The Arab region and an American future vision

The dialogue that the Green-leafed colleague from the Middle East conducted with Mr. Joey Hood, Acting U.S. Under Secretary of State, on the future vision for the Arab region, and the latitude and longitude of U.S. policies in the region, deserves a pause silence and an attempt to clarify the facts and the nature of things.

At first, the US official did not hide or endorse the main objectives of US policy in the Arab region and the Middle East. He summarized them in four points:
First, to defend the interests of his country
Second: Support partners and allies in promoting reforms
Third, the fight against corruption
Fourth: Support for human rights
These goals come as no surprise to those familiar with the book of American pragmatism, which has become an international approach that is not limited to Washington, but has become a traditional approach stretching from Moscow through Beijing and Brussels to Washington DC. the other side of the Atlantic.

In his dialogue, Mr. Hood tries to underline the great and clear interweaving between the American policies and the countries of the region, and the intelligence of the interlocutor, which he stopped with him in several countries which represent open and thick wounds in the Arab body.

The reader’s first impression of the dialogue, and with great regret, is that what the American guest repeats does not go beyond the clichés preserved and engraved during Arab-American relations for at least three decades.

Mr Hood has not provided a conclusive answer on the Biden administration’s vision for the Middle East, and whether Washington is determined to withdraw from it, as it is, in the words of the former US President Donald Trump, a region of sand and blood.

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan has opened up a huge gulf of confidence in US partnerships with allies, and the people of the region are wondering when the next US withdrawal from Iraq is, not whether America will pull out or no.

The lines of the answers raise fears and concerns about the metaphysics of the American scene in Iraq, as Mr. Hood points out that the presence of American forces there is mainly due to the fight against Daesh, and that the electoral process is the affair of the Iraqis and Washington has nothing to do with the whole issue.

Hood was not exposed to the Iranian presence on Iraqi soil, nor to what Iranian militias are doing to disrupt the peace, security and stability of the state. and in Afghanistan almost become academies to multiply.

When Mr. Hood addresses Syria, he confirms the maintenance of Caesar’s law and the continuation of the sanctions, one almost notices a kind of holding of the middle stick towards Assad, and invokes the support of the Syrians for fear of the return of the Islamic State again, and in any case it appears as the one who crosses the road of the Arab capitals to normalize with the Syrian regime.

From Syria, the vision extends to Lebanon, and it seemed in the dialogue that Mr. Hood had summed up all of Lebanon’s problems in what he called partisan disagreements. In fact, it is empty talk. It depends on the obfuscation methods. at the root of the problem and lacking the real courage to pinpoint the real hurt.

The real catastrophe of Lebanon is that it has become a kidnapped state by a militia that practices clear and overt terrorism, which is one of the wonders of the times, and Mr. Hood has neglected to blame or rebuke Hezbollah, due to its subversive role inside Lebanon.

This means for us to ask, “Why has Mr. Hood failed or neglected to mention the American vision of what Iran is doing in the region, and what could have a big impact on the security of its residents immediately and at the reception?

It is not possible to talk about the Arab region and the Middle East without putting points on the letter regarding the Iranian war proxies in the region.

Here the question marks are open, allowed, and available, and who named them, for example, but not limited to: Didn’t Americans notice them as they made their way to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, threatening the safe?

Any American-Arab relationship can be hinted at when Washington withdraws anti-Houthi missile batteries and the rest of Iran’s long-range projectiles, under a spurious pretext that any rational mind rejects, and it is to carry out work of ‘talk about them at home. .

Attention is also drawn in the aforementioned dialogue, the American position on Libya, because the speaker tells us about the inevitability of the withdrawal by Moscow of its men or mercenaries, in any case from Libya and as soon as possible, and does not address the issue of the Turkish forces and their terrorist militias there, which caused and still cause acts of terrorism. Are there terrorist deals between Washington and Ankara in which the latter is used to achieve Washington’s objectives by proxy and without any consideration for the interests of Arab countries?

In short, the truth is that Washington is ready to leave the Middle East and the Arab region and go to its own devices, but it is unable to do so because it realizes that someone will fill the spheres. influence that will leave him.

Washington looks like someone who holds the stick in the middle, who does this dance and does not fight, she tries to give the least of what she has, and for that she has to expect a little too.

Washington’s credibility after the withdrawal from Afghanistan is dwindling day by day, and the question is who still trusts Lady Caesar?