ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΜΕΣΟΓΕΙΑΚΩΝ, ΜΕΣΑΝΑΤΟΛΙΚΩΝ & ΙΣΛΑΜΙΚΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ

Διαβάστε επίσης τη βιβλιοκριτική του Dmitri Trenin, What is Russia Up To in the Middle East? (Polity Press, 2018).

Dmitri Trenin’s book is a welcome contribution to a thin body of print on Russian politics in the MENA region. Rather than enunciating in detail Putin’s regional policies -by definition an impossible task in 140 small pages- Trenin offers a succinct summation of these policies, their short-term impact and their perceptions by the region’s states. Well-versed in Russia’s geopolitical Weltanschauung, Trenin is aware of the country’s perennial interests in the greater Middle East. Far from a newcomer to the region, Russia has after all had a ‘rich history of involvement’. Yet continuities are often punctured by ruptures: the demise of the Soviet Union and the rejection of its mediating initiatives in the First Gulf War meant that the Middle East ‘almost vanished’ from Russian foreign policy. Moscow’s restoration of ties with Israel in the fall of 1991 and its co-chairing of the Arab-Israeli peace conference in Madrid the same year looked more like spasmodic attempts at survival of a flittering giant.

The decision of the Kurdistan Regional Government to proceed with the independence bid on September 25, precipitated a serious crisis in the region. Seemingly, one important question to be addressed is the consequences the Kurdish referendum engenders to the recently shaped Iran-Turkey-Russia axis, particularly on the Syrian issue. Whereas Iran and Turkey often find themselves at loggerheads over regional issues, their shared concern in preventing Kurdish statehood, seems to provide the necessary fuel towards cooperation, if not alliance-building. Russia, in the meanwhile, has adopted a “wait-and-see” policy on the matter. Still, the extent to this cooperation can be much constrained by their own diverging interests in the region.

In the last decade and a half, most analysts argue that the Russo-Iranian relation is primarily driven by external factors, particularly their desire to counter the US hegemony in the broader region, rather than the bilateral relations. Seen under the prism of a zero-sum game, the rapprochement of Tehran with the West brings many analysts to re-evaluate and question the Russian-Iranian ties. The arguments seem to lean towards Iran shunning Russia, disregarding multiple crucial factors related to the Iranian domestic political scene, their collaboration in Syria and even in the Caucasus. Despite the limitations and the ‘watchfulness’ between Moscow and the Islamic Republic, these factors will hinder any serious regression in their cooperation in the near future.

During most of its modern history, Egypt seemed to follow a more or less similar path in its foreign policy: it would align with one major power after another and would thus gain an advantageous position in the region. During the past two centuries, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States have replaced one another in more or less the same role. Amid the “new Cold War” trend being covered lately in the international press and Sisi’s recent visit to Moscow where he signed the first arms deal with Russia since the 1960’s, many have begun speaking of a renewal of the strategic relationship between the two countries and a consequent chill between Cairo and Washington.

Με τη συρο-ιρακινή κρίση να μαίνεται, το αμερικανικό υπουργείο Αμύνης αποφάσισε την έναρξη ενός νέου προγράμματος εκπαίδευσης μαχητών από τις τάξεις της λεγόμενης μετριοπαθούς αντιπολίτευσης στη Συρία στο πλαίσιο της διεθνούς προσπάθειας εναντίον του ISIS. Εκ πρώτης όψεως, η απόφαση αυτή φαίνεται πως αποσκοπεί στην κλιμάκωση του πολέμου κατά των Τζιχαντιστών στο μέτωπο της Συρίας, το οποίο παραμένει εν πολλοίς αμετάβλητο, λόγω της επικέντρωσης των επιθέσεων στο μέτωπο του Ιράκ. Ωστόσο η γεωπολιτική συνθετότητα της παρούσας κρίσης στη Μέση Ανατολή εκ των πραγμάτων δημιουργεί πολλαπλά περιθώρια ερμηνείας της απόφασης αυτής, κυρίως λόγω της άμεσης και έμμεσης εμπλοκής διάφορων αντιμαχόμενων μερών, σε τοπικό και περιφερειακό επίπεδο.

Εν αντιθέσει με τις προηγηθείσες εξεγέρσεις (με μερική εξαίρεση αυτή της Λιβύης), που περιορίστηκαν σε μεγάλο βαθμό στο εσωτερικό των χωρών, η εξέγερση στη Συρία διαχειρίζεται την τύχη ευρύτερων περιφερειακών σχέσεων και ως εκ τούτου προσελκύει δρώντες, που ευελπιστούν να διαμορφώσουν την κατάσταση ή είναι παθητικοί αποδέκτες της.