Carter: A Mideast Idealist

Dr Khairi Janbek

The legacy of the late President Jimmy Carter in the Middle East can at best be described as mixed, notable achievements and setbacks.

The Camp David Accords remain his greatest foreign policy achievement in the region, with Egypt and Israel continuing to honor the peace treaty till this day. However, the 1978 Iranian Revolution, the fall of the Shah, the US embassy hostage crisis and the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underscored the limits of his idealistic foreign policy approach.

While Carter’s emphasis on human rights was a notable shift from the more pragmatic or rather, realpolitik approach of his predecessors, it often clashed with the realities of the US strategic interests in the region. His inability to stop or reverse the Iranian Revolution, combined with his perceived weakness in handling the hostage crisis, significantly damaged his standing both domestically and internationally.

Despite these challenges, Carter’ presidency laid the groundwork for future US policies in the Middle East in terms of emphasis on peace, diplomacy and the need for strategic engagement. In fact, he articulated in January 1980 the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the US will use military force if necessary to defend its interests in the Arabian Gulf against Soviet aggression, which marked a significant shift in US foreign policy asserting a more active and interventionist role in the region.

When it comes to the question of human rights, despite concerns for abuses in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Carter found it necessary to balance human rights with strategic and economic interests, and he did receive criticism internationally and nationally for tolerating autocratic regimes, not to mention of course in this context, his support for the Shah of Iran despite his repressive policies and human rights abuses.

Still, in the final analysis, with successes and failures, Carter’s approach to the Middle East was foundational in shaping US policy for the years that followed, particularly in the realms of contradictory policies of human rights, and the balance of power in the Gulf region.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian commentator currently based in Paris.

Continue reading
Syria: A Hot Political Potato

By Dr Khairi Janbek

All eyes are on Syria, simply because the only thing known about how the new Syria will look like is frankly, the unknown. What is prevailing in the new predictions and analysis is at best, and at worst blunt fears.

Of course, this is understandable considering the composition of the groups which are now trying to run the country. What is vey disconcerting however, is how the international media presented the war prior to the fall of Damascus in no more than a side show, giving the impression that, as big Syrian cities fell one after the other in the hands of the rebels, that an agreement was likely to be struck which will solve the concept peaceably. Well, such an agreement was not struck, and the victorious rebellion became the hot potato in the hands of all.

Now, how will the new regime look like in Syria? Frankly your guess is as good as mine. Will they act momentarily in a pluralistic manner, then adopt political Islam as regime ideology? Again, only time will tell, but also that would depend primarily, on the prevailing regional and international actors and players.

For a start, the rapprochement between Russia and Turkey will not greatly depend on the shape of the new regime, so long of course, as the new regime in Damascus continues to protect the Russian interests in warm water bases, and be a wall against Kurdish armed groups threatening Turkish interests.

Then of course there is Israel, which after it destroyed Syrian military capabilities, has no fear of war with Damascus, but does fear the potential presence of a regime adopting political Islamist trappings on its borders, which it will use as an excuse use to expand and probably annex Syrian, and maybe Lebanese territories before the dust settles down.

However, when it comes to the Arab neighbors of Syria, Jordan and Iraq, it’s only natural they would feel concerned but for different reasons. For Jordan, the recent history of Iraqi political instability and the associated acts of terrorism are still fresh in the mind of everyone in the Kingdom, so in no uncertain terms, Jordan would wish to see on its border, a regime adopting political Islam, lest it suffers once more from terror acts that are likely to push for military action and in which it doesn’t wish to be involved in.

As for Iraq, the sectarian troubles are still fresh in the minds of everyone. Certainly the Iraqi government doesn’t wish to see a regime on its borders which has the potential of igniting an unwanted sectarian civil war. As for the rest of the Arab countries, the question remains theoretical – plainly speaking being against political Islam .

As for Syria itself, it’s rather banal to repeat the obvious which is, that it is pluralistic country. But, how can you mange such a country, if indeed this is the intention intention and not shoving it up everyone’s throat ideology by blood and fire.

For a start every community, ethnic and religious, has to feel secure, and secondly they need to know that they have a stake in the future of the country, and that can only happen by establishing a truly functioning parliament freely elected by all of its constituents, then adopt a prime ministerial system of government accountable to the people with a titular president of the republic. No political party should be prohibited to field parliamentary candidates except those associated with armed groups.

At the end of the day, the only thing which will turn the current victorious rebels into extremist islamists is the specter of internal civil conflict which everyone is trying to avoid.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian commentator currently based in Paris.

Continue reading
Syria: 10 Days That Shook The World

Dr Khairi Janbek

Without much ado, the western media is currently preoccupied with this question: Are the Syrian rebels Jihadis? This is while the Arab media appears to be in a state of euphoria about the Syrian rebels seen as liberators. The issue however is about two perspectives, the first being cautious about the next phase for the country, and this is for understandable reasons, while the second reflects optimism for the next stage and also for understandable reasons.

Now, the fear of dividing Syria on ethnic and sectarian grounds has its blueprint in the colonial history of Syria and certainly not a product of today and/or creative chaos utterances.

Looking back

In fact, on 1 July, 1922, the French colonial authorities divided Syria into federal statelets: statelet of Damascus, statelet of Aleppo, statelet of the Alawites, and the statelet of the Druze. Of course, the idea was that the country would be easier to rule and a regional and a sectarian balance would guarantee political stability. Of course, the Kurds were outside this formula as they were struggling to create an independent state of their own.

But what about Syria now, to paraphrase John Reed, after the 10 days that shook the world. Indeed, the two regional police stations in the region, Turkey and Israel seems to be gaining major influence in the current affairs, while the third police station, Iran, has lost out in this formula.

Rivalry

For all intents and purposes, no one is naive enough to think that the march towards Damascus could have occurred without Turkish support, and the Israeli foreign minister has confirmed that talks were held between his government and the Druze as well as the Kurds of Syria, whom he described as having good relations with them.

But what about the Russians? One would venture to say that they are like to stay in Syria as most probably, paying guests of the new Syrian government, renting their military installations from them.

Undoubtedly, no matter how much we can be optimistic about the future of all-inclusive democratic Syria, we will always reluctantly fall back on our cognitive dissonance regarding the case of Iraq, and make the mistake of comparison with the post-Saddam era of terrorism, sectarianism an ethnic strife.

This is simply because, we forget that in Iraq there was superpower which brought down the regime and destroyed all the functioning institutions of the country favoring when religious Islamic sect over another, and supporting one ethnicity against others. While in Syria, its the Syrians themselves brought down the Ba’ath regime.

On the face of it, the rebels don’t seem to want to be the new masters of Syria and they are working very hard to protect and preserve the functioning institutions of the country, and claim their adherence to pluralism and for an all inclusive new regime.

But two important questions remain outstanding, and only time will tell how these will unfold: To what extent will there be Turkish and Israeli influence on the emerging regime, and more importantly, what would be the share of those two police stations of the country?

In other words, how will Turkey perceive the future of the Kurds in Syria, and where does Israel see its border posts with the “new” Syria?

In all likelihood, the rebels will keep their word of wanting a stable pluralist Syria, but let us not forget also, that a future spark of ethnic, regional or sectarian conflict, will very likely turn all into extremists in the country.

Dr Khairi Janbek is Jordanian commentator based in Paris.

Continue reading
What Next For Moscow After Fall of Damascus

Events are rapidly unfolding before after the fall of the Syrian capital, Damascus, into the hands of the armed opposition forces that entered it without resistance because the Syrian army, under orders from its supreme commander, decided not to resort to bloody confrontations to prevent bloodshed and accept defeat in the face of a tripartite aggression well-planned in the dark rooms of Washington, Ankara and Tel Aviv.

The Russian authorities’ announcement, Sunday, of the arrival of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his family to Moscow and granting them political asylum, confirms that the sudden developments currently taking place may be the tip of the iceberg.

There may be many surprises to come on all levels, as Syria is a jungle of weapons, and it is unlikely that the sudden surrender is just a maneuver, just like what happened in Iraq after the collapse of the Iraqi army in the face of the American invasion, and the goal now is to reposition, bow to the storm, and prepare to resist the occupation.

https://twitter.com/abdelbariatwan/status/1865843698195378221

The fall of Damascus is a fatal stab to Russia and its leadership, which the new authority in Syria has no affection for, and sees it as a strategic partner of the isolated Syrian regime. Its warplanes have not stopped bombing Idlib, Aleppo, Hama and Homs, and this Russian airstrike played a major role in the Syrian Arab Army regaining most of the cities and villages that were seized by the opposition forces supported by America, Europe and Turkey.

We do not know what President Bashar al-Assad’s plans are in the coming period. Will he resort to calm and withdraw from political work, in compliance with the conditions of political asylum, or will he make Moscow a base to manage a resistance that he will form and lead from his new exile.

News circulated in the past few days that countries supporting the deposed Syrian president, led by Russia, suggested he form a government in exile to confirm his non-recognition of the new government that may be formed in the coming few days to run the country, avoid a political vacuum, and prepare for holding general elections.

We do not know the extent of the accuracy of this news, and perhaps it is too early to try to extrapolate what events are coming in Syria, as only one day has passed since the fall of Damascus and President Assad’s flight to Moscow and his granting of political asylum.

However, what can be pointed out is that the picture seems blurry in Syria at the present time, as Damascus and the major Syrian cities have been exposed to a war led by armed Syrian opposition factions on behalf of America, Turkey and other Arab countries, unlike the direct American war in Iraq in 2003, in which more than 160,000 American soldiers participated, and Paul Bremer was installed as military governor of Iraq in a transitional phase.

Unfortunately, we can’t disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu when he said: “The fall of Damascus and the collapse of the ruling regime there is considered a historic day and a great victory for Israel.”

Damascus is the crown jewel of the axis of resistance, the main supporter of the Palestinian cause, and the stubborn opponent of normalization. The question remains: Will Netanyahu’s celebrations of this fall last long? We leave the answer to the coming days and months.

Abdel Bari Atwan is the Chief Editor of Al Rai Al Youm

Continue reading
Some Arab States Welcome ICC Decision…

Arab countries welcomed the decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to formally issue arrest warrants Thursday for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

The Iraqi government “values the courageous and just stance taken by the International Criminal Court in issuing arrest warrants against the head of the Zionist entity’s government and its former defense minister,” government spokesperson Basim al-Awadi said in a statement.

“This historic decision affirms that no matter how much oppression persists and tries to prevail, justice and truth will confront it and prevent it from dominating the world,” he added.

Al-Awadi described the decision as “a vindication for the blood of the innocent and martyrs who perished during the criminal (genocidal) war waged by the Zionist entity for more than a year against Gaza and Lebanon.”

He reiterated his country’s demand for an end to the Israeli onslaught and urged “all free nations to implement this decision by bringing the accused to the competent courts to hold them accountable for their blatant violations against humanity.”

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said the ICC’s decision “must be respected and implemented without selectivity,” Anadolu.

“This is a pivotal moment that requires immediate and effective international action to halt the Israeli aggression on Gaza,” Safadi added during a press conference with European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.

The court’s decision is “a message to the entire international community emphasizing the necessity of stopping the massacres against the Palestinian people,” he added.

Algeria also praised the ICC’s verdict, describing it as “an important step and a tangible advancement toward ending decades of impunity and the evasion of accountability and punishment by the Israeli occupation.”

It emphasized that “the Israeli occupation has perpetrated crimes against the Palestinian people and against all the countries and peoples of the region.”

Israel has launched a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip following a cross-border attack by the Palestinian group Hamas in October last year, killing more than 44,000 people, most of them women and children, and injuring over 104,000.

The second year of genocide in Gaza has drawn growing international condemnation, with officials and institutions labeling the attacks and blocking of aid deliveries as a deliberate attempt to destroy a population.​​​​​​​

The ICC announced in a landmark move Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The court’s Pre-Trial Chamber I said it “issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.”

“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water and medicine and medical supplies as well as fuel and electricity,” the decision said.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its deadly war on Gaza.

Continue reading