US must update policy to shift alliances in Mideast, analysts say

President Barack Obama has so far failed to show the expected performance in shifting U.S. policy toward the Middle East, according to an analysis by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, or ICG.

The region hosts chronic problems that pose potential risks to international security. Obama, whose election campaign was based on “change,” raised hopes for a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy after eight years of the pro-war Bush administration.

The SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research hosted a panel Friday titled “The U.S. and Shifting Dynamics in the Middle East” with the participation of ICG experts Robert Malley, Joost Hiltermann and Peter Harling.

Obama is having a rough time dealing with the unwanted war in Iraq, the bankrupt Israeli-Arab situation and deteriorating security in Afghanistan, the analysts suggested.

“Israeli actions are threatening U.S. actions and military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Malley, the ICG’s Middle East program director.

The traditional U.S. approach divides the region into two camps: moderates and extremists. But shifting alliances have changed the power balances and perception toward the United States.

The region is highly fluid and home to growing fragmentation; the traditional U.S. mindset disregarding subtle shifts thus risks missing realistic opportunities to help reshape the Middle East, according to Malley.

Qatar brokered the inter-Lebanese accord in May 2008, and Turkey mediated Israeli-Syria negotiations, as neither country belongs to any camp and opts to talk to all sides, Malley said.

He also noted that Saudi Arabia, regarded as part of the pro-U.S. camp, and Syria, assumed to be part of the anti-U.S. camp, reached common ground in response to Iran’s role in Yemen. The Saudi administration also renewed its contacts with Hamas after a long period of estrangement.

Syria, giving up its exclusive ties with Iran, began opening dialogue channels with Turkey, Qatar and France. Damascus and Tehran, contrary to their alliance, have also been backing rival factions in war-torn Iraq.

“We cannot deal with shifting dynamics if we don’t have a different voice,” Malley said.

The U.S. invasion was a major earthquake for the entire region and caused a huge gap in Iraq, with many reversals and a nasty sectarian war, according to Hiltermann, who recently released a report about Iraq.

“I think the withdrawal will have a disruptive effect if it is done in the wrong way,” Hiltermann said. “Iraq is not quite ready,” he added, urging Obama to consider not only his timetable but also the needs of the Iraqis.  

The relevant competition in the Middle East is not between a pro-Iranian and a pro-American axis but between two homegrown visions, according to Harling, the group’s Damascus-based project director for Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

“Conflicts are more inter-connected ... with each other than they were in the past,” Harling said.

Praising Turkish diplomacy, which emphasizes engagement with all parties and valuing economic integration, Harling said, “The U.S. perspective is still dominating an outlook based on ‘with us or against us.’”

“In a region imagined as segregated between two mutually exclusive camps, Turkey’s multifaceted diplomacy is at best mystifying, and at worst it raises suspicions of disloyalty,” Malley said.

Though he noted Washington’s concern about deteriorating Israeli-Turkey relations, Malley said that based on remarks by U.S. diplomats, “Turkey did better than the U.S by negotiating between the two [Syria and Israel].”