Two days of talks in the White House and in Camp David between GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) leaders and US President Barack Obama (13-14 May 2015) were long enough to illustrate dimensions of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. These talks emphasised US foreign policy priorities as they appear today and perhaps in the next five years. Gulf security, the Iran nuclear deal, terrorism, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Libya and the issue of non-proliferation of WMD occupied the agenda of the summit. The final statement and its annex included agreements, demands and coordination between the two sides regarding all these issues. In my view the statement and the annex should be studied carefully in order to understand US foreign policy in the Middle East. In addition, there were issues that were not mentioned some of them perhaps discussed without reaching an agreement. Some of the most important issues are Iranian interference in Iraqi internal affairs, the Iraqi Sunnis' plight, nuclear assurances to satisfy GCC member states, the need for security and the nature of new desired political regimes in Syria and Libya. AMERICAN DEMANDS: The seven most important demands put forward by President Barack Obama were: - To quickly shift from a military to a political solution in Yemen. A peaceful solution will be based on the Gulf Initiative, UNSC resolutions and an inclusive Yemeni national dialogue, all of which will be facilitated by the United Nations. - To consult with the United States when planning to take a military action beyond the borders of the GCC member states, especially if US assistance is to be requested. That was clearly a rebuke to Operation “Decisive Storm”. - To cooperate with the Iraqi government and restore GCC diplomatic missions in Baghdad. - To stop any kind of support, military or financial, for Al-Nusra Front in Syria and to impose strict controls on recruitment for its forces. - To coordinate and cooperate in Libya in order to form an “inclusive government” and help UN efforts in that respect to have a peaceful solution before the month of Ramadan. - To refrain from military solutions for “armed civil conflicts” in the region. - To introduce reforms in order to achieve good and inclusive governance, respect of rights of minorities and human rights. These reforms are the real basis for internal stability. In return, GCC member states will get the full support needed from the United States in order to protect them from any aggression and to guarantee their sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with the UN Charter. However, the US stopped short of extending written assurances or providing nuclear guarantees for GCC member states. The president of the United States argued that his country needed no security or defence pact with GCC countries in order to authorise its forces to engage in a war to liberate Kuwait in 1991 and needed no written agreement with these countries to fully eliminate the Iraqi threat posed by Saddam Hussein in 2003. American policymakers consider the alliance with GCC member states as a fact of life that needs no assurances, guarantees or written agreements. In order to respond positively to GCC concerns over the Iranian threat, the US president suggested wider, deeper and more comprehensive military cooperation with the Gulf region and to establish “fast track military sales.” In that context the two sides agreed to set up a high level military committee and a fast track military sales office to quickly look into GCC military needs. It is well known that maritime security in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormoz and the strait of Bab Al-Mandab has been for a long time, especially since the “tanker's war” during the Iran-Iraq war, the responsibility of the US Navy and its international allies. In order to assure the GCC countries, the US re-emphasised its commitment to guarantee peaceful and free navigation in the Gulf and the international water surrounding the GCC region. In addition, new measures to ensure cybersecurity were added to the text of the summit's final statement. ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF REGIONAL POLICY: Within statement offered at the end of the talks, these additional elements of policy were included: - Iran is not a threat. On the contrary, it could become a stabilising power through a policy of engagement and cooperation on the bases of good neighbourliness and respect of mutual interests. However, actions that may destabilise the region or one of its states should be confronted. The forthcoming nuclear deal is seen as reflecting the security interests of the US, GCC states and the international community. - GCC countries should not plan to take any military action beyond their borders “without consultation with the United States”, especially when US assistance is requested for such action. The statement identified Operation Decisive Storm indirectly as a violation of this rule. - The so-called “armed civil conflicts” in the region should be resolved by peaceful means and include respect for the sovereignty of all states; the need for inclusive governance in conflict-ridden societies; as well as protection of all minorities and of human rights. The last three principles indirectly could justify external interference according to international humanitarian law. - The main threat in Yemen is not the Houthi or its allies, but is Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula. GCC member states should shift from military to peaceful means in regard with the power conflict between all parties in Yemen. - The United States took the chance of the meeting with GCC leaders to promote its foreign policy regarding Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Libya. The final statement emphasised the need for cooperation with the Iraqi government but failed to denounce Iranian intervention in Iraqi affairs and did not respond to the plight of Iraqi Sunnis and human rights violations. On Syria, the US warned of the expanding influence of Al-Nusra and emphasised the need to remove Al-Assad. On Palestine, the two sides stressed their support for the “two-state solution”. But they stopped short of denouncing or even criticising Israeli policy of illegal settlement and demanding the “Jewishness” of the state. On Libya, the United States called upon GCC member states to do their best in order to reach a “political solution” and to establish “inclusive government” before the month of Ramadan. Egypt was not mentioned in the Libyan context. On the whole, US foreign policy in the Gulf region and in the Middle East is primarily based on its core interests: oil, Israel, terrorism. The nuclear deal with Iran was sold to GCC leaders as a “stabilising” move. Moreover, Arabs are requested to cooperate with Iran and its allies in the region. They will have to prove their new approach through the reopening of their diplomatic missions in Baghdad. During the last visit by the Iraqi president to Riyadh, it was agreed that Saudi Arabia would reopen its embassy in Baghdad. Now has come the time to do so. Other GCC countries will follow suit. POLICY SHIFT IN YEMEN: The most dramatic shift in GCC regional policy will be seen in Yemen. The Houthi-Saleh alliance managed to tighten its grip on Yemen, including Aden during the five-day humanitarian truce. The UN is calling for a renewal of this truce. The situation on the ground reflects general defeat of the “legitimate” President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi. He has very little power military, political and administrative on the ground. The only remaining vital spot that is still resisting is the southern city of Al-Bouraiqa where the main oil refinery is. Its fall is a matter of time. What does it mean for those who are convening the “political dialogue” in Riyadh? It means that neither UN Security Council Resolution 2216 nor the US- GCC Summit in Washington and Camp David offered any real opportunity to curb the advance of militias or deter Iran from interfering in internal Yemeni affairs. Once again, and concluding from the experience in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, Arabs have to be serious about developing a strategy to deal with Iran and its leaders. Iran is there by history, geography and religion. Nobody can deny it or shy away from the meaning of its presence. The writer is former senior political affairs officer at the UNDPA.
