Beginning with the Financial Times and an opinion piece by David Gardner, international affairs editor, entitled "Middle East Leaders Learn Not to Count on the United States."
The writer says, "The catastrophe of the United States and the West in Afghanistan is sounding the alarm from eastern Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait... But in the Middle East, the arena of serial Anglo-American invasions, the reaction of leaders to the surrender of the United States was conservative. It seemed indeed to the allies And adversaries alike, they can't count on the United States."
And he adds, "The US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 showed the limits of America's power and its inability to shape the geopolitics of the region."
The writer believes that "American unreliability has prompted leaders across the Middle East to start a dialogue aimed at détente, rather than relying on outside parties."
The writer explains at this point that "Donald Trump was already heading chaotically towards an exit from Syria and Iraq when, in February of last year, he concluded the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, undermining the Afghan government that he did not bother to consult. Most worryingly for US allies, Trump refused to provide aid to Saudi Arabia after Iran exposed the kingdom's vulnerability with a devastating drone and missile attack on Saudi Aramco in 2019.
Skip topics that may interest you and continue reading. Topics that may interest youtopics that may interest you. End
The writer quotes a "veteran" Arab foreign minister, who observed that "the main problem is the Arabs' dependence on foreigners, and then, when foreigners change their policies, we are lost."
Now, according to the author, “Arab leaders are trying to anticipate the tide of events before it collapses on them. Enemies are talking to each other. Iran and Saudi Arabia, at odds from Yemen to Syria and Iraq to Lebanon, began meeting in April. The United Arab Emirates is trying Egypt, on opposite sides of Turkey and Qatar in the Libyan civil war, is mending relations. Iraq, which is struggling to survive as a unified country, hosted last Sunday a summit that brought together the region's adversaries.
Skip the podcast and read onMorahakatyTeenage taboos, hosted by Karima Kawah and edited by Mais Baqi.
The episodes
The end of the podcast
Pictures: Taliban take control of Kabul airport after the final withdrawal of US forces
After the Taliban declared their victory: How was the image of America affected by its Arab allies?
Taliban: Will its rise become an incentive for extremist groups in the Arab world?
Who is Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the "real" leader of the Taliban?
The writer considers that "all of this is temporary. Trump has been offering blank checks to Saudi Arabia and Israel. However, the impulsive Biden rejected Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince and de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, and became more assertive towards Israel, which Trump encouraged to annex the occupied Palestinian territories." from one side".
However, the writer considers that "Biden must now find a way to prevent the Afghan disaster from emboldening Iran. American policy has helped Tehran build an axis across Arab lands since the invasion of Iraq."
He notes that one of Biden's main goals is to "revive the 2015 restraint pact that Iran signed with the United States and five world powers, which Trump unilaterally withdrew from in 2018. The United States and its allies also want to rein in Iran and its paramilitary forces." supported by Tehran in the Levant and the Gulf.
The writer explains, "The indirect meetings in Vienna brought Washington and Tehran very close to reaching a nuclear agreement before the election of Iran's new hardline president, Ebrahim Raisi. He said Iran would support the nuclear deal that lifts the sanctions that Trump re-imposed. The US says The United States "This is on the table in Vienna. But Biden may need to go further. The United States withdrew from the 2015 deal unilaterally, but Iran didn't start violating its nuclear borders until a year later. Biden could start lifting sanctions on the one hand." One, setting a verifiable deadline for Iran to return to compliance. Iran might also be willing to cooperate with the United States on Afghanistan to guard against the re-embracing of ISIS."
In a region that has just been taught yet another lesson in US unreliability, it would certainly be useful for Washington to explore the power of others' self-interest.
In the Guardian, Yara Hawari, senior analyst at the Palestinian Policy Network, published an article entitled "The Palestinian Authority's crackdown on protests shows that it will never serve its people."
The killing of Nizar Banat, a longtime activist and outspoken critic of the Palestinian Authority, on June 24, the author says, was “a political assassination as many believe.” Protests erupted across the West Bank shortly after Banat’s death was announced. To hold accountable for the killing of daughters and achieve justice for his family.”
The author notes that the protests that erupted after that and continued until July "faded away for a few weeks, the repression had a frightening effect, but it returned again in late August, as well as the crackdown. Dozens were detained in unsanitary and crowded cells without consideration COVID-19 precautions. They were reportedly abused and interrogated for hours at a time without legal representation.”
The author explains, "The authoritarian behavior of the Palestinian Authority is neither new nor surprising. It was formed after the Oslo Accords in 1993 as a temporary body to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since then, its authority and influence in those areas has surpassed that of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Many organizations have mentioned Local and international over the years, not only the suppression of protests by the Palestinian Authority, but also the lack of freedom of expression in general and the stifling of democracy in its territories.
The author highlights that "this situation with the Palestinian Authority is often framed as an internal issue, but this ignores the way the Palestinian Authority relies on international support, and how it coordinates its most repressive moves with the Israeli regime."
"The Palestinian Authority relies heavily on foreign donors to operate. Many countries, including Britain, provide funding and training programs for the Palestinian security forces. For them, the Authority is seen as a key pillar in maintaining overall stability in the West Bank "The West, even if that means suppressing popular protest. The Oslo Accords stipulated that the PA must work with the Israelis within the framework of a security peace. This means that they are obligated to work in full cooperation with the Israeli regime, through such things as joint training and intensive intelligence." According to the author.
She concludes, "These close relations and cooperation between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli regime is a story often left untold in the international media... With the PA increasingly resorting to authoritarianism, it is necessary to understand that the suppression of Palestinian political activity is part and parcel of It is integral to the Israeli occupation. Moreover, this repression is aided and abetted by many actors in the international community.”
She concludes, "Both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli regime depend on each other, the former maintaining its military grip on its people, and the other maintaining a defeated and depoliticized Palestinian people. It is clear, more than ever, that the Palestinians will not be liberated from Israeli oppression under Israeli leadership." Palestinian Authority".
Risk of disintegration
We conclude with an opinion article by Salma Shah, former special advisor to former minister Sajid Javid, in The Independent Online, entitled "Afghanistan represents a turning point, the once-strong liberal Western alliance is at risk disintegration".
While the situation in Afghanistan remains volatile and the complex evacuation efforts continue, it is worth considering what this means for Britain and its foreign policy in the long term. Should we have been in Afghanistan? Were we right to leave? This would be The questions are hotly contested and will fuel a polarized debate for some time to come, but they are quite starkly revealing of the absence of any long-term foreign policy goals on Britain's part.
And she adds, “The exit from Afghanistan must mark a turning point, as we realize that the events that once crowned the West, and the ideas that translated into its success, are no longer sufficient to maintain our role. The post-war world that gave way to the post-communist world needs now To define himself in a post-terrorist world.
She explains that “the rise of China, which has posed a profound existential problem for the United States, threatens the very foundation on which we built our view of the world. It is no longer taken for granted that free capitalist democracies are the only path to growth. When capitalism defeated communism in the 1980s, we expected that "It will always be a victory. It is now clear that this was not the case. The battle for economic ideas is another front for international relations."
And she believes that Britain's relationship with old allies "requires some deep analysis as well. It may be dramatic to note that the repercussions from Afghanistan indicate a deep division between us and the United States, but we are witnessing a pattern of international retreat across the Atlantic, which will have an impact "On how Britain deals with the rest of the world, without making sure of US involvement or understanding that we share broadly similar goals. The once mighty Western liberal alliance is in danger of disintegrating."