Policy conundrum During a recent television interview with CBS, US President Barack Obama remarked that the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) exploited the power vacuum in Syria to expand its influence and turf. When asked if the US could have avoided the power vacuum by arming moderate opposition forces, the president shrugged off the possibility, indicating that the moderates wouldn't have been able to fill the vacuum. A moderate Syrian force capable of ousting Bashar Al-Assad was a little more than a fantasy, the US president suggested. It is in the light of such comments that one should interpret the recent diplomatic efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry, who held talks in several European and Arab capitals of late, as well as the recent phone call between the US and Russian presidents. After meeting the US secretary of state, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri said that he agreed with Kerry that there is a need for concerted efforts to address the situation in Libya, Syria and Iraq, and also to find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. A wholesale approach, one reckons, is what the Americans are now trying to pursue. Instead of tackling the flashpoints of the region one at a time, a consensus is sought with major regional and international powers on how to sort out the region as a whole. Washington, apparently, has come to the realisation that events in Iraq emanated from the turbulence in Syria, and vice versa, with other countries in the region likely to get caught in the avalanche of violence unless something is done to pacify the interconnected trouble spots of this part of the world. Since Obama came to power in 2009, the US has been trying to find a way of defusing regional tensions through negotiations, as is clear in the Iranian case. Despite Israel's misgivings, and reservations by some Arab countries, the US has pressed on with negotiations with Tehran, the outcome of is still to be seen. Now the US is clearly trying to find a way of pursuing talks with Iran while designing a limited military intervention in Iraq, a diplomatic feat that would require more than the usual dose of finesse. So when it comes to Iraq, Washington is talking with partners on more than one front. It is talking to the Iraqi government, the Iranians, Arab countries, as well as Europeans and the Russians. Before it commits itself to active hostilities, however limited, in Iraq, the US is making sure that everyone is on board — locally, regionally and internationally. The outcome of US current consultations will not only have an impact on Iraq, but also on Syria. Last week, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said that the last batch of Syria's declared chemical weapons was sent out of the country for destruction. The news was greeted with satisfaction by the Americans and Russians, who had made the destruction of such weapons a condition for withholding a military attack on Syria. This is an example of the diplomacy one has to expect in the Middle East from now on. As Washington explores its course of action in the region, it will coordinate with major powers inside and outside the region, including Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. ISIS, most of these countries agree, must be stopped. Such is the kind of common denominator the Obama administration is trying to find in order to act out of consensus, avoiding unnecessary confrontation with friend or foe. It is likely that Washington is trying to come up with a formula for addressing the various flashpoints in the region in a manner that is acceptable to Moscow, Tehran, Riyadh and Cairo. If such a formula emerges before the coming congressional elections in November, this could give the Obama administration something to boast about. The US, needless to say, is directly responsible for the current mess in Iraq and Syria. Its post-9/11 policies, parts of which at least were on the neo-con drawing board since the 1990s, are at the heart of the current turmoil in the region. The invasion of Iraq was definitely driven more by Washington's Zionist-pandering schemes than by necessity, and Washington's subsequent backing of Israel in various wars in Lebanon and Palestine fomented instability in an already volatile region. Now we are all reaping the outcome of such ill-advised policies, and while many people in this region are paying with their lives, many more dread the consequences of armed groups running amok in the middle of what Obama calls a political vacuum. The Obama administration may or may not come up with an acceptable Middle East policy. But we, the inhabitants of this region, have to have a say in the matter. The turbulence of the past few years has taken a heavy toll on our countries, ripping some apart, and sending others into endless political spasms. We are the ones who must take stock and take charge.
