The Emerging Order in the Middle East

 Terms that are put together, such as “Islamic tyranny”, “Islamic threat” and “Islamic extremism”, etc. are contradictory. Oppression and tyranny are even worse than atheism in Islam. From the beginning, Islam arrived to end tyranny and oppression. In the Holy Qoran, oppressing the people is among the worst of sins. Extremism is severely criticized in Islam and Islam introduces its followers as moderates. The real meaning of Islam is peace that does mix with threats and wars. These contradictory phrases mislead public opinion about Islam and Muslims. Of course, what cannot be neglected is that there have been misinterpretations of religious texts to justify some wrong behavior on the part of some Muslims. However, this has happened in all belief systems, both religious and secular, and it has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, this way of thinking simply antagonizes Muslim societies in a way that extremists benefit.

It seems that the real concern of the global order is not tyranny. If oppression is the main concern, why have the global powers supported secular tyrannies for such a long time? Thousands of people have been jailed, tortured and killed by the secular despots in the Middle East during past decades without provoking adequate criticism by democratic governments. The corrupt dictators have held most of their properties and wealth in the EU and the US. These countries know very well how corrupted their allies are in the Middle East. And that’s why it is not believable to say that the decision makers and influential people in the West are concerned about tyranny, human rights and corruption in this part of the world.

In this regard, we have to distinguish between civil society and the governments in the West. Western societies are totally against corruption and oppression and they do not tolerate such behaviors in their political systems. However, unfortunately governments have comfortably tolerated and justified them as a matter of national interests, security and realism in other parts of the world, and ordinary people in the West are not familiar with this aspect of their governments’ behavior.

With regard to the relations between State and religion, Islam is different from other faiths, and the historical experiences of the people are also different. In Islamic societies, in many cases religion is not the problem but the solution. Belief systems are very important internal mechanisms that control the behavior of their followers. Islam can play a good role in fighting and preventing corruption and oppression as the main problems in the Middle East and North Africa. This aspect of religion has been neglected.

Even regards incorrect interpretations, if we take a deeper look at human misery during the past one hundred years, the number of those who have suffered in the name of religion are not comparable with those who have suffered in secular systems. The First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, Communist rule, and dictatorships in the Middle East have not been religion-based. So why do we witness so many attacks against religion, and especially Islam? Iran-bashing and Islam-bashing are not the right approach to influencing trends in the Middle East. The right position is to oppose any kind of tyranny and dictatorship. The people are seeking a better life and they have the right to choose the kind of system that can provide it.

The Iranian example is one that is mostly attacked in these days. Contrary to what is perceived in the West, the Iranian political system after the Islamic revolution has been diversified. Different political groups have come to power and gone. It has prevented widespread corruption and the creation of an oligarchy that monopolizes all political and economic power. No one inside the country denies the existence of some problems. However, Iran cannot be compared with other countries in the region. Different political groups have their social, political and economic bases and internal checks and balances have prevented the system from going to one particular direction. [1]

In the Arab world, the main holders of dictatorship were not military and intelligence instruments. In these countries the religious structures have been different from Shia countries, and the influence of the State on religion has been much stronger. For centuries it has been emphasized that stability is very important and rising up against the rulers is forbidden. When the Islamic revolution happened in Iran, many predicted that it would not spread to the Arab World because of the difference in interpretation of religious texts between the two main schools of thought in Islam. Shias have mostly been in the minority in the Muslim world, and uprising against the oppressors is not only allowed religiously but also has been common among them. And Shias have different and strong historical examples, like Imam Hussein, the third Imam for Shias, that have created the culture of resistance against illegitimate rulers.

However, in the Arab countries it has been different. Now they have their own example of rising up against dictators. It paves the way for further uprisings against the despots in other countries, and it will lead to new interpretation of religious texts by the new generation of religious scholars and intellectuals. It is a very important development that will contribute to the expansion of the current trend in the Islamic countries.

Unfortunately, anti-Iran and anti-Islam tendencies are much stronger in the West than anti-Western tendencies in Iran and the Middle East. The majority of criticism against Iran and Islamic groups in the Western media is simplistic, superficial and counterproductive. For example, during the past few months the Western media have extensively covered the news about a woman who is accused of betrayal and murder of her husband, while nothing can be found in the media about those thousands of innocent people who have been killed, injured, jailed, and tortured in Egypt, the Palestinian territories, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. The criticisms that Muslims and Iranians raise against themselves are much more challenging and constructive. No country or culture is absolute, and we learn by constructive criticism. However, criticism is different from exploting any instrument and any case to present a negative picture of other countries and cultures. That’s what’s called a “soft” war.

During the Cold War the mainstream media in the West were constantly attacking communism, and now they are attacking Islam and Iran and attach anything negative to them that they can. After the Islamic revolution, Western media have rarely covered anything positive about Iran and Islamic groups: whatever Iran does is negative. Iran cooperates with the West, then it is labeled part of “axis of Evil”. The 9/11 terrorists come from US allies, but Iran is regarded as the main supporter of terrorism. Iran and its allies are targeted by terrorists, but there is no Western condemnation. The question is, why is such a country (an imaginary Iran) developing and its regional influence increasing while the moderate and peace-loving secular dictators supported by the EU and the US are falling, and the power and influence of the West is shrinking? The West does not have any democratic, reliable and stable ally, from North Africa to Central Asia.

Islamic groups have not been the enemy of the West. While they criticize Western behavior toward Islamic countries, they also praise Western economic, social, political and scientific achievements. Some of them have been educated in the West and if they can, most of them send their sons and daughters to continue their education in the West. These facts show that it’s wrong to regard them as anti-Western. In addition, this behavior shows that it is possible both to be a Muslim and live in the West and cooperate with the West.

The problems between Islamic groups and Western countries do not stem from EU/US legitimate interests and concerns. During the past six decades, the West has not thought about much in the Middle East other than Israel, oil and markets. Israeli security has been on the top of their agenda without paying any attention to the security concerns of other countries. The US and European powers have created the impression that they look at the Middle East as a backward neighborhood good for competition with each other and other global powers, and have totally neglected millions of people who are living there. In Egypt many people have been living in cemeteries, and the embassies of democratic nations knew of this situation and of the corrupt authorities there. If they had wanted to prevent the decline of Mubarak as an important ally, they could have recommend to him that he invest some of his billions of dollars for his people. Instead of criticizing the Islamic groups, it is better that the EU&US review their records. The current emphasis on “Islamic Threat” simply antagonizes Muslim societies.

With regard to the peace process- one that has not existed for at least ten years- Mubarak was regarded as someone who supported the peace. The question is, who has been the main obstacle toward peace in the Middle East? Who killed Mr. Rabin and contributed to the failure of the peace process? And who changed the peace process to a war process after 9/11? As the recently published Al Jazeera documents manifest, the Palestinian Authority has offered every concession to Israel. So why has the peace process failed? The reason is clear: some influential groups in Israel do not seek peace. According to Mearsheimer and Walt[2], Israel has not been a strategic asset, but a strategic liability for the West.

Muslim societies have not been anti-Semitic, for if they were, Jews could not live there for centuries. The voting power of a Jew in Iranian parliamentary elections is 10 times more than a Muslim’s[3]. The negative image of Israel in Muslim countries stems from its behavior. A democratic Middle East will force those who oppose peace to change their behavior and accept the realities in the region. Israeli insecurity stems from occupation, expansionist policies, and strong tendency to impose its will on the region. No longer can Israel follow such policies, and unconditional support of such behavior undermines the Western position in the Middle East.

Global powers have also not been supportive of peace in the Middle East. US-EU support has encouraged Israel to make more mistakes and weaken its position. The Quartet is a conflict management mechanism, not a conflict resolution one. The Quartet members have regarded the Arab-Israel problem as a sort of playground issue. The main players and benefactors have been the global powers, and the main losers have been the regional countries. From the Second World War until now we haven’t witnessed any few years without a major conflict in this part of the world. The continuing Great Game in the region has securitized the Middle East for more than six decades. Security has been on the top of the agenda of any government for a long time, and this securitized situation has prevented economic, social, political, economic and scientific development. The people have been suffering and the intellectuals, educated people and job creators, have been emigrating to the West and East. What does the West expect from such a situation, one that it has played an important role in creating?

Exaggeration about security concerns in the Middle East may be good for the Global powers to sell their own products, especially useless armaments. However, following such a policy for a long time leads to dictatorship, instability, underdevelopment, and accumulation of frustrations and unanswered demands. These issues have strengthened each other and created a vicious cycle, and the world is now witnessing its consequences. Regarding Egypt’s developments, President Obama said, “we are watching history unfold”, while it is not the history but actually the consequences of past US and other global power’s behaviors that is unfolding. 

The West needs to reconsider its behavior toward the region. The Shah, Mubarak and Ben Ali cases are enough to reach the conclusion that relying on dictators will not bring about peace and stability. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon cases are enough to reach the conclusion that occupation, intervention, sanctions, isolation and establishing military bases are not the best approach to contributing to common peace and security of the Middle East and the West. Following such policies during the past decades have just increased the costs for the people, and exacerbated the problems for the governments both in the ME and the West.

Middle Eastern societies are mostly mosaic societies including different social, political, religious and ethnic groups. Furthermore, the problems are huge and the resources are scarce. Long-term unanswered challenges and deep rooted problems oblige all to create a broad-based system through dialogue that every group can cooperate and participate in to solve problems. Any approach that neglects parts of society will weaken the whole political system and contribute to its failure from the beginning.

Foreign intervention, weakness of civil society, nonexistence of a strong middle class, and monopoly of financial resources in the government in many cases can pave the way for monopolization of all power by a single political group. To prevent that, diversification of political and economic structures is necessary. In the short term, it may create obstacles in the decision-making process, however in the mid- to long-term the system will stabilize and its efficiency will increase. Ben Ali’s and Mubarak’s words in the last days of their rule shows that those who surround dictators present a rosy picture of the country to them. That’s why until the very last days of their power they are not familiar with real problems. Diversification of the power structure prevents such a thing from happening, and it will be both to the benefit of ruling groups and to the people. Furthermore, it facilitates the peaceful transition of power between different parties.

The West has supported democracy as long as democratic forces have been able to maximize Western interests. However, it is not possible both to be democratic and to maximize the interests of foreign powers. The future of EU-US strategic interests rests in the Arab streets, not its corrupted dictatorships. These governments have lost their credibility and are not able to bring about real reform. In the Middle East, wining elections and coming to power is the easiest part of internal politics. The most difficult part is solving the people’s problems. That’s why capacity building, and using all social, political and intellectual capital to solve the problems is necessary. Internal clashes between different political groups will erode their power and legitimacy. If political groups do not have enough capacity and cannot bring together different tendencies to solve the problems, they will lose their power very soon.

The future of the Middle East belongs to the people, and the emerging order will be democratic. Naturally, the majority of people there are Muslims, and the influence of Islam on their political culture is self-evident. Those who have shown their sincerity to the people, have contributed to providing a better life for them, and have supported the legitimate rights and concerns of the countries in the region, should not be concerned about the new developments in the Middle East. However, those who have supported dictatorship and turned to economic sanctions, military threats and interventions against the people in the Middle East need to change their behaviors.