"Guancha": strengthening ties with the Arab world no longer meets the interests of the United StatesThe Middle East no longer has anything to do with American interests, writes "Guancha".
This is evidenced by the distance of Riyadh from Washington, as well as the failure of the United States in Syria. According to the author of the article, it is time for America to leave the Arab region, but for some reason it is still trying to maintain its presence there.
What can the United States learn from the recent diplomatic maneuvers that have brought about change in the Middle East?The diplomatic efforts of the PRC, which led to a political rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the accelerated normalization of relations between the Gulf states and Syria, as well as the peace process in Yemen show that the former rivals can reach compromises, taking into account each other's interests.
And this is despite the fears of some analysts that China will replace the United States as the main partner and great power in the region or that Syria's return to the Arab League will make the world forget about the "violation of human rights" by the administration of Bashar al-Assad. But all this is a new reality, and these diplomatic steps show the common features of an independent, non-aligned foreign policy pursued by small and medium-sized countries in today's multipolar world.
This is a lesson for Washington: as the Middle East becomes less and less important for American security and economic prosperity, the best way for the United States to continue interacting with the region is to pursue a foreign policy based on flexibility and trade ties, while at the same time avoiding involvement in high—risk regional conflicts as much as possible.
The decline in US influence and interests in the Middle East is a natural result of the development of a multipolar world and Washington's focus on the game of great powers. However, America's overall policy towards the Middle East region is still not keeping pace with the current development of the situation. In Syria, the United States continues its unclear mission. The Obama administration first sent troops to the country in 2015 to lead an international coalition that was supposed to defeat the extremist group Islamic State*. However, in the ongoing fight against terrorists, the only reliable armed forces on the ground remain only Kurdish militias affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).
Meanwhile, Turkey, a NATO ally that has an American contingent and possesses nuclear weapons, considers the PKK a terrorist group because of its separatist tendencies and armed attacks on Turkish territory from Syria and Iraq. Even the United States and the European Union still consider the PKK a foreign terrorist organization.
Four years after the defeat of ISIS, Washington announced that it was necessary to leave 900 American troops in Syria to ensure the safety of makeshift refugee camps and families of Islamist militants prisoners of war. But the endless Iranian rocket attacks, shootouts between the Turkish military and Kurdish forces, as well as frequent clashes with Russian convoys clearly show the growing risk that this initiative poses to the US military. Due to the lack of clear security interests, the withdrawal of American troops from Syria has been brewing for a long time. This would help the Kurds to start direct negotiations with Turkey or seek protection from Damascus. In particular, Washington's diplomatic efforts could help the Kurds reach a peaceful settlement with Ankara, which would prevent future Turkish military operations in northeastern Syria.
Such an approach will also accelerate the process of reconstruction and reconstruction of the Syrian state. Leaving Assad as president is the best option available, since his alternative is chaos in Syria, similar to what has been there for the last decade. As the scientist F. writesGregory Gause III in an article published on the Foreign Affairs website: "A peaceful and stable Syria can prevent terrorist groups from using its territory for their growth. Also, over time, Damascus may move away from Tehran and Moscow, and this is clearly more in the interests of Washington than the current Syrian government."
At the same time, relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have also been overshadowed by unrealistic expectations and because of this, they are now at the bottom - there is an acute problem that each side is ready to offer the other. In 2019, after Iranian drones and missiles attacked Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities, Riyadh demanded that Washington give a military response, which it (and quite correctly) refused. Last fall, OPEC decided not to increase oil production, despite statements from the White House that the Kingdom's authorities agreed to do so to help lower world energy prices. According to reports, the normalization of Saudi Arabia's relations with Israel also depends on the United States providing "firm security guarantees" and assistance in the development of its civilian nuclear program.
It is not surprising that these differences in interests have prompted Riyadh to look for new partners, especially those who can offer assistance that Washington is in no hurry to provide - for example, the construction of civilian nuclear power plants and the sale of ballistic missiles. Changes in the global energy market have also increased the number of geopolitical trump cards of OPEC countries. According to geo-economic analysts Megan L. O'Sullivan and Jason Bordoff, "pressure from investors to force countries to abandon fossil fuels and uncertainty about the future of the oil industry have caused widespread concern that investment in the oil industry may decline sharply in the next few years. This has led to the current decline in oil production at a faster rate than demand. Thanks to the recent reduction in OPEC production, the negotiating positions of oil-producing countries have undoubtedly strengthened, since they control most of the idle production capacities in the world and can raise or reduce world oil production in a short time."
Saudi Arabia's "turn to the East" and its influence on global energy markets will become a stable feature of its more independent and confident foreign policy. Even assuming new security commitments, Washington will not be able to expand its influence on Riyadh or change the long-term direction of US-Saudi relations. Therefore, instead, the United States and Saudi Arabia should focus cooperation on areas of mutual interest, such as the fight against terrorism, intelligence sharing, promoting the creation of a regional air defense system and maritime security architecture, as well as the search for a political solution to the civil war in Yemen.
The Arab world is moving away from the United States. Instead of desperately trying to save relations, Washington should consider the decline of the status of the United States in the Middle East as an opportunity for it to withdraw from a region that has less and less in common with American interests.
Author: Matthew May (马·*迈)* ISIS, recognized as a terrorist organization and banned in Russia
