Complexities of Middle East politics: Trump effect

Things are moving fast in the Middle East and it has seemingly coincided with the unexpected election of Donald Trump as the new US President last month. However, it is still not very clear if the changes that visibly surprised many analysts are taking place because of the uncertainties prompted by President-elect Donald Trump's controversial pronouncements on major policy matters.
Manifestations of a change in thinking in the capitals of some of the major strategic players in the region were discernible for sometime which, according to some observers, would have surfaced at a later stage, regardless of the US presidential poll result. But Trump's surprising victory may have accelerated the pace of such a development.
Trump created such a negative image of himself that none was surprised when the stock markets in the US and around the world slumped following the announcement of his election result and Tehran stock prices downed five per cent. However, within minutes of his acceptance speech, in which he said "we will deal fairly with everyone" and that "we will seek common ground, not hostility," the markets rebounded. It was construed in Iran and elsewhere that the Trump presidency may not be as bad as it was apprehended. However, sceptics differ.
Some of Trump's comments such as improving ties with Russia, which backs Syria like Iran and suggestion that his priority on Syria's seemingly endless war would be to fight ISIS hardliners rather than go for a regime change in Syria; and criticism of Washington's close ties with Riyadh (Tehran's rival in ME) and that he would rein in Washington's global security commitments; were apparently liked by Iran.  Observers suggest, because of these statements, Tehran would perhaps prefer Trump to Hillary Clinton as president if he does not try to wreck the nuclear deal.
TEHRAN PROPOSES FORMING ANTI-TERROR BLOC WITH RIYADH: Meanwhile, Iran has clearly surprised all and sundry by proposing early in December to form a bloc of Muslim countries against terrorism and boost economic cooperation in the region and that one of those countries would include its arch regional rival Saudi Arabia.
Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani, while addressing a security conference in Tehran on December 11, said that four other countries including Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan would be part of this six-nation bloc to promote "regional peace based on Islam, defending Palestinian people, fighting terrorism and economic interests." This proposal appears interesting in a region where rivalry between Shiite-majority Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia (and a close US-ally) has been dominating the strategically important region's politics.
A western news agency in a report from Tehran quoted Larijani as explaining that Saudi Arabia and other nations should know that Iran is not "their enemy." He said, Iran is opposed to warmongering in Syria and Yemen and wants to resolve regional conflicts through "national solidarity governments resorting to democratic methods." He further said: "Iran is not after creating an empire and hegemony in the region… Our viewpoint is aimed at improving unity."
The new proposed bloc with Sunni-majority populous Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and wealthy Saudi Arabia and together with Shiite-dominated Iran and Iraq appears rather incongruous in the context of the prevailing ME politics. While some say that Tehran must have sounded out Riyadh through a third party about the bloc formation, but the possibility of Saudi kingdom's acceptance of the proposal is still questioned by many - and for good reasons.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are on the opposing sides of two ongoing bloody wars in the Middle East - Syria and Yemen. Riyadh and a few oil-rich Gulf countries have been bankrolling the West-initiated rebels in Syria. Earlier in October, a two-day security summit was held in Bahrain where leaders of Western-allied Arab Gulf countries agreed to counter Iran's "destabilising activities" in the region.
In this context, it should be mentioned that Saudi Arabia had announced the formation of a 34-member "Islamic military alliance" last year against terrorism in the region. Iran was dutifully excluded from this large group of Muslim countries. However, as expected, the so-called "Islamic military alliance" died a premature death even before its formal launching largely because of the seeds of discord ingrained in it.
Yet another stumbling block on Tehran-Riyadh amity is that Saudi Arabia snapped diplomatic ties with Iran in January this year after Iranian demonstrators stormed Saudi embassy to protest the execution of a prominent and widely popular Saudi Shiite cleric.
EGYPT'S SHIFTING STANCE HELPS IRAN'S STRATEGIC COOPERATION: It became clear for some time that both Iran and Egypt were engaging themselves diplomatically over Syrian imbroglio. According to London-based Guardian, a desperate US Secretary of State John Kerry had asked Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javed Zariff in October to attend a six-nation talks in Swiss city of Lausenne to "see if a new reasonableness can manifest itself" in Syria, Zariff replied: "Why not Egypt too?" Iran agreed to attend only when it secured seats at the meeting for both Egypt and Iraq.
There is a reason for this bargaining. Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the US were to participate in the meeting. However, after a couple of days of wrangling, Kerry agreed to the participation of Egypt and Iraq. It was to ensure that Tehran  would not be outnumbered by anti-Assad coalition. Incidentally, before the lobbying for Egyptian officials to attend the talks, Cairo had shocked Riyadh by voting with Russia on a UN Security Council resolution on Syria, stripping out French demands for an end to air strikes on Aleppo and military overflights.
This simply outraged Riyadh and its UN envoy described Egypt's decision as "painful". Saudi Arabia has been funding President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi since he had ousted the elected president Mohamed Morsi of Muslim Brotherhood in 2013. Riyadh did not take it easy. Two days later, Egypt was informed that Saudi Arab had suspended its oil aid of estimated about at 700,000 tonnes of petroleum products every month.
Tehran's rapprochement with Cairo was also not easy. They did not have full diplomatic connections since 1980 after Egypt offered the deposed Shah of Iran Reza Mohammad Shah Pahlavi asylum following Iran's Islamic Revolution. What drawn them closer was their support for the Assad regime in Syria and Russian military cooperation which both welcomed.
Larijani's proposal to form a Muslim bloc appears as a clear strategic move based on some positive vibes discerned from US president-elect Trump's various statements advocating changes in the region. For example, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah AIi Khamenei's senior military adviser Yahya Rahim Safavi made an interesting comment soon after Trump's election in November. He said: "We hope, the US president-elect will consider a tangible shift (in the Middle East) to help uproot the causes of insecurity in the region."
While it is difficult to hazard any guess at this stage about the success or failure of Iran's proposed Muslim bloc to fight terror and boost economic cooperation, but diplomatic circles tend to suggest that in this most complicated and uncertain scenario nothing can be dismissed as impossible or improbable. This can initiate something for a change. In fact, in a desperate situation, as a sinking person unthinkingly grabs anything that comes handy or in sight, culturally and politically disparate elements can also opt for something unusual or unthinkable at times.
 sayed.kamaluddin@gmail.com