Triangle of troubles tests US role as lone superpower

A triangle of interconnected hotspots, straddling a region roughly east of Suez, north of Aden and west of Kandahar, is today posing the biggest geopolitical challenge to the US and the Middle East. This is an area of thousands of square kilometres in size which includes Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, in addition to Syria, the Gulf and Pakistan

Not surprisingly it's a region that delineates the boundaries of American quasi-colonial hegemony today. How these crises hotbeds evolve in the coming months could determine the future of America's presence in the region and, in the long run, its standing as a superpower.

The US is engaged, directly and by proxy, in a number of Middle Eastern conflicts, all at the same time. In some cases it chose to become physically involved, Iraq and Afghanistan being the austere examples. In others, it adhered to a long-standing policy of calculated crisis management, although not always with desired results, such as in Palestine/Israel. In both cases the US finds itself at a crossroads, and closure for many hotspots has become imminent.

Palestine/Israel has proved to be the most intractable hotspot. For almost two decades the US has had complete and unfettered ownership of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It pushed for a peaceful settlement; an end to the state of war between the two sides. Under George Bush (Bush Senior), Clinton, and George W. Bush the fundamentals of America's policy in the Middle East conflict followed a defined path, or so it seemed. America pushed for a peaceful settlement; an exchange of land for peace, based on UN resolutions, and the creation of an independent state of Palestine living next to Israel.

But it now appears that these fundamentals are changing, especially in the past few weeks. The runaway Gaza Strip has become a semi-independent Palestinian enclave, ruled by Hamas, while Israel, under a right-wing government, is pushing through with plans to colonise most of the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and impose a unilateral settlement on the Palestinians that contravenes international and bilateral agreements and benchmarks.

Having successfully thwarted US objections to its West Bank colonisation efforts, Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, is set to enforce a "final solution" on the Palestinians. If the Israeli scheme is allowed to go through, we are probably going to see a scrappy conclusion to the Palestine Question; comprising a de facto Palestinian mini-state in Gaza and a Bantustan arrangement for urban Palestinian territories in the West Bank that could, one day, be linked to Jordan.

While this seems to be an achievable objective, from an Israeli point of view, it will hardly erase Palestinian aspirations for national self-determination and statehood. Such a raw deal could last for a few years, but it will not guarantee Israel's security or subdue Palestinian nationalism.

As much as this is going to be a cataclysmic regional development, US interests will be the first to suffer. The risks of local and regional instabilities are too high to disregard and too many to predict. The political fallout from such a provisional, and unfair, arrangement will be enormous for the region as a whole. While Israel will consider it a closure to its conflict with the Palestinians, millions of Arabs and Muslims will not. The US will be viewed as a culprit and an accessory and the backlash will be extraordinary in its magnitude.

The Obama administration has backed down from earlier promises and commitments, but relenting to Israeli pressure now will prove disastrous on so many fronts. One can only describe Washington's recent policy turnaround on Palestine as impulsive and self-defeating. This hotspot in this regional triangle of trouble will prove to be the most catastrophic in its repercussions.

Away from the complex intrigues in Palestine, the US faces other tests in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these issues have become interconnected. A way out of Iraq requires Iranian ‘cooperation', and an international deal on Iran's nuclear ambitions needs US consent.

Dealing with Iran, a country with which the US has been at loggerheads for decades, is another indicator of Washington's failure to move beyond the status quo. Since the Islamic Revolution and the toppling of the Shah almost 30 years ago, Iran has managed to consolidate its position as a regional power, something that can no longer be ignored. Its influence reaches in all directions and it is a key player in many conflicts. Washington's persistent dismissal of Tehran is an example of political myopia and miscalculation.

And then there is the unwinnable war in Afghanistan with its Pakistani undercurrents. In the absence of a political breakthrough, it is now up to the military to end almost 10 years of war in Afghanistan. And as far as that essential element is concerned, the US and its Nato allies are lagging behind. From a strategic point of view, the Taliban have the upper hand in the battlefield by forcing the invaders to fight their kind of war. This is turning into a nightmare for the world's mightiest power. A decisive win for Nato has become an untenable objective. No single battle will decide the future of this war-torn country.

It would not be inconceivable for the West to accept defeat in Afghanistan soon. Such a disaster will be a harbinger for future crisis in Pakistan, which will become the focus of regional tension for years to come. The reverberations of losing Afghanistan and waking up to new conflict in Pakistan will almost certainly affect US foreign policy principles and strategies for the future.

The US is at a crossroads. What it does in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan will certainly overlap with its long-term policy objectives elsewhere in the region. The US has misunderstood and misconstrued this region for decades. As a superpower this is unforgivable. Now the US faces the potential of an all-time debacle. How the cluster of hotspots, east of Suez and West of Kandahar, will affect its global hegemony is an open-ended question.

Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist and political commentator based in Amman.