Yal NATO

The Trump administration is pursuing a regional security alliance comprised of Egypt, Jordan, and six Gulf Arab states, dubbed as the “Arab NATO.” The organisation will presumably support US efforts in containing and rolling back Iranian influence in the Middle East. To use US jargon: to safeguard against Iranian aggression, terrorism, extremism, totalitarianism and any other isms that come to mind. Tired and broke after a series of military interventions in this sad, troubled region, the Trump administration hopes that the Arab NATO would step in and do the work themselves.  

The White House wants to see deeper cooperation between the countries on missile defence, military training, counter-terrorism and other issues such as strengthening regional economic and diplomatic ties. However, the main target is to curb Shiite Iran, by these Sunni partners. The proposal screams failure on many levels, but two dimensions must be explored in this respect:  technical glitches, and moral vacuum.

Clustering these countries in an alliance on the premises of ideological harmony and common interests (at least momentarily) does not promise a solid foundation for a military cross-national alliance. The Gulf States have been on non-speaking terms with Qatar for over a year now. Jordan was boycotted by all Gulf States during the first Gulf War. Egypt outspokenly threatened to topple the regime in Jordan back in the early 1960s. Saudi Arabia and Egypt repeatedly refused to allow either country to lead their army under a military alliance. Political, ideological, historical, economic, and social divides cannot be ignored in the euphoria of ‘Sunni brethren union to counter a Shiite menace’. Even if these Arab States alluded to agreeing to the establishment of their own NATO version, years of experience taught them that this is but a euphemism to: the USA will come to our rescue if military adventures go awry. Another technical issue that should be considered is the point behind the alliance. What does ‘counter Iranian influence’ mean? Does it mean cooperating with the US in damaging Iran's economy, thus also jeopardising the economy of neighbouring countries, primarily Iraq? Does it mean disenfranchising the Shiite community, thus deepening a schism that would likely end in a civil war in multiple countries? Would that mean launching a war against a nuclear Iran? How are these states supposed to curb Tehran's powers? Should the Arab NATO have a vague, open-for-interpretation charter that outlines we-hate-Iran articles? It is very difficult to imagine the technicality of this military cooperation and its specific objectives, let alone legitimacy. 

Now, the moral dimension. The Arab world will not turn into Utopia once the Persian threat is curbed and dwarfed. All of these countries are ruled by autocratic regimes, some of which with totalitarian tendencies, whose youth are disaffected and marginalised. Poverty, unemployment, lack of freedoms, bigotry and many more issues run deep in these countries. Solving them will bring peace and stability to the Middle East. A club of military ambitions will not. Yemen stands testimony to the atrocities that are committed against civilians in the name of protecting Arabs from Iranian intervention. How can the Trump administration morally allow unleashing such erratic behaviour, including on its staunchest Iranian enemy?

The administration’s hope is that the effort might be discussed at a summit provisionally scheduled for Washington on 12-13 October. Let us all hope that someone wakes Trump up from his ethical coma.