What to do about the Middle East?

For decades, the Middle East is facing political and military struggles.  Unfortunately, since several years it seems that tension is rising and is more often surfacing. Different countries are now openly confronting each other. This is a very delicate situation for Western states. The confrontations are threatening the geopolitical situation and can have long-term relational effects. So, what should the European countries, the USA and others do?

The news from the Middle East was dominated at first by the so-called Arab Spring, followed by fighting in Libya and Syria, continuous riots and fighting in Egypt and all-out civil war in Syria, and now the advancement of Jihadist forces, such as IS (previously known as ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq.
At first, there was hope that this would lead to the strengthening of democracy in this region but that remains a dream. More accurately, it seems to become part of the regional power struggle between Egypt, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

All parties are providing financial and military resources to their supporting groups. Qatar aids the Muslim Brotherhood; Iran helps Hezbollah and has now send support to Iraq in its battles with IS. It is known that Saudi Arabia is involved with numerous unpleasant alliances. The United States sent military advisers. European countries are supporting so-called moderate forces in Syria. The question which remains is: should the Western states dedicate its resources – political, militarily, financial and relational – to these problems and become actively involved again in the Middle East? My answer is a simple NO.

At the moment, the West is not really involved yet. Indeed the United States sent 300 military advisers and will send another 300 to Iraq. Also, some financial resources and weapons are provided, as are in Syria. However, this is not a significant commitment because it does not have a large impact in the region. Also, the first calls on human right violations and war crimes are being voiced but unfortunately, the Western states need to put their human rights agenda, which is not pivotal anyway, aside for all these conflicts in the Middle East in order to allow its own interests to prevail, a slice of Machiavelli. Maybe it is time for other countries to provide the majority of the resources for emergency and refugee help this time. Countries with more at stake here and claim to be protecting one of the groups tangled in the struggles.   

As I said before, the conflicts and riots are part of a larger conflict for regional dominance. There is still no balance found between the states involved and the issue will continue into the future. Some similar conflicts in Europe took decades to be solved and unfortunately it looks like that is happening this time as well. Public opinion matters in the West and the military commitment in Afghanistan has already stretched the willingness for long-term contribution to the Middle East. People will simply not accept new engagements, for good reasons. There are plenty of (first world) problems at home to deal with, which the public wants attention to be given to. And from a European perspective, the European countries and its Union should concern more about Ukraine. This is a civil war at the border with the EU.

Organisations like IS come and go. For sure, I would not like to live under these kinds of regimes, not even for one day. But such organisations can win terrain for some time but cannot hold on to it. They lack the bureaucratic and political structures; they depend too much on the sword and guns. These are not viable circumstances to establish a state. Not to speak about the military capabilities. IS or other similar groups in Syria and Libya gain ground against overstretched and demoralised forces. Its battles are fought mainly with small arms. At the moment a serious modern military force is deployed, the battlefield changes totally. Just take into consideration what happened with the Touaregs in Mali or Qaddafi’s forces in Libya. In the case of Iraq and Syria, one has to think of Turkey, Jordan or Israel. Modern air forces do the trick. However, the three countries mentioned will only consider this option when its territorial integrity is under threat. The Jihadist forces know this very well and will stay clear of the borders. Hence, there seems to be no quick end to this mess.

For the West, there is nothing to gain by choosing sides. It is still unclear what the exact backgrounds of all actors are and what goals they want to fulfil. Furthermore, none of the parties involved are unconditional supporters of Western policies. The US and its allies are constantly blamed for all problems. Furthermore, the problems which led to these conflicts are not the result of Western policies and therefore it should have ʻto clean up the mess‘. There is only one thing the West will gain: enemies.

Taking all of this, the West should consider the following approach:

• Focus on diplomatic efforts to get the parties around the table;

• Support Western companies to navigate these traitorous waters;

• Keeping the little leverage the Western countries still have;

•  Invest in resources/industries in order not to be dependent on the Middle East regimes, current and future. The lack of necessity to cooperate with the powers in the Middle East and therefore not providing the regimes with cash weaken those regimes and can make it actually possible for the Western states to really focus on their human rights agendas, in addition to gain ground for its other interests.

In a catch phrase and sound bite, I would describe the approach as the following: restrict yourself in the short term, in order for the long term geopolitical, relational and strategic goals to prevail.