By Omar Qureshi
The Middle East has long been an area of major misunderstanding for the west. Whether it is the volatile nature of popular will in Iran or the legacy politics in Syria there doesn’t seem to be a clear, general regional trend. The challenge of this understanding has led to many different foreign policy approaches towards the region as a whole. Regardless of whether it has been Clinton’s “aesthetic peace policy” or the much more expansive “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war, these policies are specifically developed for the Middle East. Moreover, these policies have embraced the 1975 idea of Pax Syriana. This term literally means “Syrian peace,” but international relations theorists have taken it to mean the attempted reshaping of the Middle East to the desires of major actors. Clinton wanted peace- or at least the appearance of peace and George W. Bush wants to develop strategic alliances backed by hard power- a move that has substantially disenfranchised the Middle East on the whole. The preeminent actors in the Middle East today are Syria and Iran.
Syrian Political Front
It does not appear that Syrian President Bashar Al- Assad is going to be leaving his position at any time in the foreseeable future. That being said the chief actor -though not the chief power holder- is actually Walid Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister. Moallem has worked in engaging in talks with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as well as being a relatively supportive agent in support of Michel Suleiman, the newly elected president of Lebanon. More importantly, Moallem has started along the path to engage the new Israeli government over developing a peace deal for the retrieval former Syrian region of Golan Heights.[1] The responsive nature of Syrian politics is by no means simply reflective of a change of heart from the interior. Instead it has been developed by strategic goals that the Assad administration has failed to ascertain in the past. The goals are three fold. Syria wants to regain Golan Heights, assert itself as a major regional power, and protect itself from an Iraq-esque invasion. With these goals in mind, it is quite apparent to see that Syria is engaging in a more strategic, goal oriented foreign policy.
Iranian Political Woes
In stark contrast with Syrian legacy politics, Iranian politics is heavily dependent upon who happens to be in office at any given point in time. Between 1997 and 2005, Iran was in a very different state. The country was being led by reformist president Mohammed Khatami, who won in successive land slide victories. Khatami was very progressive, allowing for a freer media, a stream lined economy, and a release from the clerical influence in Iran. He championed reforms in the office of the presidency, slowly eliminating some of the power from the institution. All of this was put to an end following his second term, because in Iran no president may be in office for more than two consecutive terms. The people of Iran then elected current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad reinstated the clerical influence, cut off the freedom of the media, and made the office of president more powerful than ever- at the cost of the economy and progressive infrastructure.[2] Whereas Khatami had every reason to have a frictionless foreign policy because his approval rating was already high, Ahamadinejad is suffering chronically low approval ratings, and in order to compensate is making radical statements against the west. Ultimately, the people of Iran want prosperity in either the domestic arena or they want power in the international arena- not unlike all countries. Ahmadinejad is attempting to use aggressive diplomatic statements along with asserting his power in the Middle East to regain some of that domestic support. Nevertheless, there could be a challenge to his authority come the next elections as Khatami may run for another term. While it is unlikely that there will be a fair election to seek this next term, another possibility might be a Khatami agreement with the conservative administration. The details aren’t yet hashed out, but it is sure to bring another change to Iran.
Collective Iranian-Syrian Agenda
A product of history as much as fate, the Iranian and Syrian governments have come together to push forth an agenda of Middle Eastern solidarity. This idea was elaborated by Vali Nasr in his book the Shia Revival. Nasr believed that it wasn’t necessarily the Shiite religion that would push the Iranian agenda, but instead the development of strategic allies to spread the influence of Iran. There is no better place this is exemplified than in the presidential office in Syria. Bashar Al Assad and his lineage have not been clearly partial to either Shiite Islam or Sunni Islam. On face, this would seem opposite the Iranian agenda, but Iran realizes that Syria’s strategic location as a buffer zone to Lebanon as well as a border state to Iraq makes it a necessary ally. With the support of Syria, Iran has extended its power to Lebanon. This is apparent because Iran has been able to sponsor the Lebanese group Hezbollah by transporting weapons and supplies through Syria. More importantly, Syria and Iran are now a formidable diplomatic bloc. The U.S. Pax Syriana idea is centered on dividing and conquering in a political way, by reducing the influence of Iran in the Middle East. Needless to say, with Syria becoming entrenched in Middle Eastern politics specifically with Iran, this is no longer a viable policy option. Diplomacy must involve both Iran and Syria with their new found alliance.
Meaning for the Middle East
Contrary to the example that Iraq has set, the Middle East is becoming substantially more independent as a region. This means that there has actually been a decrease on minor differences and an emphasis on developing bonds that push the west away from the Middle East. The Syrian efforts to reconcile with Israel over Golan as well as their Doha talks over the future of Lebanon indicate that Syria is trying to be a uniting agent. Collectively this will lead to a decrease in the influence of the west. Connecting forces with Iran is a way to show that the Middle East as a whole will pull away from the influence of the United States. The Middle East is amidst its own change. A change that embodies the idea of Pax Syriana and in a fashion that makes international political scientists reminisce on regional structures of cohesion, it is an idea being pushed forth by Syria itself. The Middle East will be a drastically different place if the relationship between Iran and Syria is allowed to fully form.[3]
[1] The Wall Street Journal. (September 30, 2008). “Transcript: Syria’s Walid Moallem.”
[2] The Economist. (October 9, 2008). “Khatami Returns?”
[3] To prevent excessive footnoting, all of the sources used can be found at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Studies, and the Summer 2008 edition of the Yale Journal of International Affairs.