Middle East Political Outlook in 2019

 

 

Current Issues and Policies No. 2018-23

December 18, 2018

Dr. Lee Daewoo

Senior Research Fellow, the Sejong Institute

delee@sejong.org

 

 

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic extremist militant organization, once held jurisdiction over the territory size of Britain and 8 million people and self-proclaimed the rebirth of the Caliphate. However, the militant group, notorious for its indiscriminate killings, atrocious public executions, and provocative propaganda, lost its territories in Mosul, its largest stronghold, and Raqqa, its symbolic capital, in May and October 2017 respectively after the offensives launched by the U.S.-led coalition forces - thus, the self-proclaimed caliphate became history. Nevertheless, the Middle East is not short of factors that has the potential to prompt conflicts, along with the Kurds’ separatist movements and the Trump administration’s policy shift regarding Israel and Iran, in addition to already ongoing circumstances: ISIS is not eradicated; conflicts in Syria and Yemen have persisted because of the Sunni-Shi’a schism and involvement of other powers. Consequently, the region is predicted to witness severe instability in 2019 as well.

 

Survival of ISIS, Resurge of Al-Qaeda and Taliban

 Despite losing its territories, ISIS maintains the strength when it self-proclaimed the caliphate in 2014 and still poses a formidable threat in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). According to the U.S. Congressional Report Service report RL33487, ISIS held control of five enclaves in western and southern Syria as of August 2017 and some forces remain in the region bordering Iraq. The report also conjectured that a number of ISIS fighters live in Idlib province in northeast Syria, controlled by the Syrian opposition forces and Kurds.

Moreover, according to the ISIS organizational chart that the organization made public in June 2016, it managed branches in 12 countries and secret forces in 7 countries other than the territories in Syria and Iraq. Without the reports that the ISIS disbanded, it is imaginable that these branches still remain unscathed. And there are estimates that the ISIS foreign fighters who returned to their home country amounts to 10,000 people and the ‘lone wolves’ who sympathize with ISIS all around the world reaches 8,000 people. Therefore, if they resume terrorist activities, a second caliphate, instigated by ISIS, could surface.

Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda and Taliban, which struck the fear of terrorism into countries around the world before the emergence of ISIS, still have the capability to carry out terrorist acts anytime in the Middle East or elsewhere, albeit being waned in strength. The agents and proponents of Al-Qaeda, enfeebled and disintegrated into several branches after its leader Osama bin Laden’s death, are supposedly engaged in rebel or terrorist activities in Syria (10,000-20,000), Somalia (7,000-9,000), Libya (5,000), and Yemen (4,000). Particularly, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) engaged in Yemeni civil war, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and Al-Nusra Front active in the Levant are well-known Al-Qaeda branches and it has faced rivalry with the Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

Lying low in Pakistan, the Taliban leadership, which lost power in Kabul after the post-September 11 U.S. invasion, aims to reclaim territorial control of Afghanistan. It is divided into different committees that supervise finances and fundraising, military operations, propaganda and public relations, religious affairs, administration, and other tasks. Currently, it is evaluated that the Taliban controls 14 percent of Afghanistan’s 399 provincial districts and battles with the government forces in 30 percent of districts.

 

Complexity Defines Power Competition in the Middle East

The age-old latent factors of conflict that subsided during the Syrian civil war and international campaign against ISIS resurfaced, casting a dark shadow in Middle East politics. The Syrian civil war is a culmination of sectarian dispute, regime suppression and opposition, emergence of ISIS, Saudi Arabia-Iran hegemonic rivalry, and the intervention of great powers such as the U.S. and Russia. In Syria, although the Sunni population constitutes the overwhelming majority (75 percent), followed by 15 percent Shias, the Shia Assad regime governed the country and suppressed the Sunni population. The suppressed Sunnis organized the opposition forces to rebel against the Shia regime. This led to the civil war that continues until now, and amid these struggles, the ISIS established a self-proclaimed caliphate after taking control of eastern Syria and western Iraq. The Sunni-leading Saudi Arabia intervened in the war to support the Sunni opposition and mobilized the support of other Sunni-majority countries including Gulf Cooperation Council members such as Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar as well as Jordan, Sudan, and Egypt. The U.S. has also cooperated with the Kingdom to defeat ISIS and to oust Assad from power.

Meanwhile, the Shia leader Iran provided rear-support for the Assad regime through Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine also provided aid to Iran, interfering in the conflict in Syria. As a consequence, Iran has cemented the ‘crescent belt’ or ‘Shia belt,’ forming Iraq-Syria-Lebanon connection. Russia, like the U.S., participated in the Syrian civil war to defeat ISIS, but had other motives in mind - to defend the Assad regime from the opposition forces. The Syrian regime has provided airbases and naval bases to Russia, crucial for Russia to flex its influence in the Mediterranean.

Moreover, Israel, having uncomfortable relations with Iran, sided with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, fearing Iran’s expanding presence in Syria. As such, the Syrian civil war pushed countries to form coalitions unimaginable in the past - Israel taking the same side with Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

National interests also shaped coalitions in the conflict in Yemen. Erupted in September 2014, the Yemeni civil war has been a violent struggle with Sunni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi on one side and Shia former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and Houthi rebels on the other side. Deposed by the Houthis, President Hadi exiled to Saudi Arabia to request aid and Saudi Arabia intervened to repel the Houthi forces, organizing a Sunni coalition force and claiming that Iran provides support to Houthis. Riyadh was anxious to be encircled by the Iran-led Shia belt (Lebanon-Syria-Iraq-Yemen axis) when a Shia regime takes power in Yemen. The war in Yemen has intensified as external actors continued to provide assistance: the U.S. assisted Saudi Arabia to reinstate President Hadi in Sana and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Lebanese Hezbollah empowered former President Saleh’s side.

 

Kurds’ Determination for Independence

The Kurds who largely contributed to the eradication of ISIS are Sunni majority population and reside in the mountainous Kurdistan that stretches across southeast Anatolia of Turkey, northern parts of Iran, Iraq, and Syria - about 300,000 sq km. Kurds are estimated to account for 30 million people in the region - 15.4 million in Turkey, 6.8 million in Iran, 4.3 million in Iraq, and 1.3 million in Syria. As they are spread across several countries, they are referred to as the ‘gypsies in the Middle East’ and they have been dreaming of a Kurdish independent state since the Second World War. Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria all have strained relations with Kurds in fear of the fragmentation of the state and even committed genocides against the civilian population.

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), which contributed to the downfall of ISIS with the support of the anti-ISIS coalition, pushed forward the referendum for independence, in defiance of the opposition from the international community. The Iraqi government forces, along with pro-Iranian Shia militia forces, conquered the Kirkuk region, the oil fields in the KRG, and Turkey has waged an offensive against Kurd-majority militia group YPG stationed in northern Syria, designating the group as separatist terrorist organization posing a threat to its national security. While the reports of full-scale war are absent, such situation will be unsurprising. Consequently, as long as the KRG keeps the ambitions for independence alive, seeds of confrontation will remain and may expand to a civil war.

 

U.S. Transition in Its Policy toward the Middle East

Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced the withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal) and the relocation of U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem on May 8 and May 14 respectively. As a result, the U.S.-Iran relations soared and the lingering Israel-Palestine conflict has reignited - casting a dark shadow in the Middle Eastern politics.

JCPOA was signed by five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran in July 2015. Iran accepted the stringent inspection of its nuclear program from the international community in exchange for the removal of international economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Trump administration argued that Iran has violated the terms, declared the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, and re-imposed economic sanctions against Iran. Iran repudiated against U.S. unilateral sanctions. Iran threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, the main shipping lane for Middle East oil exports. In spite of a low possibility, if Iran takes action to inhibit passage of Strait of Hormuz, the region will hear war drums beating.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has its roots as deep as the Sunni-Shia schism. It is referred to as the ‘powder keg of the Middle East.’ The international community proposed the ‘two-state solution’ through the Oslo Accord in 1993, and the-then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the accord under President Clinton’s watch. This has somewhat deterred the conflict between the two sides. While the construction of Israeli settlements within the Palestinian West Bank late 2016 undermined the Oslo Accord, diplomats from 70 countries convened in Paris on January 15, 2017 at the conference for peace in the Middle East and condemned the Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank and reaffirmed the two-state solution as the only solution to the lingering Israel-Palestine conflict. Nonetheless, President Trump, immediately after his inauguration, supported Israel’s construction of settlements in the Palestinian West Bank and signed the executive order approving the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since this move entails the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, it destroyed the hopes of Palestinians who viewed East Jerusalem as their capital. Recently, Guatemala and Australia hopped on this trend and other countries are expected to join in. However, when the new Brazilian president hinted at the possibility of relocating its embassy to Jerusalem, the Arab League sent a warning letter to Brazil conveying that such move will aggravate relations between Brazil and 22 member states of the Arab League. Particularly, the Palestinian military organization Hamas warned that the relocation of the embassy will be deemed as ‘an act of hostility against Islam.’ Therefore, Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalists may commit terrorist acts to prevent other countries that have diplomatic ties with Israel from moving their embassies to Jerusalem.

 

International Efforts for Peace in the Middle East

The international community has nothing much to do to stabilize the political situation in the Middle East. Especially, it cannot resolve the sectarian dispute among Muslims which undermines the political order in the region. The issue could only be solved by Muslims alone. Hence, the international community cannot determinedly curb hegemonic struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the Middle East and the surge of Islamic extremist violence sparked by sectarianism. The international community could only contribute to the stability in the MENA region by assisting the regional economic development and the global powers, particularly the U.S. and China, could be involved in the regional affairs within the international legal framework.

First, the international community should help improve the livelihood of the people in the region to make them immune from establishing or falling into temptations of the terrorist groups. The CIA’s World Factbook indicates that 55% of Afghans, 82.5% of Syrians, and 54% of Yemenis live below the poverty line. The international community should come up with solutions such as establishing a ‘Middle East stabilization fund’ (tentative) to improve the livelihood of these people. Many global powers such as China pursue infrastructure projects using billions of dollars around the world for their economic interests. These investments benefit the economic development of the beneficiaries as well as benefactors. Nevertheless, some of these investments should be diverted to establish the Middle East stabilization fund for economic development in the region and pursue economic stability measures for Muslim migrants - for a safer world.

Meanwhile, it is impossible to completely block great powers’ involvement in the international community with increasing interdependence. Still, the principles of fairness should be the premise of international intervention. Here, fairness signifies the compliance with international law and agreements (treaties). Washington should review the relocation of its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the withdrawal of Iran nuclear deal - both of which may have deleterious effects on the stability in the Middle East. It should also seek changes within the framework given regarding the Oslo Accords and JCPOA, rather than violating or annulling the whole agreement. If the U.S. reversal has some reasonable grounds, the parties concerned will support the U.S. This goes with Russia as well. Moscow should not categorically decline dialogues to discuss the human rights violations in Syria that the UN Security Council and show the willingness to resolve the issue through talks. It is understandable that the ‘fairness’ cannot be fully warranted given that the national interests alter the international relations. Still, the countries should strive to abide by the established principles and norms.

While these international efforts cannot immediately stabilize the Middle East, it could hinder any further deterioration of the situation and may contribute to the stability in the future.

 

 

                                                                                        

+ The U.S. Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act in 1995, providing the legal foundation to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. However, in pursuant to the presidential waiver, Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama had waived the actual relocation every six months.

 

 

 

 

This article is based on the author’s personal opinion and does not reflect the views of the Sejong Institute.

 

*Translator’s note: This is an unofficial translation of the original paper which was written in Korean. All references should be made to the original paper.