By the time you read this article, on Thursday, 14 May, US President Barack Obama will have met with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Washington, DC, the day before. According to their schedule, they will be on their way to Camp David to conclude their two-day summit at the invitation of the US president. The idea of the summit came in the wake of the adoption of the Framework Agreement between the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) and Iran on 2 April, an agreement that could open the way for a final accord on the Iranian nuclear question by 30 June 2015. The Framework Agreement sent shockwaves in the Gulf, with growing fears among Arab Gulf countries concerning their long-term security and stability. The new regional strategic environment could see Iran assume a defining role once the final agreement concerning its nuclear file is sealed. From the standpoint of the GCC, the purpose of the Washington-Camp David Summit is nothing less than containment of Iran in the future. The summit will discuss the modalities of such a strategy, but in the context of American interests with all Arab and regional powers. While the Gulf countries want the summit to be country-specific, the United States would like to deal with a host of problems and challenges in the Middle East. These include the terrorist threat, and the destabilising influence of Iran in some Arab countries. On 8 May, US Secretary of State John Kerry said the countries attending the summit would be “banding together to expand our capacity to deal with the future.” Kerry also made it clear that the Washington-Camp David Summit is not “one-country specific as an initiative.” He stressed that in future cooperation between the United States and Gulf countries each member in any security arrangement would shoulder its share of obligations. In other words, sharing financial burdens. In a seminar organised by the Atlantic Council in Washington during the first week of May, Ambassador Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador in Israel, spoke about the strategic importance of the summit in terms of US-Gulf relations. He described it as a historic occasion that would be a turning point in security relations between Washington and GCC member countries. From his point of view, the summit is happening for three reasons. The first relates to the deteriorating situation in some Arab countries, including Syria, Yemen and Libya. The second reason is the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) group. The third is Iran and the “anarchy” (his expression) that it is causing in the Middle East and the region at large. He expressed hope that the summit would see an American security commitment to Gulf countries. Kerry stressed that the understandings agreed upon would be the basis on which future US presidents would use to articulate their respective policies relating to the security and stability of Arab Gulf countries are concerned. At the same seminar, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States pointed out the need to adopt a comprehensive approach to regional security. Arab Gulf countries have been talking about the Iranian threat to their security once a final nuclear deal is reached, but also about the need to confront Tehran in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon (Hezbollah). As far as Syria is concerned, it seems that the Saudis and the Qataris are adamant about overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria. The Saudi government is to host a conference soon to discuss the post-Assad era — principally, how to manage the political transition in Syria in a way that would avoid a repeat of what happened after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It should come as no surprise that the Jordanians have announced the start of a training programme for what is incorrectly referred to as the “moderate” Syrian opposition. No Syria watcher would accept this idea of separating the good guys from the bad guys among the armed Syrian groups. To bet on the good guys would be highly risky in the context of the Syrian crisis. IS was once deemed among the good guys, before it decided to overrun Mosul in Iraq last June. The irony is that the announcement of the start of this training programme said that the purpose was to fight IS. One of the topics to be discussed at the Washington-Camp David Summit will be how to end the Syrian crisis politically, without further undermining the already deteriorated security situation across the Middle East. While Arab Gulf countries would be enthusiastic about a quick military solution in Syria, the Americans, while still demanding the departure of President Al-Assad, would not wholeheartedly embrace such a radical course of action. What should we expect out of the summit? Secretary Kerry met last week with the Saudi monarch in Riyadh, and then met with the foreign ministers of the GCC in Paris on Friday, to prepare for the US-GCC Summit. He had this to say in a joint press conference with the new Saudi foreign minister in the American Embassy in Paris: “We are fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create, between the United States and the GCC, a new set of security initiatives that will take us beyond anything that we have had before, in ways that will ask our partners to work with us, and they will contribute and we will contribute. It is not a one-way street. It is a two-way street with mutual interests and mutual needs that need to be addressed.” As Ambassador Indyk said in Washington last week, this summit will be a turning point for the GCC and, hence, for the Arab world. But there will be two very important absentees: namely, Egypt and Palestine. Because of the failure to include them, the new security architecture that will come out of this Washington-Camp David Summit will not necessarily contribute to greater security and stability in the wider Middle East. The writer is former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister.
