The geopolitical scene in the Middle East is undergoing heavy turmoil with the rise of Islamic State (IS) in Syria, Iraq, Libya and even Sinai, the Iranian nuclear program and talks with the U.S., the Houthi insurgency in Yemen and of course the Proxy war in Syria. Head of Al-Ahram International Affairs department Ossama Al Dalil gave Al Bawaba Egypt his analysis on the latest developments in the region and an overview of its main crises. What role is Iran playing in the region, especially after the agreement with the U.S. on the Iranian nuclear program? It is the rules not the role that will matter after Iran reaches a comprehensive agreement through p5+1 (or eu3+3) by the end of June 2015 or a few days later. It doesn't mean that Iran will adjust its regional behavior or even 'socialize' by integrating Teheran into the World order, but it will mean that this region will be pushed to start a new power game with new rules. A game that will serve western interests and remapping of the Middle East, even if this means throwing the whole region into sectarian hell. From an American perspective this region should live the 21st century as two major blocs: Sunni and Shiite. For the moment this vision remains an illusion as the Sunni states, which represent the majority of the Arab world's population, are not united and have too many disagreements, rifts and conflicts. On the other hand Iran, with its regional influence stretching to Syria, Iraq , Lebanon and Yemen, can't rely on mere religious considerations; ethnic considerations should also be taken into account as they prevent the spread of the Shiite influence. The Shiite leadership is now in the hands of Persians, not Arabs, and although Arab Shiites have aligned with Tehran, they have done so out of pragmatic necessity. This limits the extent to which Iran can rely on them to serve its purposes. Though the Shiites of the Arab world have largely united, some of their differences will be very difficult to ignore. Geo-politically, the world justifiably sees the Iranian nuclear negotiations, in the global context, as upholding nuclear non-proliferation and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, which surely it is. However, in both Washington and Tel Aviv, the nuclear negotiations are viewed as being inextricably linked to the broader struggle for the legitimate stewardship of the region, as well as the regional balance of power, which is all nonsense for the reasons mentioned above. Oil rich Gulf States felt betrayed by Washington and are left with no options. They can't coexist with an sanctions-free Iran with no obligation regarding its regional expansion and also free of any constraints to reduce its military capabilities. Their worst nightmare is Iran becoming the Gulf's policeman. Is it worth changing the rules? This is the question. 2- How do you see the role of the Egyptian Army in protecting the country and the region? Is it targeted by international powers? Egypt's Armed Forces have a national and regional mission. The Pentagon has been trying to transform its doctrine and shift its challenges by convincing the Egyptian military that the enemy is terrorism and not Israel. This is exactly what the Pentagon worked for during the last ten years of Mubarak's regime, or even by raising the pressure in Sinai or elsewhere which is mounting proof of IS' tactical links to American strategies. Hence, the only path to defy the Egyptian armed forces' effective role in the Middle East is to remap the entire region including Egypt itself, which is a Geo-strategic mass insanity. In fact, the nature of the Egyptian military's strategic mind is the real challenge, not only for its adversaries, but also for those who have the intentions to transform the Mideast according to their strategic interests. Those parties are all westerners with a traditional colonial mind that puts Israel's security (as a functional regional actor) as the top priority, avoiding the reality that Israel lost its function since 2006. The Egyptian army is not targeted by international powers but by western U.S- led powers, being western doesn't mean you are the whole world. 3- Is there any link between the Yemeni clashes near Bab Al Mandab Strait and the launch of the new Suez Canal? Although the security of Bab Al Mandab strait is vital to Egypt's national security, there is no direct connection between the two situations. However, it will definitely have an indirect impact on the free and safe navigation through the strait if fighting lasts longer and if the conflict goes wider. At the moment, there are indications that the rebels are aware that any overt threat to navigation would be likely to draw a wider — and harsher — international response than the Saudi-led campaign. It is true that new Suez Canal will increase Egypt's resources of foreign cash which will reduce its dependency on foreign debtors, this may disappoint Egypt's adversaries but using this conflict to deprive Egypt of additional earnings from the new canal is illogical with regard to the harm it will cause world trade. 4- You spoke about the new Silk Road on several occasions. What will be the benefits and threats of this road on Egypt? There is no threat on Egypt from the Chinese Silk Road and belt, geopolitically this project will transform the balance of world power at the expense of the American hegemony, so Washington is raising tensions with China in Pacific Asia to stop this project or at least defuse its infrastructure with the World Bank. The U.S. national security will deteriorate if China manages to revitalize this Silk Road and belt (in which Egypt has a vital part). Cairo will benefit the most as the road won't go through the Suez Canal, it will use Alexandria to reach Europe. 5- Do you expect any solution to the Syrian Crisis? What is the expected role of President Bashar Al-Assad? The Syrian crisis is an ideal case-study for self-deception, it is not about the Alawite minority governing a Sunni majority, it is a secular regime not a religious one. The governing party in Damascus is Baath which is a Marxist party. This also isn't about democracy as the rebels are all of extreme Islamic fabric which denies every aspect of democracy. The free Syrian army is a military body of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, widely known as a terrorist group even in Saudi Arabia - the main Sunni state of the region. The crisis is not about Bashar Al Assad either, he is a mortal after all and his natural death will never stop the violence. His personal death even through assassination has nothing to do with this crisis. It is clear as day that this crisis is a proxy war between the U.S., Russia and China. On a lesser level, it is also a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran, and on a hidden level a proxy war between Israel and Hezbollah. The most important thing here is this voiceless war between Turkey and Russia about a gas pipeline called Nabucco, which passes through Aleppo. This level of gas politics confrontation is the real crisis in Syrian soil. The fate of Europe is linked to this conflict: if Turkey wins, the whole of Europe will be set free from the hands of the Russian Gazprom, otherwise, Ukraine will disappear from the world map.
