Ordering up stability for the Mideast

As President Obama works with both theocratic Iran and Arab monarchies, he must help the Middle East agree to a moral order based on respect for the dignity of the nation state.

Qatar's Foreign Minister Khalid bin Mohamed Al-Attiyah (L) arrives to attend the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 30. Leaders from the GCC discussed the ongoing conflict in neighboring Yemen and Iran's nuclear program, and prepared for a summit with President Barack Obama May 13-14.

Is there an organizing principle for the Middle East? The question seems simplistic, even hopeless, what with war in three countries and a coming showdown over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet it is the best question to ask before a meeting between President Obama and leaders from six Arab nations.

The gathering will be long in diplomatic time, over two days from May 13 to 14. And it will be unusually intimate, held both in Washington and at the presidential retreat of Camp David. These are signals from the United States that the region could be ripe for a grand vision of stability. 

The six nations, dominated by Saudi Arabia, are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. This group of Arab and Sunni-led monarchies are seeking more American help against Iran’s aggression on a number of fronts, from Yemen to Lebanon. 

Yet Mr. Obama is also in talks with Iran to clinch a deal on its nuclear program and prevent a dangerous arms race in the region. And the United States military is indirectly working with Iran to roll back Islamic State militants in Iraq. Obama even hopes a nuclear deal with Iran will lead it to end its post-1979 revolutionary zeal and take a moderate path. 

"It's possible that Iran, seeing the benefits of sanctions relief, starts focusing more on the economy and its people,” Obama told The New York Times.

Is the United States working both sides of the street, so to speak? In a way, yes, but not to equivocate, buy time, or keep the US from further war. Rather, the Obama strategy seems aimed at helping the Middle East find an equipoise of power relationships defined by mutual respect of each nation-state’s dignity. 

For now, achieving such geopolitical equilibrium would be the best moral order for a region beset by those who insist on a conformity to their religious practices or who seek regional dominance based on past imperial glory or other reasons. 

Regional stability would be better achieved if all Mideast nations were democratic, of course, especially if each could create a balance between political Islam and civic freedoms, as in Turkey and Tunisia. But that kind of constitutionalism is up against other isms, from monarchy to theocracy to ethnic nationalism. With those forces still destabilizing the region, simply having each country or militant group honor the sovereignty of the nation state would be a step up.

This US strategy requires difficult decisions on tactics. Should the US promise a nuclear shield for Saudi Arabia if Iran is bent on nuclear weapons? How much can Iran be trusted if a nuclear pact is signed? Will US combat troops be needed in Iraq to stop Islamic State? How much should the US condone Saudi-led warfare in Yemen?

To answer such questions, the US and its negotiating partners – whether Saudi or Iranian, whether Sunni or Shiite – need a common vision for the region. The best starting point is respect of each nation’s territory.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.