Originating in the British Foreign Office in the 19th century, the term 'Middle East' was an example of arbitrary colonial approach to a complex geo-political paradigm. To facilitate their administrative process, the British decided to divide the regions beyond the European horizon, on the basis of their proximity to Europe. The area closest to Europe and Britain was termed as the 'Near East' (which included the Levant and North Africa). After that was the 'Middle East', the area stretching from the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan to the borders of the Indian domains of the British Empire. 'Far East' referred to areas to the east of British India.
The British and the French inter-active dynamics post-First World War and the fall of the Ottaman Empire, eventually resulted in the creation of the states that are known as being part of the Middle East region of today - an area mostly Arab (except for Iran) and Muslim.
In this region, the political entities were modelled on existing European nation ideas. The British shaped the Arabian Peninsula which were inhabited by tribes forming complex coalitions, into Saudi Arabia, a state based on one of these tribes, the Sauds. The British also created Iraq and crafted Egypt into a united monarchy. Quite independent of the British, Turkey and Iran shaped themselves into secular nation-states.
This process ended up creating two fault lines in the Middle East matrix - European secularism and Islam. This division was exacerbated during the Cold War when the then Soviet Union involved itself in this region. The evolving consequence was the formation of a region which was secular, socialist and built around the military.
The pro-western states in general, on the other hand, focused on those Arab countries which were potentially resource-rich but had the inherent intricate arrangement based on tribes, clans and ethnic groups that not only made up the states but also were divided by borders which were agreed and sponsored by the western powers. At the same time, within the two levels of political dynamics, the higher level was broad religious loyalties to Islam and to the major movements within Islam - Shiaism and Sunnism, both of which made a transnational claim on loyalty. To this was added the concept of the pan-Arab movement espoused by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who believed that Arab states should be united into a single Arab nation.
This perspective of political geography needs to be clearly understood to crack the code of the evolving social and political realities of this region.
The inter-active relationship that has existed within the countries of this area since the break-up of the Soviet Union should be interpreted against the perspective of attempts by groups to embrace secularism or traditionalism and use them as tools to manage both the sub-national groupings and the claims of broader religiosity. There was only one least common denominator within this equation - opposition to Israel.
Over the last decade and half, another element has surfaced - the question of values. Gradually, the socialist-secularist movement has lost its backing and other groups have emerged within the cross-current that has embraced the only ideology they think is correct - Islam.
Analysts have observed that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Mujahedeen defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan definitely energised the role of Islam in Middle Eastern politics. On the other side of the coin there has been the gradual emergence of the United States taking on the past British role in this region - especially in the context of the Gulf - in Saudi Arabia and also in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq. In a manner of speaking, this brought some stability in the region. On the other hand, there was a gradual pan-Islamic resurrection - where Shiite dynamism of Iran helped it to acquire the position of politico-military spokesman for radical Islam.
It has been this factor, according to George Friedman, that has in all probability encouraged the idea of "a transcendental Caliphate - a single political entity that would abolish existing states and align political reality with Islam".
This, in turn, has resulted in efforts of sub-national groups in different countries of this region, trying to build coalitions to overthrow, what according to them, are unacceptable and corrupt Muslim regimes in both the secular and the traditionalist worlds, and sweep aside European-imposed borders.
It was this element that in all likelihood resulted in the emergence of al-Qaeda. Their action ended up in not only exposing American vulnerability but also in compelling the United States to take a more hands-on approach in the region.
In the first phase of its involvement with al-Qaeda, the United States had a measure of success in the reshaping of Iraq and Afghanistan. There were tactical solutions but some of the major strategic problems of the region remained unresolved. They are now surfacing in different corners and creating their own footprint on the sand.
Earlier in this decade, there was also a liberal democratic uprising which has since been anointed with the name of 'Arab Spring'. It started in Tunisia and gradually spread to Egypt, Libya and Syria. It toppled regimes and has since embroiled Libya and Syria in prolonged civil wars. It has been particularly harsh in Syria where the civil war and the presence of Islamic militants and sectarian strife have caused more than 230,000 deaths and more than two million refugees. Currently, the scenario has become further complex with exacerbation on certain battle fronts due to active participation of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which is keen to carve out its own areas of dominance and power.
Palestine continues to face uneven evolution of political factors, particularly after the re-election of Netanyahu as Israel's Prime Minister. The situation has become more complex with US presidential election round the corner and the opposing Republican Party openly supporting the Israeli point of view. The latest effort by Israel trying to paint the recent Gaza hostilities (which cost Palestinians 2200 deaths) as a 'lawful' and 'legitimate' military action in an inter-Ministerial Report has been dismissed by the Palestinians as unacceptable. They are now awaiting the report of the international community that has been undertaken by the UN Human Rights Council with regard to this hostility. That report is due to be published on June 29, 2015. Nevertheless, it looks unlikely that there will be any major shift in Israel's policies with regard to Palestine, particularly because they know that Arab unity is in tatters.
Egypt, on the other hand, has witnessed over the last three years its own political evolution where an elected president and party, the Muslim Brotherhood, have been sidelined. Another military strongman has taken over the helms. His emergence and action have, however, not been uniformly accepted by the Gulf powers with Qatar not according him the necessary support.
Libya has now become a focal point for concern among the Western powers and particularly the European Union. The continuing instability in this country and lack of coordinated accountable governance have resulted in its shoreline becoming the staging point for illegal immigration to Europe.
This latest evolution in the strategic situation in the Middle East has created its own ramifications. The United States in its own way has been able to occupy and pacify Iraq and do the same in a limited way also in Afghanistan. However, it is clear today that their efforts have been only partially successful in these two countries and also in the contiguous regions of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. They have been unable to find the common denominators to establish peace with the current al-Assad government in Syria. They have also been unable to suitably confront the growing sphere of influence of ISIL whose competing forces are now encroaching over the Jordanian and Lebanese borders and emerging consequentially as a transnational power that now stretches across transcended borders.
These changes in ISIS/ISIL proximity have become a source of anxiety and concern for Saudi Arabia who now views this organisation as an existential threat in the context of fundamentalist Wahabi tradition. Other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members and Jordan are also feeling insecure with this demonstrated transnationalism of ISIL.
To that has been added the prospect of a resurgent Shiite presence in the form of Iran (with its sphere of influence in the Shia-dominated government of Iraq) ready to spread its wings with the eventual signing of a nuclear deal (with the G5+1 powers led by the USA) that will free it from sanctions and financial constraints. The proposed US-Iran nuclear deal has invoked many questions. While Israel has rejected the US-Iran negotiations, Saudi Arabia has supported it in the hope of securing US support for its regional endeavours - starting with its military campaign in Yemen - that are directed mainly against Tehran. The US obliged so as not to alienate its Gulf allies, and has since supported the Saudi-led coalition with intelligence, logistics and weapons.
However, the US is also warming up to Iran and so is Turkey. In fact, Turkey is moving in parallel terms with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. There has been a Turkish-Saudi summit despite major disagreements on Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and even on Syria. Tehran, on the other hand, has given Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a grand reception despite tensions in their relations The two sides have, however, recognised the importance of moving forward with their relationship despite their major differences on Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. They have even committed to doubling their annual trade from $14bn to $30bn.
One can only conclude that the current situation in this region is not only critical but also sensitive. The countries east of the Suez Canal particularly are at a critical junction. Consequently, instead of belligerence, their efforts need to move to discussion where they and also Iran can easily vent their perceived grievances. The Arab countries could possibly designate a delegation composed of their national leaders. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) could then host a meeting in Istanbul or Geneva. A move is being made with regard to Yemen, so why not Iran? They need to understand that there can be no military solution to the political and communitarian problems facing the region. Neither side of the sectarian divide is going to gain out of their animosity. Give diplomacy a chance.
The writer, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
muhammadzamir0@gmail.com