “retaliation”, writes The National. Jordan said those who carried out the church attack were linked to terrorist organisations in Syria. It added that the strikes resulted in the “killing and wounding of many members of these terrorist groups and the destruction of a number of their vehicles”. The Syrian government expressed its solidarity with the families affected by the Jordanian strikes. Deraa’s health authorities said three children, three men and a woman were among those killed. Shortly after the strikes, Syria’s border authority closed the Nassib crossing with Jordan. In other words, 3W notes, another two countries surrounding Israel have been pitted against each other. It could be a coincidence, of course, and there could well be no relation between these events and Israel. But at 3W we do not believe in such coincidences.
As to where all this is heading, the answer lies not in Israel’s elections today. Netanyahu or Eisenkot, they all represent the same perspective on Israel’s national security: attack, destroy, undermine, disturb, and cause chaos across the Middle East region. The answer lies more in what will happen in the US. At 3W we have explained the evidences that the Israel Lobby now controls US policy making when it comes to the Middle East. As long as this remains the case, the outlook for the Middle East will be more conflict, more wars, more death and destruction. But, an alternative outcome could result if people like Tom Barrack and JD Vance, and their billionaire backers like Peter Thiel, get the upper hand in the US.