The US Spring in the Arab Fall

These policies change their names from “strategic patience” to “angry deterrence”, “military deterrence”, “political mutual deterrence”, “cold war ideology”, etc., in different situations. These policies are the infrastructures of US foreign policy toward Iran, and many analysts believe that even if Obama wanted to make a change in this policy he would not be able to do so.

According to this historical explanation, the security conditions of the region are based on the “deterrence” of Iran by the US, and which strengthens the power of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. These regimes are based on the power of the US and their crackdown on their people. The US policy to deter Iran in the region is giving power to regional monarchies, and there’s no difference for them between the collapsed Mubarak regime or the collapsing Abdullah Saleh or Al-Khalifa regimes, or the shaky Al-Saud or Al-Saleh regimes. However, alongside a regional analysis, sociological investigations of the countries that created the Arab Spring are the other side of the coin to the American support of these regimes.

Even though the “hegemonic power” created a situation that led to the collapse of these regimes, since democratic demands are not rooted in these countries some are trying to create a “new despotism” all over again. Once again governments become the representation of formed structures instead of being the representatives of their people in such a situation.

History shows that the formation of democratic governments in the presence of an undemocratic political culture is not possible. This is seen in the Arab Spring in which the formation of political structures are prioritized over structures which provide the opportunity of criticism and exclusion of the newly democratic rulers. The revolutionaries are after preparations for newly democratic elections, however, it seems improbable that the newly elected rulers will later surrender to the will of people and they will inevitably continue the path of their predecessors.

In case this theory is proved, the US deterrence policy toward Iran will continue, with the minor difference of new players replacing the old ones. This will result in the recreation of ethnic polarities and further arms competition due to the magnification of the possibility of the occurrence of war, which has been present in the region since three decades ago and has kept the region in a situation of a cold war ever since.

With the developments taking place in the region and the collapse of some regimes and the weakening of others, analysts have warned Obama that he has to take action in order to prevent Iran from benefiting form the advantages these developments could bring it by synchronizing the newly formed regimes so that they follow the same path as their predecessors in being puppets of the US in their policies. Analysts have referred to the statements of Nabil al-Arabi, the new Egyptian foreign Minister, who said that his country prefers to have normal relations with Iran rather than joining the anti-Iran camp, and warned Obama that if revolutionary governments in the Middle East do not maintain their strategic relations with the US, the Arab Spring will turn into the American Fall.

John Limbert, the former US hostage in Iran, published a book in 2009 titled “Negotiating with Iran”. The author refers to spirits haunting the relations between these two countries; from the Ghajar treaties to the Pahlavi coup, the takeover of the US Embassy, support of Iraq in the war, and so on. If we accept the framework of Limbert’s analysis, we have to say that the Arab Spring will create even more haunting spirits targeting Iran-US relations.

The near future will show the choice of Arab “spring governments” in picking the side of Iran or the US; for they cannot remain neutral since the Middle East is not a land of neutrality.