World

Dynamics in the Middle East are Shifting, but in which Direction?


The dynamics of the Middle East are changing. From a protracted pandemic to growing Chinese interests and influence in the region and general fatigue in the West of protracted military conflicts, the region today poses both Threats and opportunities are far different than they were a few years ago.

Cryptographic Summary Speaks to the Expert Norm Roulewho served as the Former Director of National Intelligence on Iran at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) – and now regularly travels to the region to meet with senior officials in many countries – to grasp how he We see regional change, the dynamics behind it, the new US role and where issues and events are most likely heading.

Summary of the password: Let’s start with the big picture. What is the most important framing issue we should consider when looking at the Middle East?

Simple: Perhaps the most transformative issue shaping the region and the world at large is the emergence of a growing multipolar dynamic not seen since the late 1930s or 1870s. For some, this will mean an opportunity to assert new influence in the region and positively transform their politics and economy. The Treaty of Abraham, Emirati cross-border and technological initiatives, as well as Saudi Arabia’s social and economic liberalization are all part of this process. The rise of India has only just begun but we should consider further what this means for the Middle East.

American influence is shifting in this new world. Events are beginning to unfold with the United States’ views receiving less attention. Iran, Russia, Turkey and China are all seeking a larger footprint in the region, sometimes using asymmetrical tools. The status quo says internally that response options are being debated while these active but innovative actors build facts on the ground.

The dynamics behind this evolution are complex, including the rise of China and India, Brexit, Western fatigue with protracted military conflicts, and an unrelenting hybrid war. by Iran, Russia and Turkey. A weak United Nations, divided within Europe, a NATO that sometimes has no rudder and the rise of informal alliances with traditional international organizations are all variables we need to consider. should consider. The economic, social and political impacts of COVID further complicate this. It is clear that it would be an overstatement to attribute this development impetus to US decisions or even that we are leaving the region. To be sure, Americans have changed their view of our role in the world and how we should treat our longtime adversaries and partners. But our private sector involvement is strong and growing.

There are growing concerns about the role the United States will seek in the Middle East. Whatever your view of Afghanistan’s withdrawal, the dire consequences for the people of Afghanistan occurred on the doorstep of an already chaotic region. The poor execution of our departure has undermined international security efforts, redefined the geo-political position of Southwest Asia, deeply damaged America’s credibility in the region and political divisions in the United States. All of our regional partners have taken care of this.

Summary of the password: You talk about Russia, China, Iran, and even Turkey as revisionist actors. These are very different countries. Do they share any common strategies or tactics?

Simple: I think there are some common themes here. As their name suggests, revisionists seek to change the status quo. In the beginning, they often used reliable but undeniably tactics to test the strength of their opponents. Such countries tend to attract each other, especially as they seek leverage against the US and Europe.

They also share some common goals:

• First of all, revisionist states seek to transform the structure of the international community in a way that normalizes actions previously considered unacceptable and even grounds for war . Such countries can take risks, but war is not their goal. Their strategy requires a world that convinces itself that it is unable or unwilling to pay the potential costs of confronting invaders. This leaves non-coercive economic or diplomatic sanctions as the only tools left for policymakers.

· Aggressive revisionist countries are often the target of sanctions. However, because they are authoritarian, they can tolerate economic punishment relatively well in the short and medium term.

· Revisionist countries do not avoid diplomacy; they exploit it. Diplomacy provides a means to bring their priorities to the fore on the world stage. Without its aggressive behavior, Iran would certainly not receive the international attention it has enjoyed in recent years. Because adversaries respond to threats based on their proximity to the danger, revisionists use diplomacy to disrupt alliances. Here, consider how Europe and the Arab Gulf states or Israel respond to Iran. Another example is the different positions of Europe and the United States in relation to China.

Second, they seek to reassert influence in the geographic area they consider historically controlled.

Ultimately, they seek to erase American influence or at least severely weaken it. For all of our challenges, the US remains the best and perhaps only guarantor of global stability.


Cipher Brief holds private meetings with the world’s most experienced national and global security team Experts. Become a member today.


Summary of the password: Let’s turn the focus to Iran. What are Tehran’s goals in the nuclear negotiations?

Simple: First, some context. While the nuclear issue dominates American thinking about Iran, Iran’s Policy in relation to the West is broader. Tehran also considers how its choices will affect the regime’s transition to a new generation of hardline leaders. Iran does not seek engagement with the United States, nor has it shown any interest in modifying its behavior on regional or missile affairs.

The arrival of the Biden administration in January 2021 has brought about a series of intriguing policy changes that go far beyond the announced intention to return to the nuclear deal. Almost every key member of the Biden team dealing with Iran is known to Tehran as a supporter of the nuclear deal. Several senior and mid-level officials of the new administration have publicly opposed maximum pressure tactics during the Trump years and voiced opposition to military action against Iran. The administration’s relations with Israel and the Gulf Arab states are likely to turn icy. Washington has made it clear that it plans to reduce its military presence in the Middle East. It is unlikely that even Iran’s leaders would expect a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, but that decision certainly underpins any assessment that America’s commitment to the region is remarkable. The administration’s focus on improving relations with Europe, competing with China, and solving America’s complex social and infrastructure problems will severely limit the domestic and foreign political capital available to confront it. deal with Iran.

Iran may have chosen to return to the deal quickly. But Tehran wants more than that. Iran’s goals in the negotiations were consistent, although they became clearer with the arrival of Iran’s new hardline president.

First, Tehran has sought to become the dominant voice over the direction, timing, and participants of nuclear negotiations. US tensions with Russia and China have helped in this regard.

Second, Iran uses the nuclear negotiations as a stepping stone against pressure on hostage-taking, missile, terrorist and hostage actions in the region and to achieve clear recognition of clear about his leadership role. The nuclear negotiations forced the most important international actors to sidestep Iran’s denuclearization activities and drew Iran’s participation in a forum that saw Tehran as a major power. The Raisi government is one of the bloodiest in the history of the Islamic Republic, but its representatives regularly meet with their Western counterparts.

Third, expand its civilian nuclear program to achieve a new normal that the international community is forced to accept, achieve permanent nuclear weapons threshold status, and negotiate leverage against request an extension of the terms of the agreement.

Next, mitigate the impact of nuclear sanctions and denuclearization. Iran’s supreme leadership has repeatedly opposed commercial engagement that has also brought about the contagion of Western liberalism. This does not mean that Tehran opposes trade. Indeed, the opposite. Iran aggressively seeks foreign investment and Western technology. But even when nuclear sanctions are lifted, Tehran’s denuclearization action has frequently introduced its own sanctions. Few business leaders are willing to risk shareholder wealth in a geographic area likely to be the target of economic pressures. For this reason, Tehran has sought to use the negotiations to prevent the US from being able to impose significant sanctions for any reason in the future.

Ultimately, Tehran seeks to weaken American influence in the Middle East and on the international stage. Iran is unlikely to return to the deal until it believes it has done everything it can to secure another US withdrawal – or impose oil or financial sanctions in response. Tehran’s denuclearization action – is unquestionable.

Summary of the password: Looks like a deal is off the table.

Simple: It is hard to imagine reinstating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal without substantial and consequential concessions by the United States. The Biden administration will find it difficult to introduce denuclearization sanctions because Iran has many documents that violate international law.

On a side note, I believe we could see a hostage deal this year. In return for Westerners unjustly imprisoned in Iran, Tehran will be freed Iranian citizens and possibly frozen billions of dollars. Such a step would be lauded by the hostage families and some advocates of engagement, but it is unlikely to prevent Tehran from taking hostages in the future.


Go beyond the headlines with an expert look at today’s news with The Cipher Brief’s Daily open source podcast. Listen or wherever you listen to podcasts.


Summary of the password: What could make Iran change its mind about a deal? Are there any metrics we should be monitoring?

Simple: I don’t see much evidence that Iran has to make major concessions. Tehran follows our politics closely, and it certainly understands the political challenges facing the Biden administration, including the ongoing crisis with Moscow.

However, in theory, a few things can change the dynamics. These include: P5+1 believes Iran is preparing to weaponize its civilian nuclear program. A major economic or political crisis in Iran could prompt Tehran to seek economic and political benefits in returning to the deal. I don’t see either of these as likely. If a deal does happen, it will most likely be the result of profound US concessions, especially on how we impose future sanctions.

Read more expert-driven national security views and analysis in Summary of ciphers



Source link

news7f

News7F: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button