The End of the Game of Nations

Let’s stop thinking with the mind-set of the 1950s and 1960s and let’s throw away the famed book by the mythical intelligence man Miles Copeland entitled The Game of Nations. Local and world intelligence men are no longer able to change history, establish states, draw borders or make leaders. Yes, they may be able to sabotage the march and stop the movement but they will fail to restart it or direct it in the direction they desire. Regrettably, the cost of all of this is enormous. The peoples, who aspire for a better life, will bear the heavy price in terms of the suspension of the political dynamic in their own countries. Occasionally the cost is borne by those who think they have won and managed to change history.Yet, some people never learn and keep insisting that certain deals can still be made and that large sections of the population still believe they are nothing but chess pieces or “Pawns in the Game”, which is the title of another book that we should stop reading, that sit idly by waiting pathetically for something to be decided about them. Consequently, they rush into accepting whatever columnists and political analysts propagate about the existence of major political deals that are being forged in several capitals focusing on Iran. The deals are said to involve a historic reconciliation between Iran and the West according to which Iran relinquishes its nuclear project, if only temporarily, amending it so as to produce energy only in exchange for surrendering Syria to it so as to become its zone of influence while the regime there is rehabilitated one way or another. On the other hand Saudi Arabia would be given Lebanon as a consolation prize where a government acceptable to it is formed and where it is reconciled with Hezbollah.

It is as if he who lived in the 1960s is still redrawing the map of the Middle East with total disregard for a significant element that is new to The Game of Nations. This new element is the Power of the People, which, despite all the defeats and frustrations of the Arab Spring, is still alive and continues to impact all events despite the agreements that be reached in Geneva II or in the open or secret meetings that are held around the world and that are so preoccupied with the new Arab World that is still being conceived and whose birth is not complete yet.

It is true that the Middle East is on fire and is in a state of liquidity. The Sykes – Picot borders within it have lasted but its people have flowed across these ‘artificial’ borders carrying with them their causes unwittingly embodying Arab unity. Yet, they have also separated in pursuit of diverse political inclinations. A significant group within this population has opted to remain neutral in the hope of remaining safe and in anticipation of what the conflict among the big and the small will generate.

All Middle East files have been opened at once as if the world and history are in a hurry to resolve them all at once. These include the chronic Arab-Israeli conflict, unemployment, decline, the crisis of democracy and liberties and even the Sunni-Shiite confrontation. This is what prompted the proponents of the ‘deals theory’ to point to evidence proving the existence of such “major deals”.

When we draw a geopolitical map of the Middle East today we shall find up front the 1 + 5 General negotiations between Iran and the West. The negotiations have failed ‘temporarily’ to resolve the Iranian nuclear project crisis and whatever relates to it including the lifting of sanctions and normalising Iran’s relations with the West, which seems desirous to see this happen in order to end what they describe as the 34 years of cold war between Iran and the United States of America.

On the peripheries sit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and quite distant from them Israel as well. They observe what’s going on with interest, for they are directly concerned. Israel alone expresses its concerns and at times it even threatens that any agreement reached will not dissuade it from taking action, even if alone, to protect its security. Israel, in fact, is the main provoker of Western and U.S. interest in the nuclear project for it considers it to be an existential threat. The Gulf states and Saudi Arabia do not see it in this way but see it as a threat that will lead to a major flaw in the region’s balance of power tilted in favour of Iran who is thirsty for and is seeking hegemony in the region. It must be more anxious than Israel because the current General negotiations are focused solely on the nuclear project, which is also of concern to the Gulf States. The Geneva talks exclude Iran’s interventions in the region and its hegemonic plans including its obstruction of the efforts to achieve national reconciliation in Bahrain, the smuggling of arms to the Hoothies in Yemen and even the Iranian occupation of Syria, as describe recently by the Saudi Foreign minister.

At best, the United States will tell us that resolving the nuclear crisis, and what would follow of a historic reconciliation, will eventually encourage the resolution of other issues. These are mere promises in the air. Washington will not pay attention to these issues it regards as ‘local Middle Eastern problems’, which do not threaten its own or Israel’s interests. Anyway, the United States neither understands these problems nor desires to understand them.

At this juncture we move to the Syrian court in the alleged chessboard, which is supposed to be in the ‘major deal’. Saudi Arabia wishes to end the conflict because of its enormous cost to it and to its allies in the region. This includes the ‘spill over’ that alters demographic composition and the threats by Alqaeda, which seeks to render Syria its major project and in doing so it employs some Prophetic traditions to argue that the Levant is the land of the final battle and to recruit the largest number possible of enthusiastic fighters especially from amongst Saudi nationals.

The United States does not seem in a hurry to settle the conflict. Here comes the role of the proponents of the aforementioned ‘major deal’ theory, namely that “Syria goes to Iran and Lebanon goes to Saudi Arabia.” They even expand the theory to include a second deal in which the prize is Egypt and a third one in Libya. They may even re-divide Syria as if we are still in ‘Versailles 1919’ without paying attention to the historic transformations that occurred in the region in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. These include the people’s power, the cross-border media and the social media that influences and regulate the political dynamic. Such transformations render these deals impossible. There are no more powerful leaders who parachute down on top of the heads of their people as if they were unavoidable destiny. Nor is there a secret police that is capable of imposing choices. Intelligence agents may be able to sabotage the ‘machine’ but they will not be able to restart it in the direction they desire. Perhaps they will never be able to restart it at all. They may just be content with leaving it and what surrounds it to rust away in a manner that would not only harm the country where the scrap ‘machine’ exists but also those in the vicinity. The sinister repercussions of damaging the machine may even reach those who did the damage in the first place.

It would be a mistake to defy the power of history with the illusion that the powerful can forge deals and plan the future away from the peoples whose divisions and lack of experience with democracy enabled local, regional and international forces to abuse them. Yet, these peoples continue to be in a state of liquidity and rage. They know what they want but they are confused about how to achieve it. What is certain is that they will not wait for a knight mounted on a white horse to lead them toward a new shining dawn. The one-man era is over.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.