The "Abraham Agreements": a Peace Treaty or a Defense Deal?

 

(Versione italiana sotto) On September 15, with a solemn ceremony, a radiant Donald Trump did the honors for an event the most of the journalists and commentators worldwide rushed to tag as “historic”. The location was indeed the one of the important events, the Garden of the Roses of the White House, which witnessed other high ranking delegations formerly at war shaking each other’s hands in peace. The level of the guests received on this occasion was not less elevated than in the past: the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and the Foreign Ministers of the UAE and Bahrain have signed agreements that normalize the relations among those countries ushering in the opening of diplomatic representations, commercial flights and cooperation in scientific, industrial and cultural sectors.

At a first sight it would seem as this event follows in the footsteps of the Camp David Agreements of 1978 which put an end to the hostility between Israel and Egypt and of those of 1994 between Israel and Jordan  -and previous to that the Interim agreements between Israel and the PLO. Except that what President Trump (together with National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien and Middle Eastern Advisor – and Trump’s son-in-law -Jared Kushner) has been steadily working on is something that strays totally from the traditional paradigm of the US and Middle Eastern diplomacy that has always subordinated any regional settlement with Israel – including the recognition by its Arab neighbors- to the principle “Land for Peace”. Such was the spirit of the above-mentioned agreements between Sadat and Begin with the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and the peace agreement between Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan as a result of the negotiations with Arafat over the return of the Palestinian territories.

What at first strikes about the “Abraham Agreements” is that the “normalization” concerns countries with which Israel has no territorial disputes: in fact, they already fostered good unofficial relations in sectors such as tourism and exchange of intelligence and military information.  As an evidence of that, we haven’t witnessed long and strained negotiations and the declaration of intents was a lean, short document. A peace without a (previous) war, which lies outside the usual paradigms used by scholars and reporters to explain the dynamics of the Middle Eastern politics in general and the Israel-Palestinian-Arab conflict in particular. Is that a good sign? Is it a cunning operation of Realpolitik by regional actors which get rid of the classical alliances schemes and of the full-blown rhetoric on solidarity with the Palestinians?

What is true is that the Palestinians are indeed the only loosing part of this negotiation round. “A stub in the back” was even described by the spokesperson of the Palestinian authority. As a matter of fact, as already mentioned, these agreements mark a breach in the Arab stance. The Arab countries as a whole had always backed the Palestinian claim that any recognition of Israel would pass by an overall settlement with the Palestinian Authority over the status of the Territories occupied by Israel during the ’67 War.  That was still the official pan-Arab position as stated in the last, general Arab Peace Plan sponsored by Saudi Arabia in 2002.

It is true that the Emirates have justified their decision by claiming that they “convinced” the Israeli Prime Minister to freeze the project of annexing the West Bank: however as Netanyahu put it, the project is only in stand-by as it represents a priority for his government.

By claiming to have broken the Israeli isolation among the Arab world (or at least in part of it) as a major diplomatic success Mr. Netanyahu can undoubtedly mark a point in his favor, given the troubled internal political situation, with an indictment for corruption pending on him and with the chaos over the management of the Covid-19 pandemic (being so far Israel the first country to experience a second full lockdown).

For his part, President Donald Trump can also sell the brokered agreements as a diplomatic achievement enshrined in his personal negotiation skills that, as he puts it, he will use to herald even further American success in the international arena, were he be reelected. If it is true that historically the foreign policy has not had a preponderant weight for a president seeking reelection, it is also true that by presenting himself as a strenuous defender of Israel (by brokering an agreement that breaks the latter diplomatic isolation) Mr. Trump bets on the Jewish and the Evangelic votes (which are traditionally close to Israel). 

As for the Gulf Countries it is interesting to see how they will capitalize the “Abraham Agreements” and how the peculiar strategic and military contingency has pushed UEA and Bahrain to turn their backs to the Palestinian claims with the approval of Saudi Arabia. It is undoubted that the agreements went through thanks to the approbation of the Saudi Monarchy which backed down the past inflexibility towards Israel. If it is unlikely tough that the King would openly recognize Israel and join in the agreements, in the future, once Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman will take over, everything is possible.

Surely the game is worth the risk. Beyond the rhetoric used by the Arab partners (starting from the name “Abraham Agreements” to recall the patriarch who is recognized as the “father” of the three main monotheistic religions: Christianity; Judaism and Islam) which by the way will find it difficult to sell them to their populations (this is particularly true in Bahrain whose Sunni élite has been experiencing troubles to rule over the Shiite majority) what is at stake goes beyond the sole opening to truism or to the scientific cooperation. What this is mostly about is the creation of a common front against the shared regional enemy called Iran. With last year attack on Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia (by drone flown from Yemen but allegedly directed by Iran) and with the Cold-war climate astride the Arabic Gulf, every little help against Iran is welcome by the AGC. And the “Abraham Agreements” seem to come as much more than a little help. 

The decisive, positive opportunity was given with the election of Donald Trump as US president who abandoned the nuclear agreement wanted by his predecessor Barak Obama and opened a new era of strong pressures on Iran. The Arab Gulf Countries which perceive the Iranian regime as the major danger for the regional stability and for the Sunni hegemony over the Muslim world are more than happy to realign behind the harsh stances of President Trump, even if that means to pass through an agreement with yesterday’s foe Israel. In exchange, the UAE may at last obtain their order of brand new F-35 stealth fighters and the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircrafts, marking a strategic advantage in the military balance with Teheran. Winds of war, as one can see, that have brought about an unprecedented coalition from Washington to Abu Dhabi, passing through the new allies of Tel Aviv.

Gli “Accordi di Abramo”: cui prodest?

In pompa magna, lo scorso 15 Settembre un raggiante Donald Trump faceva gli onori di casa per un evento che stampa e commentatori di mezzo mondo si sono affrettati a definire “storico”. La location era peraltro quella degli eventi importanti, il Giardino delle Rose della Casa Bianca che in passato ha visto altri presidenti e altre delegazioni di paesi precedentemente in guerra stringersi la mano. E in effetti la statura degli ospiti convenuti in quest'occasione non è stata da meno che nel passato: Benjamin Netanyahu, Primo ministro di Israele e i ministri degli esteri di Bahrain e Emirati Arabi Uniti hanno firmato un accordo che normalizza i rapporti tra questi paesi, con scambio di rappresentanze diplomatiche, aperture di voli commerciali e cooperazione in ambito scientifico, industriale e culturale.

A prima vista sembrerebbe che un tale evento ricalchi effettivamente quelli degli accordi di Camp David, del 1978 che posero fine alle ostilità tra Israele e Egitto e del 1994 tra Israele e Giordania e prima ancora gli Interim agreement tra Israele e OLP. Se non che ciò a cui il Presidente Donald Trump (e i suoi consiglieri Robert O’ Brien per la Sicurezza Nazionale e il genero Kushner per il Medio Oriente) ha minuziosamente lavorato corrisponde a un paradigma profondamente diverso rispetto ai binari della diplomazia americana e mediorientale che vincolavano qualsivoglia accordo regionale con Israele- incluso il riconoscimento dei vicini arabi- al principio di “terra in cambio di pace”.  Tale è stato il caso dei sopra citati accordi tra Begin e Sadat con la restituzione del Sinai all'Egitto e gli accordi tra Rabin e re Hussein che hanno seguito i negoziati con Arafat per la cessione dei Territori Palestinesi.

Ciò che a primo acchito colpisce di tale “normalizzazione” è che riguarda dei paesi con cui Israele non ha di fatto alcun contenzioso territoriale e con cui anzi nutre già buoni rapporti ufficiosi in diversi settori (dal turismo allo scambio di informazioni di intelligence e militari). A riprova di ciò, il mondo non ha assistito a lunghi round negoziali e il documento firmato è una “snella” dichiarazione di intenti. Una pace senza guerra insomma che esula dai consueti schemi epistemologici con cui studiosi e commentatori (ci) hanno abituato a leggere la politica mediorientale e il conflitto israelo-arabo-palestinese in particolare. E’ questo un bene? Una scaltra operazione di Realpolitik da parte di attori regionali stanchi delle pastoie diplomatiche e – da parte di Bahrein e EAU (per ora) della conclamata solidarietà panaraba verso i Palestinesi?

E’ vero che i Palestinesi, ancora una volta, sono stati i “perdenti” diplomaticamente parlando di tali accordi. Addirittura una “coltellata alla schiena” come l'ha definita il portavoce del governo di Abbas. E in effetti, come si è già detto, la firma tra i tre paesi segna una crepa importante nel blocco arabo che ha strenuamente subordinato –almeno di facciata- ogni riconoscimento di Israele alla pace con i palestinesi e alla restituzione dei territori occupati nella guerra del ’67. Tale principio veniva ancora solennemente sancito dall’ultimo, più importante piano di pace arabo voluto dall’Arabia Saudita nel 2002 e a cui tutti i Paesi arabi hanno aderito.

E’ pur vero che gli Emirati hanno giustificato la loro apertura affermando di aver “convinto” Netanyahu a congelare il progetto di annessione della West Bank, ma come lo stesso Primo ministro israeliano si è affrettato a dichiarare il progetto è solo rinviato, essendo esso l'obiettivo primario, nel medio-lungo periodo, del governo israeliano.

Netanyahu segna senza dubbio un punto diplomatico a proprio favore, rompendo l'isolamento diplomatico nel mondo arabo (o di parte di esso) e puntando sulla politica estera rispetto a una politica interna che al momento, tra il processo per corruzione e la gestione critica dell'epidemia Covid (Israele è il primo paese al mondo a imporre un secondo lockdown totale) non sembra fornirgli motivi per rallegrarsi.

Pure Trump dal canto suo può vantare un successo diplomatico sancendo quel suo “stile negoziale” tutto particolare che, sotto elezioni con sondaggi a lui sfavorevoli gli permette di annunciare ulteriori successi in campo internazionale. Se è vero che la politica estera non ha storicamente un peso preponderante per un presidente americano che cerca la rielezione è pur vero che, presentandosi come uno strenuo difensore di Israele e contribuendo a romperne l'isolamento diplomatico di parte del mondo arabo, Trump punta sull’importante fetta del voto  ebraico e su quello evangelico, tradizionalmente amico di Israele.

Quanto ai Paesi del Golfo è interessante notare quanto capitalizzeranno dall'accordo con Israele e come la particolare congiuntura strategico/militare abbia spinto (sempre complice l’amministrazione Trump) a far cadere i vecchi tabù che legavano i Paesi arabi alla causa palestinese e all’ostilità verso lo stato ebraico, con il tacito avallo dell’Arabia Saudita.  Sembra infatti che Ryad –senza la cui autorizzazione difficilmente il Bahrain e gli stessi Emirati avrebbero potuto intraprendere un passo simile- stia facendo macchina indietro rispetto all’intransigenza mostrata verso Israele, e se è improbabile che l'attuale sovrano si spinga fino ad un accordo formale con lo Stato ebraico (come ventilato più o meno chiaramente da Washington) con il futuro monarca Mohammad bin Salman tutto sarà possibile.

Certo, il gioco vale la candela. Al di là della retorica messa in campo dai diversi Paesi (a partire dal nome degli accordi che, in uno sforzo ecumenico, rimanda al Patriarca riconosciuto dalle tre grandi religioni: Abramo appunto) i quali, che che se ne dica, hanno difficoltà a far accettare alla propria popolazione la normalizzazione con Israele (il che è particolarmente vero per il Bahrain la cui helite sunnita ha e ha avuto grosse difficoltà a governare una maggioranza sciita) la posta in gioco è ben altra che le sole apertura al turismo e alla cooperazione scientifica. Si tratta infatti di ufficializzare quel fronte comune che oppone il mondo sunnita – a guida Saudita- e Israele alla comune minaccia iraniana.  Con gli attacchi alle raffinerie saudite da parte di droni yemeniti –ma con la regia iraniana, secondo Ryad- e con il clima da guerra fredda (che spesso, come abbiamo visto, deflagra in atti di proxy-war) che si vive tra le due sponde del Golfo, ogni aiuto anti-iraniano è ben accetto dalle petrol-monarchie. Finalmente la congiuntura favorevole si è avuta con l'arrivo di Donald Trump alla Casa bianca il quale si è affrettato a stralciare l’accordo sul nucleare voluto dal suo predecessore lanciando un segnale che le capitali del Golfo hanno subito colto: e se questo significava, come nel disegno di Kushner e Trump stesso- e come auspicato da Netanyahu-  di passare attraverso un riconoscimento di Israele, ben venga. In cambio gli Emirati Arabi avranno sbloccate le commesse per i tanto agognati F-35 invisibili ai droni e i Boeing E/A-18G Growler segnando un vantaggio strategico nell’equilibrio militare con Teheran. Venti di guerra quindi che, in chiave anti-iraniana, vedono un inedito asse Washington-Tel Aviv-Abu Dhabi. 

The Ayatollah and Iraq...a déjà vu story?

   

   The violent protests that have been flaring up Iraq for over two months brought about the resignation of Prime Minister Abdel Abdul Mahdi, as sources of the government leaked on November 29th. Interestingly enough, it was not the heavy-handed police response (leaving on the ground more than 400 protesters), nor the pressures from the International Community that caused the PM to step down. What it actually resulted decisive was the official standpoint taken by top Shia Iraqi Authority, Ayatollah Aly Al-Systani condemning the crackdown.

    The riots started in the early October and targeted a ruling class conceived as too corrupted, unable to cope with the rising unemployment rate affecting mainly young people ( in Iraq 60% of the population is under 30). So far the protests have been essentially spontaneous, without a defined lairdship and mainly animated by young people.

    This is up to now. As in the intricate Middle Eastern scenario and specifically in the complicated ethnic and religious mosaic that is Iraq, the gaps of power are particularly quick to be re-filled. The majority of the population in Iraq is Shi’ite and during the ruling of the Sunni Saddam Hussein the gap between Shia majority and the Sunni minority went on more and more widening. In this sense it was of little help the post-Saddam quota-based system attributing key government roles equally to Shia, Sunny and Curds, the three main sectarian and ethnical groups of Iraq.

    Today’s risk in Iraq is that the Shia clergy could take advantage of the lack of leadership during these two month unrests. From Karbala, the Shi’ite holy city in Iraq, Ayatollah Al- Systani presents himself as the guide, both political and spiritual, of a population exacerbated by years of instability, misery and warships. For decades, at least since the Ba’at revolution in the 60s, the religious Shia authorities were relegated to mosques and Madrasas, but today they present themselves  as the political alternative to look upon for a wide population disenchanted by the collapsing republican institutions. And indeed the political situation may justify a daring comparison of today’s Iraq to the 1979-Iran: back then, the anti-Shah protests too were inspired by progressive demands against a corrupted government perceived as driven by external interests. Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, initially declared himself unwilling to lead the protest movements just to oust any other democratic force upon his return to the country.

    The present political situation in Iraq shows some aspects that appear ripe for a populist-theological discourse to be grasped: the protests still do not have a clear ideological motive nor a leadership with which the Shi’ite clergy could compete for; the Iraqi civil society is today much more fragile than the one in Iran in the late 70s and therefore less resilient to the cajolery of the religious lure. Let alone the growing influence exercised by Iran in all the Middle East...  And still, this last point can help debunking a too simplistic comparison between the two countries. The influence of Iran, perceived as too pervasive in the Iraqi politics, was one of the reasons pushing people to take the street. Moreover, the complex confessional and ethnical composition of Iraq does not seem to encourage a potential hegemonic experience by the Shi’a: that, if ever happened, would not be able to take over the pride Sunni population without sparking further conflict eligible to enlarge, once more, at the regional and international level.

    The 2011 “Arab Springs” that gave the hope for a democratic reshaping of the entire Middle East, mostly turned into more excruciating conflicts and authoritarian regimes (with important exceptions like in Tunisia)...The peculiar history of Iraq, its demographic composition and the ethnic and religious divides do not seem to encourage for a controlled and peaceful resolution of the today’s unrests. Will we assist to a resurgence of the religious and ethnical contend as a consequence of the demands for a renovated and more democratic political system? Or should be assisting to a further fragmentation of the Iraqi polity, under the pressure of the internal and the external interests? The upcoming months will be decisive to understanding the evolution of the crisis as well as to grasp once and for all which role the Shia authorities will assume.