https://arab.news/y8h98
The Middle East has long confounded US policymakers, challenging their perceptions of stability and democracy. President Joe Biden’s administration, like its predecessors, has grappled with the illusion of a quiet region. Just days before the Oct. 7 attacks, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan expressed satisfaction with the relative calm in the Middle East.
This echoes previous misjudgments, such as former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assertion of stability in Egypt shortly before the dawn of the Arab Spring, and President Jimmy Carter’s characterization of the Shah’s regime in Iran as an “island of stability.” Each such instance illustrates a recurring lesson: The Middle East’s quietude often masks deeper unrest.
Despite the belief among some that US administrations can pivot away from the complexities of the region, the truth remains that the Middle East continually commands attention. Under Biden, the initial tranquility in Gaza belied the underlying tensions that had festered.
Historically, American leaders have viewed the Middle East as a distraction from more pressing global issues, often prioritizing alliances with autocratic regimes over fostering genuine democratic movements. This pattern has perpetuated a cycle of dependency and repression, stifling the aspirations of millions.
Before the Arab Spring, the notion of “linkage theory” suggested that resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict was essential for wider regional progress. However, the uprisings revealed that citizens in fact prioritized their own governments over external issues such as Israel, and therefore sought to directly address domestic grievances such as economic hardship, corruption, and lack of political freedom.
While this shift in focus was promising, it also highlighted the disconnect between US policy and the aspirations of Middle Eastern populations. The uprisings demonstrated that although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a significant factor, it is not the sole determinant of regional stability.
Today, Israel remains central to US interests in the region. However, the prioritization of Israeli security has often come at the expense of the democratic aspirations of Arab nations. Many Arab populations harbor anti-Israel sentiments, and democratic elections could lead to governments that are more aligned with these views.
As a result, support for autocratic regimes has become a strategy for maintaining regional stability, even at the cost of suppressing democracy. This reveals the paradox in which the US promotes the pursuit of democracy, while simultaneously bolstering leaders who undermine it.
This dynamic has further contributed to friction between the US and Israel. Many US officials recount Israeli skepticism about American efforts to promote democracy, particularly during the George W. Bush administration and its “Freedom Agenda.” Israeli leaders feared that the democratization of Arab states could lead to the rise of Islamists, and therefore perceived open political systems as potential threats to their security. Such skepticism often manifests as a reluctance to support US initiatives that strive to promote democratic governance in the Arab world.
US authorities have frequently overlooked the long-term implications of supporting authoritarian regimes; although such governments might offer short-term stability, they are inherently fragile. As Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia, asserts, the longer an autocracy endures, the more likely it is to collapse. In contrast, stable democracies tend to grow increasingly resilient over time.
The conflation of quietude with stability has led to misguided policies, indicating that a reckoning is overdue. The perception that stability can be maintained through autocracy ignores the aspirations of people who yearn for freedom and justice.
The pursuit of stability through autocracy is a short-sighted tactic that ultimately undermines the prospects for peace.
Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed
Nevertheless, attention must also be paid to the counterargument; some policymakers argue that autocratic governance in some Middle Eastern nations has prevented the rise of extremist movements, and helped maintain a degree of order amid the chaos. They posit that a swift transition to democracy might create vacuums that terrorist organizations could exploit, jeopardizing regional and global security. Moreover, the stability argument suggests that authoritarianism facilitates economic growth and development without the risks associated with rapid democratic transformations.
The prevailing US approach, therefore, has favored maintaining Israel’s dominance, while often disregarding the voices of hundreds of millions of Arabs. Figures such as journalist and author Gideon Levy criticize the fear-based narratives that dominate Israeli society, suggesting that they distort perceptions of threats and stifle dialogue. While some fears are valid, the overarching culture of anxiety unifies and mobilizes Israeli society, distracting from pressing issues and justifying substantial investment in the military. This fear-driven narrative influences US engagement in the region, perpetuating a cycle of support for repressive regimes.
However, there have been voices that advocated for a more nuanced understanding of peace in the region. Figures such as the late Jimmy Carter exemplified the potential of transcending entrenched narratives. The former president's role in the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement and unwavering commitment to human rights underscored the value of dialogue and understanding. Carter’s warnings about the consequences of occupying Palestinian territories highlight the urgent need for reassessment of US policy, and his message remains relevant in the present geopolitical climate.
Critics might argue that Carter’s approach, particularly his emphasis on human rights, occasionally overlooked practical considerations and strained relations with key regional allies. His advocacy for Palestine, while significant, sometimes alienated those necessary for achieving comprehensive peace, demonstrating the inherent obstacles to his vision. Such tensions reflect a broader challenge in US-Middle East relations: the delicate balance between the promotion of human rights and maintaining crucial alliances.
Despite these critiques, Carter’s post-presidential humanitarian efforts shifted public perceptions and provided a model of leadership steeped in integrity and an unwavering pursuit of peace. His legacy serves as a challenge to present-day leaders, urging them to value the welfare of others ahead of personal and geopolitical ambitions when navigating the complexities of Middle Eastern relations.
As tensions rise once again, it is crucial to remember that the promise offered by authoritarian stability is often illusory. The path forward for the Middle East lies in embracing democratic principles that respect the aspirations of its people. The authoritarian regimes propped up by US support frequently lack the legitimacy that comes from genuine public consent.
Acknowledging the complexities of the region, intertwined with democracy and autocracy, will enable the US to contribute to a more stable and just Middle East.
The challenge lies in resisting the allure of repeating past mistakes. Acknowledgment of the fact that the status quo is often unsustainable is essential to foster genuine dialogue and promote lasting peace. As the region navigates its future, recognition of the fact that true stability can only emerge from inclusive governance that respects the voices and rights of all citizens is imperative.
Moving forward, the US must recalibrate its approach to emphasize support for democratic movements, while simultaneously addressing the legitimate concerns of Israelis and Palestinians.
The intricate dynamics of US-Middle East relations call for a reassessment of long-standing policies. The pursuit of stability through autocracy is a short-sighted tactic that ultimately undermines the prospects for peace. By embracing democratic values and recognizing the diverse voices of the region’s populations, the US can position itself as a constructive force in efforts to foster a more stable and equitable Middle East.
It is time to embrace a new approach, one that prioritizes the aspirations of the people and acknowledges that true stability can be achieved only through democratic governance and mutual respect.
- Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed is an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, in the Department of Biosystems Engineering. He is the author of “Agricultural Development Strategies: The Saudi Experience.” X: @TurkiFRasheed