Causeries on the US Strategy in the Middle East

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Causeries on the US Strategy in the Middle East

The unfolding events in the Middle East such as the revolutions of the Arab Spring cannot be perceived and interpreted without an insight into the plans of the major powers with influence and interests in the region. In addition to those who poke fun at the notion of fragmentation and cast doubt over the palpable reality, there are those who belittle the significance of "zero hour" that marked the start of the Arab revolutions and overlook what the perception of the event entails in terms of stances, solutions, and directives which could bring, calamities, bloodshed, loss of riches and sacrifices upon the Muslims.

The war on Islam, the counter-revolutions and the Gulf crisis between Qatar on the one hand and Saudi, the UAE, and Egypt on the other are the effects of America’s strategic shift to the next phase of fragmenting and reshaping the Middle East. The rift between Qatar and Saudi widened following the first wave of the Arab Spring due to the American decision to change horses in accordance with her evolving stance vis-à-vis the Middle East and the phases of its shaping. On 20 April 2016, Russian news agency Sputnik and the Guardian reported on an interview that the former Qatari prime minister sheikh Hamad bin Jassim had given to the Financial Times five days earlier. He was quoted as saying: “I will tell you one thing and that is maybe the first time I say this: when we started being involved in Syria [around 2012] we had a green light that Qatar would lead this because Saudi Arabia didn’t at that time want to lead. After that, there was a change in policy and Saudi Arabia didn’t inform us that they wanted us in the back seat. We ended up competing and it was not healthy.” The interviewer said "I’m not convinced” pointing out that the same policies were followed in Libya, where Qatar and the United Arab Emirates had backed opposing sides in the civil war since the demise of the Gaddafi regime in the 2011 revolution. Hammad bin Jasim acknowledged that in Libya, “There were a lot of cookers in the end. That’s why it was spoiled.”

Qatar, according to Hamad bin Jassim, had been given the green light to lead the phase via Aljazeera, her links with conventional Islamic movements and Jihadi groups and via her stance that seemed inclined towards the masses and the "resistance", used to pose a threat to the regimes America had taken a decision to terminate and topple as part of the initiative of dismantling and reproducing the Greater Middle East. The first to call for this project and the formula to "dismantle and reconstruct the Middle East" was Mahmoud Jibril, a member of the Libyan National Congress" on Aljazeera in 2004, the year in which the Greater Middle East Initiative cropped up at the G8 summit and the year in which the Arab summit in Tunis was openly instructed to debate the American dictates listed in the Greater Middle East Initiative; it was also the year in which al-Quds hosted an international conference that gathered a considerable number of intellectuals, political figures and security and military personalities to debate how to resist Islam. This was accompanied by a number of reports, the most prominent of which were the Rand Corporation reports calling for support of the Islamic movements that were in harmony with secularism and democracy. The State Department supervised the training of a generation of youth on how to mobilise via social networks to stage the revolutions; this was made possible via the offices of the American Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in Tunisia and Qatar and via civil society institutions and youth movements such as the Egyptian April 6 Movement whose links to US institutions such as Freedom House and the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD) were exposed. According to an official US document under the title of "How Does MEPI Work", the main objective of the initiative was determined, namely building networks of reformists who would share their experiences and help each other in order to promote change in the region. Hence, Qatar acted as a spearhead in the Greater Middle East Initiative by inciting rebellion and egging the masses on aimlessly according to a carefully studied psychological principle stipulating enthusing the masses and hastening their move in the direction that woos their aspirations in order to make them lose their balance, exactly like the one running fast and falling flat on his face.

Hence, according to this approach, fraught with sectarianism, regionalism and bloody struggle for power, chaos was disseminated and the grounds for fragmentation were generated.

As for the motive behind the American initiative for the Middle East, it is expounded by the UN reports on Arab human developments in the years that preceded the initiative which announced in a conspicuous manner that the region stood at a crossroads. The reports presented by the US at the G8 summit in 2004 stipulated that the inhabitants of the Middle East lived in tragic conditions, especially in terms of freedoms and political participation, and this posed a direct threat to the stability of the region and to the common interests of the G8. Hence, they misled the masses into believing that democracy and the civil (secular) state was the gateway to the future and that "political participation" and consensus was the cornerstone of the Greater Middle East Initiative. And since the initiative was designed to weaken the Ummah, engross her in her own problems and abort her aspiration for liberation and union, and since "political participation" and consensus were an antidote for the masses that concretised secularism and destroyed the concept of governance in Islam, it was necessary to sacrifice some of the collaborating rulers in order to motivate the masses to pursue their dynamism, deceive them into believing that America was serious about generating change and that victory was possible. Nevertheless, the regimes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen were toppled by an American decision rather than the rebellions of the masses; NATO, the army commanders linked to America, the bankrolled and controlled "Jihadi" groups and the misguided angry masses acted as the tools.

No sooner the masses attempted to participate effectively in ruling matters by electing those who represented Islam according to their opinion, than the phase of turning against the choices of the masses began by backing the deep state through Saudi and the UAE; this coincided with the stage of fragmenting the existing states by emboldening the opposition groups and providing them with assistance via Qatar, the UAE, Saudi, and Turkey, in addition to international backing and America's supervision of the struggle be it directly or via the UN and international conferences.

This is what is currently observed on the ground without the need for evidence, confessions, leaked documents and the like because exploring political issues is performed through political analysis according to a host of principles, unlike criminal matters which are investigated through criminal and penal evidence.

A stance vis-à-vis the initiative is therefore taken to either support it, partake in it or abstain and attempt to thwart it, based on the perception of the reality. If the appropriate ability to influence the events or change what occurs on the ground were lacking, people should at least perceive the unfolding events to avert the dangers and lest the names of those who resist awareness is added to the death toll of an initiative that is not theirs and a war that is not theirs. Although political analysis is sufficient in exposing the veracity of the situation, nevertheless, several declassified documents in the West corroborate the conspiracy of the Arab Spring. A leaked document denied by the UAE ambassador to Washington revealed his attempts to influence the US administration's stance towards the Arab Spring; another document entitled "Middle East Partnership Initiative: Overview", dated 22 October 2010 and published by Middle East Briefing (MEB) revealed that the US administration had spelled out in its plans several strategies to topple and destabilise the targeted regimes by relying on civil societies, having prior to this paved the way for such an endeavour through a host of significant actions based mainly on the activities of the NGOs; it deemed the Arab Spring a movement totally alien to the spontaneity of the masses eager to generate political change in their countries. It was, according to the document, an American plan aimed at reshaping the Middle East according to a carefully and purposely studied plan by the American administration led by Robert Stephen Ford, head of the team in charge of the Arab region at the State Department Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR).

The approaches adopted by the US before and during the Arab Spring are designed, without any shade of a doubt, to fragment the region on ethnic and sectarian grounds and to lure the Muslims into searching for their identity amid an unprecedented campaign aimed at distorting the thoughts of Islam which may lead to generating an Islamic identity with American specifications. Despite all this, exhorting the Muslims to search for their intellectual identity will lead them to the true religion... and we have a parable in the tale of Pharaoh. Allah (swt) says:

Pharaoh said, “Bring me every experienced sorcerer.” And when the sorcerers came, Moses said to them, “Throw whatever you have to throw.” And when they threw, Moses said, “What you produced is sorcery, and Allah will make it fail. Allah does not foster the efforts of the corrupt. And Allah upholds the truth with His words, even though the sinners detest it.” (Surah Yunus 79-82)


17 Ramadhan 1438h
12 June 2017