• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
28.09.2006

War in the Middle East

   

Gagik Ter-Harutyunyan 

US strategy: The present situation in the Middle East (ME) is conditioned by “antiterrorist war” initiating from September 11, 2001 and as a result of which actions undertaken against Afghanistan and Iran. According to the neoconservatives, carrying out the US up-to-date policy, the American expansion was to alter ideological, geopolitical and economic trend of ME and Central Asia, resulting formation of new ethnical-state elements. Such programs, especially in ME, were perusing the following goals.

  • To take up favorable position for the US in Eurasia and thus geopolitically advantage over China and Russia (the change in Iran’s regime was supposed to be solve immediately, in the first phase of operations, using Iraq as a bridge-head for military intrusion).
  • By exerting power supervision over ME energetic resources, guarantee its own energetic security and gain geo-economic leverages over China, India as well as Europe and Japan lacking energy resources.
  • To insure Israel’s security and take the countries of geopolitical value in the region under control (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and in the future also Saudi Arabia and Egypt).
  • To introduce a democratic system corresponding to American ideas by means of changing regimes in ME countries that would ensure longevity of achievements.

One should accept that in ME the US is able to solve some of the tasks undertaken by it. Iraq is actually divided into parts1, avoiding possible developments, Lebanon authorities preferred changing their orientations, and thus, leaving the ranks of the countries of radical Islam, Syria had to give up its position in Lebanon. At the same time one may state as a fact that the programs of the US present strategy are not that ideal and the following factors were miscalculated:

  • The US actions were globally accepted as an aspiration to create an absolutely unipolar world-order. It aroused opposition of the rest of the world and was expressed by steps made by China, Russia, Europe and some South American countries against the US monopolistic aspirations: in the initial stage the actions of those countries were irregular; however, little by little they became more systemized.
  • Iran’s evolution changed correlation of forces in military-political, economic and information fields and, thus, situation in ME region. At present Iran has gained the role of a real actor in political life of ME countries (especially Iraq, Syria and Lebanon) and today it symbolizes the resistance of the Islamic World against the US and Israel as the leading country of the region. It is noteworthy that instead of bringing to the isolation of those countries (as it was supposed) the developments on Iran’s nuclear program definitely furthered the unification of Russia, China and partially France and German.

As a result of the above mentioned circumstances, the joint plans of the US and Israel were left unfinished and their position tends to shatter both globally and regionally. In such a condition some analysts predict regional military actions, keeping in view the US-Iran confrontation. However, in the present phase the United States didn’t undertake any direct military actions, considering it more expedient to wage “a little victorious war” thorough Israel instead: It would allow the US to suspend negative regional tendencies for it, to improve the “power state’s” shaking image in the international community as well as to raise the prestige of the republican administration in the inner political field.

However, short-term military actions turned into a large-scale war by full participation of Israel, the US, Iran in the face of “Hezbollah” and partially Syria.

The war and the US: Some sources have come to prove that it was the US which stirred up the military actions. According to an American popular journalist Seymour Hersh the attack on Lebanon was planned till July 12, when “Hezbollah” took two Israeli soldiers hostage. The attack on Lebanon and extermination of “Hezbollah’s” beachheads and military infrastructures by air-rocket blows is the part of the plan drawn up against Iran. It was also supposed that the military actions were to be over within seven days, that’s to say the Americans considered it to be “a little victorious war”.

At the same time according to information provided by one of the “Hezbollah” leaders Naim Qasem, Israel was going to strike a blow in September, but, under the pressure of the US administration, Tzahal began active military operations two months earlier. This information has come to prove that the beginning of the war was probably coincided with the summit of “G8” in Saint Petersburg on June 15-17. This hypothesis is also affirmed by the fact that putting a stress on threats of terrorism during the summit and thus grounding and legitimizing antiterrorist strategy of the US present administration has become a distinctive tradition: let’s remember that a series of terrorist acts were realized in London during the summit held in Edinburgh last year which may also be interpreted in the context of diplomatic-information actions. Let also notice that already during the war the US and Great Britain undertook the second large-scale “information” operation, revealing Pakistani “air-terrorists’ net”.

Proceeding from the above mentioned the American approaches to ME developments may be generalized in the following way:

  1. The victorious war was globally necessary for the US to restore its shaking political positions in the international community and in particular in “G8” format. In the information field that war was planned to be “victorious and short-term”.
  2. In the ME territory that “victorious and short-term war” was based on the logic of the US-Iran geopolitical and geo-ideological confrontation. This confrontation between Israel-“Hezollah” was necessary for the leaders of the US armed forces as a military experience in the context of possible large-scale military operations against Iran.
  3. “Victorious war” had urgent importance for Washington’s republican administration, taking into account the elections in Congress in November and, in that context, law rating of the president Bush.

The war outcome for the US: One may state as a fact that the war related US plans were only partially realized: Military operations took more then a month and they can hardly be qualified as “victorious”. As a result the US surrendered its position both regionally and globally. In particular Iran made its position firmer in the issue of its nuclear program, the European countries changed their strict approach into a milder and became more flexible and Russia and China gained additional grounding. It is possible that following Iran’s example, South-African Republic and Argentina became free to speak about their own nuclear program more actively. The image of the republican administration also suffered noticeably: according to American research group Bush’s rating in September reached to the lowest in the history: only 35% of American citizens considered that Bush meets his obligations. The administration’s opposition forces gained additional grounding to criticize the current policy adopted, which may in the future hinder the Republicans to succeed in elections.

However, in confrontation with “Hezbollah” the US gained good martial experience: at present the US military experts analyze efficiency of Tzahal’s military operations that will help them avoid mistakes in the future.

 

Israel: The tactical issue of this country is to dissolve “Hamas” which has come to power in Palestine and exterminate “Hezbollah’s” military infrastructures, especially missile weapon emplacements. In information-psychological field “a victorious war” was supposed, which was to strengthen Israel’s image of a regional “power state” and the position of the prime minister Olmert in the internal political field. At the same time by these actions the Israeli authorities envisaged to disrupt at a maximum Shia and Suni communities in Lebanon.

The operations against “Hamas” had a punitive character and the Israelis succeeded. However in case of “Hezbollah” they faced serious resistance and the problem was solved only partially: let’s only mention that Israel was being rocketed till the last day and its population of about a million had to leave their homes or hide themselves in bomb-shelters for many days. Israel’s economy incurred losses of more then $2.6 billion. The war’s strategic issue was not solved either: as a result, instead of straining the relations between Suni and Shia made them gather around “Hezbollah”. It is noteworthy that the controversies prevalent in the Arabic world also reduced. The War slackened Israel’s position in International Community: let’s only mention that Germany, Italy and Grate Britain prohibited EI AI airline, which transfers goods for Tzahal , to use their airports for fueling up.

Military comparative failures caused internal-political crisis in Israeli community as a result of which greatly suffered the image of Israel as a republic: one can state as a fact that in information-physiological field the losses of Israel are more then in the military field.

At the same time political-diplomatic outcome of the war may hardly be considered unfavorable for Israel: Deployment of peace-keeping forces restricts “Hezbollah” to be free in actions accordingly raising Israel’s rate of security.

Iran: As we have already mentioned above, the main target for war for the US and Israel was Iran with its increasing pretensions. It’s noteworthy that from overall news an impression is created that launching of military operations was also favorable for Iran. Taking into account the developments on nuclear program and the American well known attacking plans, the transfer of the epicenter of developments from Iran to Lebanon and Palestine must be advantageous for Iran. That’s to say, forming well trained network and branch structure of “Hezbollah” in Southern Lebanon and accumulating a considerable military resources there, Iran was to aim at “moving” the possible developments out of its borders and destabilizing situation in that country. In this sense Iran was not against at all and was ready for the military operations to begin (maybe not to that extent). At the same time in psychological-information field military success for Iran was as necessary as for the US and Israel.

One should state as a fact that combining “Hezbollah’s” military-political potential, diplomatic maneuvers and threats (demonstration of new kinds of arms in parallel with military trainings, promises to stop oil exportation and thus to raise the price of a barrel to $100-150 in answer to UN possible sanctions) Iran obtained striking results. In middle-term prospective that country benefited most of all. We can only stress up that as a result Iran managed to some extent legitimize its nuclear program (International Community has considerably surrendered its position to that program). One may suppose that in the main the war outcome restrained the intentions to solve the US-Iran conflicts through military operations. Iran also strengthened its position in ME and the whole Islamic world. In internal political field was improved Ahmadinejad’s position, where a serious opposition was being formed against him. Rise in Ahmadinejad’s rating was also obvious in political-analytical community: for example The Director of the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies Yevgeni Satanovski characterized Ahmadinejad “as a cold-hearted and talented figure”.

The war outcome and Armenia: It is known that Republic of Armenia (RA) and Armenians have clear cut national interests in ME region. The Armenian communities in Lebanon and ME in general were the victims of continuous military operations, and in this sense the last war is not exclusion. It is obvious that the collapse of Lebanon’s infrastructures resulted Armenians’ departure from the region. At the same time one should take into consideration the fact that besides the Armenian community there is a considerable part of the Armenian national wealth in Jerusalem and in that sense approaches to ME developments should have balanced character.

Today some suggestions are voiced in RA to send peace-keeping forces in Jerusalem. Let’s notice that they are not without grounding: in any case such a step is not less justified then the one to send a military unit to Iraq. At the same time it is known that such issues are settled in the framework of great states’ decisions. In that sense political and information presence of RA in ME, that doesn’t have satisfactory solutions yet, is more urgent.

ME developments are indirectly connected with Nagorni Karabakh issues. In that context the war outcome should perhaps be estimated as positive. Such approach is grounded by the following considerations:

  • The probability that the US will undertake military operations against Iran in short-term prospective has reduced, which, in its turn, reduces urgency to put the liberated territories of Nagorni Karabakh under the control of international powers.
  • Strengthening of the position of Russia and Iran, as the war outcome will further the establishment of relative balance of powers in case of Nagorni Karabakh conflict between those countries and the US: such a situation increases the possibility for the RA to make diplomatic maneuvers.

1 Let’s notice that the chaotic situation in Iraq may be estimated in two ways. The territory of that country is not controlled by the US military forces, which gives way to interpret the US military-political failure. However, if we consider the situation from the standpoint of spitted Iraq and transferring the present instability to the other regional countries (which may make a ground for them to be put under the US control), then one can not exclude that in such a way the Americans, proceeding from the logic of so called conception of controllable chaos, try to solve the problems set before them.


Return
Another materials of author