Mid East Matters Online

The moment you set foot outside the airplane doors, you hear shouting: “Mr. Hassan, Mrs. Khoury, Dr. Khalid ”! These are not the names of lucky bingo players on a Sunday afternoon, nor are they Oscar Award nominees or Nobel Prize Laureates. They are even better. They are the fortunate ones who can wield influence or “Wasta” as better known in the Middle East. The goal is to leave the airplane before the rest of the passengers, take a short cut through the side stairs, and end up at the carrousel to pick up the luggage whilst the rest of the lot is still lingering at passport control. This being a mild illustration of ‘Wasta’, which in extreme cases, could go as high as getting someone off the hook, literally! The system is a culmination of corruption, personal recognition, and access to decision-makers, that is indispensable for forging ahead in Virtual (not third or fourth) World Countries or the “VWCs”.

In VWCs the political elite governs through a simple matrix, where citizens (we would not bother calling them nationals) are viewed as mere clients. Well behaved and well-intended clients nonetheless, who pay taxes (almost regularly and almost in full), abide by the rules and kowtow to the principle of intermediation. This principle posits that the government -a loosely used terminology that defines all that is not directly owned by the politicians or their business cronies- has no direct connectivity to the people (or clients) and vice versa, except through the auspices of the political elite. Intermediation is necessary to vet those who seek or need the services of the State starting from employment, to licensing, to healthcare and education, to setting off excessive taxation, to bidding for public contracts or becoming a cadet at the military academy. Theoretically, all service and/or job seekers have equal and undeniable rights in the VWCs but said rights cannot be effectively enforced except via the mandatory interjection of the political elite. Otherwise, said rights could be unintentionally compromised, or unwillingly diminished or, in some unfortunate instances, accidentally lost. So why take the risk and press one’s rights? Why swim against a tsunami and not a simple tide? The easy path is to go to a provincial or regional or -better- a national figure in the political arena, physically genuflect, declare allegiance, and then beg for what is one’s right in the first place.  Nothing virtual about such countries, except the so-called undeniable, sacred rights of citizens that are routinely and uselessly asserted in every law, constitution or chart, be it in a VWC or in the world at large.

The pernicious consequences of such system of intermediation is more corrosive than meets the eye. It is already appalling to have to beg for one’s rightful access to basic services and opportunities. It is twice as scandalous that one can get such rights (and more) whether one is entitled to them (or not) through the very same intermediation system. In other words, one should not be shocked at ‘lobbying’ -to use a well-known terminology applicable in developed markets- albeit, at an excessive rate in VWCs. All multinationals or other interest groups pressure politicians from Capitol Hill to Brussels to ease certain rules, scrap certain tariffs, and look favorably on a sector, a segment or a particular company. However, such lobbying -irrespective of its moral underpinning- is legal. Meaning that the parties who are seeking a favorable treatment are entitled to it, or to a version thereof. That is not necessarily or even required, in the case of VWCs.

So, a young aspiring officer who fails every physical or mental test could still be considered for a position of command to defend the nation. A corrupt, inept engineering firm could still win a bid to rebuild most of the infrastructure of the State from telecom to airport safety and from port terminals to public parking spaces. A senile,

What if Iran agrees to the demands of the current US administration? What if Iran calls off its nuclear program, dismantles its ballistic missiles’ arsenal, and stops interfering in neighboring countries by discontinuing the military, logistic and economic support for its proxy militias in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen? What if Iran tones down its rhetoric against Saudi and the UAE, and treats Iraq and Lebanon as independent states and not as vassals? What if Iran engages in a détente with the West, the Sunni world, and the Persian Gulf nations by embarking on a greater cooperation and integration in economic fields , starting with a coordinated action with the Saudis within OPEC?

In exchange, Iran would have its full diplomatic relations restored with the US, all trade sanctions lifted, a full restitution of any funds blocked in the US, EU or elsewhere and the chance for it to rejoin the family of nations. Foreign direct investments would flow in, and the reconstruction of the Iranian economy -from the energy to the telecom sector- could become the largest bonanza in emerging markets’ recent history. Iranians are fluent in English and some are in French. They are netizens and well versed into social media networking. They have home-grown technical capabilities and high educational standards, and they -above all- have the hunger and the drive to close the development gap that has eluded them under the regime of the Mullahs for over 50 years!

The greatest benefit of such approach would be to the citizens of Iran who have suffered under a repressive regime, lost lives in the futile Iran-Iraq war, and got entangled in insurgencies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. No great prestige or rewards were recouped from such foreign excursions and no lasting gratitude has been built with the neighboring populations except for a minority of Shia militant groups. Those who aligned themselves with the interests of Iran against the larger interests of their own nations. But these are, surprisingly, few groups. They do not represent the silent majority of Shia who, like everyone else, have witnessed and experienced the havoc that a relation with revolutionary Iran has brought onto their daily lives. Iraq suffered more humiliation and negative outcomes under Iranian influence than under US military presence. Today it is a sectarian society, with parallel armies running amuck, and its landscape is partitioned into de facto zones of influence between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. Lebanon has -and one hates to admit- fared better under the Syrian occupation than under the Iranian dominance where only one Party of God rules over all other creatures of that same God. Yemen was relatively quieter -albeit not more democratic or prosperous- under Ali Abdallah Saleh than under the Houthis. The examples of Iranian revolutionaries’ plundering abound, but none are more vivid and poignant than what they have done at home.

The Mullahs and their cronies, and the Revolutionary Guards’ Corps and their proxies would lose everything in such a bargain. They have nothing to offer for future generations except more repression, a sea of tears, and economic disaster. So, they are in dire need of a Big Bad Wolf to rally the ‘oppressed’ and ‘destitute’ masses against it. They have found it since 1978 in the form of the US administration, and they will continue to cling on to it as if their lives depended thereupon. Without it, they would be exposed, and accountable to an angry population that would trade the government’s hard rhetoric for investors’ hard currency any day of the week and twice on Friday.

There is an Iranian saying that translates into :”Do not use words that are too big for your mouth”.

‘What if’ has just gained a new dimension in Persia.

That’s what every dictator, autocrat, plutocrat or theocrat has missed. They can round up the opposition, deport dissidents, muzzle up the media, imprison rebels, suppress liberties and occupy every square and street in town for days on end, almost on a whim. But such show of force does not impress capital markets one bit. To the contrary, capital markets do not kowtow to authoritarian regimes, only to strong institutions such as a legislature that enacts well-studied and fair laws, a judiciary that is equitable and independent, armed forces that are confined to their barracks except for regular parades or the occasional wars, and a free press that can criticize without fear of reprisals.

This very same week such lesson was learned (or probably not!) by Erdogan, the strongman of Turkey after a brief, but disastrous visit to the City of London. There, in the confines of closed meetings in paneled rooms with senior bankers, he laid out his views about how the Turkish economy ‘must behave’ under his aegis. The Turkish Lira dropped 15% on that same day. He must have instinctively and naively thought that his previous experiences were a good guide. Dealing with powerful or charismatic figures such as Putin, Ocalan, the Iranian Mullahs, PM Netanyahu, or his nearest neighbor Assad, do not constitute good precedents for handling the markets. With such characters the game is binary. You are either predator or pray. You can get away with an incursion in Syria, with sending a flotilla to Gaza, with downing -then profusely apologizing - some Russian jets, but with bankers and investors there are more minefields than in Raqqa. One must always be on his/her toes for fear of triggering a hidden wired device or a disastrous explosion that cannot be controlled by executive orders.

Investors roam the globe seeking opportunities for investment. Opportunities abound in new sectors of the economy, or in old ones that have been invigorated by deregulation or by innovation. They also come about via discoveries of natural resources, or a breakthrough in research or some other unforeseen technological openings. However, whether in developed or in developing markets, investors demand clarity, no more, to make informed decisions. Investors do not require containment of risk as often taunted by the uninitiated, as risk is part and parcel of any investment transaction. In turn, clarity requires a proper understanding of risk, means for assessing its impact and deciding whether such risk could be mitigated and, most importantly, if it can be compensated by anticipated rewards. Such clarity is doubly required in developing nations where strong institutions are in dire want and where governance is opaque. Uncertainty, not risk, is the enemy of investments. What would the economic outlook be in future years, how much capital flows would be allowed or curbed, are there going to be any restrictions on foreign direct investments? These are the type of questions that are posed by investors and for which dictators -as is the case of strongmen in Turkey, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and more lately, unscrupulous politicians in Lebanon, have few if any straight answers.

Turkey was at the crossroads of trade and investment between Europe and Asia for centuries and then, after WWII, it became the bulwark of the NATO alliance keeping the USSR’s activities in check in the Black Sea. Venezuela, was till recently the darling of Big US Oil. Iran under the Shah was the most trusted partner of the West, South of Rome. Beirut was called the Paris then the Switzerland of the Middle East, and the shining example of multiculturalism, till it became a satellite of theocratic Iran.

What went wrong? How did these capitals disintegrate and became extremist in their positions, with an irreconcilable breed of nationalism, populism and religious ideology that have no bearing on the true social or economic welfare of their own citi...

Lately, loud moaning and desperate voices from liberals and conservatives alike at think tanks, universities, the media outlets and even government officials have surpassed all bounds. All declamations are warning -with frantic antics- of the imminent collapse of the world order that was set up by the victorious Western democracies in the aftermath of World War II. Institutions such as NATO, the U.N., WTO, and the European Union are increasingly under attack, or so claims this mixed bag of conservatives and liberals, by the ignoramus, the extreme right and the populists - read: President Donald J. Trump & acolytes.

The debate is legitimate, and this precious world order is worth saving, no doubt. But is it under attack, and is it truly in the throes of death? The answer is a resounding no, but one should, for the sake of debate, make some well-intended and much-needed clarifications into the notion of ‘world order’ and whom it was meant to serve. The world order was destined to serve the victorious Western democracies (the US, the British Commonwealth, and a ruined France), the defeated Western countries (Germany, Italy), and Japan, as well as others. The USSR was excluded but still present in all defense measures and treaties especially at the level of NATO. China too was not on the mind of the promoters of the the European Union, the WTO or NATO. The world has evolved since 1945, but these institutions have not, and they have extended their membership to more nations than anticipated. The issue is not one of overcrowding or of lack of space at the UN Hall in New York, but the lack of a level playing field between these new nations and the founding members, when it comes to abiding by the rules.

Take the U.N. for instance. Is it fair to have Finland, Sweden, New Zealand and the US aspire to sit on that same Human Rights Commission as say, Iran, China, Venezuela or Cuba? The divide is not East and West, or rich and poor, or progressive and conservative. Here it is about dictatorship and democracy. Who do you think in your right mind should be the proper candidates to oversee such a commission? Again, the matter is not one of race or discrimination or exclusion but rather one of shared principles and deeds just like in any other organization. If an organization promotes women rights it cannot conceivably have on its board a person accused and charged of domestic violence, can it? The U.N. of the past was concerned with the containment of the USSR, the issues of de-colonization, the non-aligned nations’ movement and other means of curbing totalitarian regimes and promoting democratic ones. Fast forward, the U.N. has become a bastion of autocracies to promote their images and pretend to be contributing to matters that they systematically crush and repress at home such as free speech and freedom of assembly. Is this an acceptable behavior? Would one not object to nations violating the very same ideals of the U.N., or to having dictators parade on stage just for the utopian principle of members’ equality? When the U.N. turns into a circus for rogue nations -that flaunt every ideal of liberty, freedom and human rights- facing off others who have spilled blood and spent treasure to uphold such ideals, it is high time to leave the building. China, Turkey, Russia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe, can run the asylum just fine. Others may join, but the happy rest can set-up shop across the street and continue to uphold universal ideals that need no large buildings, or blue logos to promote them, because they already enshrine them in their culture, constitution, and history.

Take NATO as another sample. The aim for post-war Europe was to de-militarize Germany, to bring France closer into the alliance, to maintain Britain’s special relation with the US, and for all of Western Europe to be strongly guarded against the mounting threat from behind the Berlin Wall.

The phenomenon of sexual harassment predates the Weinstein scandal by thousands of years. Men have acted with boldness and primal manners for almost all of their existence in the presence of women as well as in their absence. The new wave of anti-patriarchy that is sweeping through the US, supported by fierce advocates in Hollywood, the media, and the political class has brought the issue firmly to the forefront of the social debate. The question is explored with passion and zeal mostly in Western societies, and less so in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Why is that?

Well, because the issues of one’s privacy or one’s individual rights have always sprung from the Western schools of thought from Aristotle to Marcus Tullius Cicero, from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, and from the suffragettes, to the Civil Movement. The issue is not about women or sex, only, it rather is about one’s dignity as a human being, about one’s respect as a full member of society. Individuals in the Western world are more important than the group they form and in which they live. Individual rights are more critical than collective duties and societal obligations and surely are more crucial than State policy or official authority. “Civil Disobedience”, which was written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849 advocates the right of the individual to reject and even violate a law, even if duly enacted by congress, if such law contradicts one’s morals or beliefs. The price for Thoreau was to be imprisoned for disobeying the law, but it was never his right to disobey. That is a natural right given to all creatures by their creator, or for the more secular-inclined souls among us, by nature itself.  No congregation of people, be it political, social or religious, could infringe, deny or alienate such rights, even though governments -the instrumentality of the people's will - never fail to restrict the power of individual freedoms under many pretexts.

The anti-patriarchy drive that has been ushered by the #MeToo movement will take root in societies where individual rights are protected not only by law, but by history and societal behavior at large. The right to bear arms enshrined in the US Constitution’s Second Amendment is no different from the right not to have to endure verbal, moral or physical abuse of sexual or other nature. It derives from the root of the principle of Habeas Corpus which was instilled into ancient laws to prevent one’s body from unlawful detention.

The Middle East is not a society of individuals but rather of clans, tribes, ethnic groups, and religious and racial minorities. People in such region do not see themselves as individuals collaborating to live in a communal setting but rather communities tolerating individuals living among them, albeit with reduced rights. The Government or the Regime, the Church or the Mosque, the King or the Ruler, the Sheik or the Head of the Tribe, the Feudal Lord or the Warlord do not treat their fellow citizens as individuals but as a group whose first obligation is to kowtow to their absolute will or face exclusion from the community. Men and women alike are dealt with in such a manner, although a harsher treatment is reserved for women especially in certain countries where both religious edicts and tribal customs cast them into a lower sub-group. Their rights are often subjugated to those of the official authority and to the male’s individual will. One often hears the specious declamations that women in the Middle East are less sexually harassed than in Western societies. Apart from this statement being false in almost every way as emprical evidence shows, the clue could be because they are cast away from society. So, the opportunity for harassment -not the will to do so- is somewhat remote due to physical constraints. The separate living spaces, the veil, the male guardianship system, the blood crimes or so-called honor killings,

Iran has won, for now. One can use different terms to assuage the affliction, apply various expressions to disguise the truth, or employ softer words to fabricate an alternative reality. The fact remains that since 9/11 2001, Iran has been feeding off the colossal foreign policy mistakes of successive US administrations, including the present one. From the invasion of Afghanistan to that of Iraq, and from the Iran Nuclear Agreement to the hands-off approach in the Syrian civil war, right down to the muted encouragement of Iran’s internal opposition. How can it be that a nation that has been a superpower since World War II, the effective leader of the Western Alliance, the home to numerous think tanks, universities and research centers, a government with top intelligence-gathering agencies and networks, got it so wrong and still is not getting it at all?

There could be few explanations that we will entertain in our attempt to elucidate this riddle. One of them is that the US was blindsided by its quest to eradicate Al Qaeda and later ISIS to concentrate on Iran. Afghanistan was a daring endeavor, Iraq a massive invasion, and many battles in-between have all but consumed the attention and focus of the US polity and military to attend to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. A plausible explanation, except that the US has had enmity with the Iranian regime since 1978, which precedes 9/11 by 23 years. Every US administration, since Carter has had its run-ins with the Mullahs. The exception was Obama who kowtowed to them in an effort to appear more balanced in the grand Sunni-Shia divide and the Muslim world at large. Hoping to win some goodwill, erase America’s ‘ugly past’ and vindicate an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, Obama handed the Middle East to Iran -not on a silver tray only but with planeloads of cash. Blaming it all on the Obama administration is not only fair but well deserved, however, the seeds of the Iranian bloom were planted by Georges W. Bush and the miscalculations of his neocon acolytes, especially in the Iraq war. They were obsessed with Saddam and the elusive Chemical Weapons and relied on local charlatans such as Ahmad Chalabi and his gang to guide them through the Iraqi swampland. Every move and action taken by the interim US authority from the dismissal of the Iraqi Armed Forces, to the witch-hunting of former Baathist members, to the utter neglect of Iranian influence over political parties led to Iran’s hegemony over Iraq.

Lebanon had fell under Iranian influence right in the aftermath of the war with Israel in 2006. Having been accused of the murder of PM Rafic Hariri, both the Syrian regime and Iranian proxies had retreated and retrenched in 2005. Provoking a military clash with Israel was a perfect excuse for claiming back the mantra of ‘Resistance’ and reasserting political influence through the barrel of a gun, as preached by Mao Tse Tung. Following such devastating war which left Lebanon in tatters and Israel intact in its borders, economy and armed capacities, Iran concentrated on consolidating its power and influence over the weakened and failed State of Lebanon. Fast forward, with the election of President Michel Aoun in 2016, that takeover is complete. Any minority dissent is being muzzled as the political establishment, all religions confounded, has been effortlessly domesticated.

In Syria, what started as an aid to the Assad regime in 2011, ended-up at present as a forward base for Iran right-smack on the Eastern Mediterranean. The presence of some 80,000 fighters that swore allegiance to Iran is reported with a degree of certitude as are numerous ground and air bases scattered all over the Syrian landscape. From such bases Iran can project its influence and connect its forces -by land- from Terran to the Golan heights or South Lebanon, unhinged, unchallenged and undeterred. Simply put, Iran is the new hegemon of the Middle East without contest.

If Trump, according to Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury” had to be coaxed by his daughter Ivanka and former NSC staffer Dina Powell, by showing him gruesome photos of dying kids, in order to retaliate against Assad’s chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017, then we’re in serious trouble. Moreover, if the only voice in the Trump administration that was convinced of the nefarious role of Iran throughout the region, was that of Retired (and now fired) Gen. Michael Flynn, then we are in a bigger trouble than we thought. Finally, if the Arab-Israeli peace process, or what is left of it, has been entrusted by the Trump administration solely to Jared Kushner, his thirty-something, wet-behind-the-ears son-in law, who takes his cues from Rupert Murdoch and Henry Kissinger, then we are totally lost.

These are no minor flaws and those are not hypothetical situations. The author Wolff maintains that such attitudes, state of mind, and whims of the current US President are true as supplied by an army of close advisers both on and off, the record.

Those in the Middle East who had hoped for a reverse-pivot onto the region with the US taking the lead in clearing the wreckage left by the Obama administration, might be up for a rude awakening. The Obama presidency brought nothing but disasters onto the US and its long-term allies in the region.  Starting with the non-interventionist stand on Syria including the refusal to establish safe zones and avert the refugee crisis that has affected Europe, and finishing with the crossing of the red lines for the use by Assad of chemical weapons. Another calamitous masterpiece was the Iran Nuclear deal, whereby the Mullahs were given plane loads of cash and a free rein to wreak havoc onto the region as long as they agreed not to push that nuclear button, for the time being at least. In that same vein of damaging policies, one would enlist the not-so-subtle support by the Obama-Clinton-Kerry axis of the Muslim Brotherhood in their takeover of Egypt, and the blank check issued to Turkey (aka Erdogan), a NATO member country, to purge and revamp the country into a 21st century Islamic Sultanate.

One had reasons to hope that a semi-Republican in the White House, who felt that America’s standing in the world has been tarnished, would bring back assurances to long-term allies and fear onto enemies. But it seems laughter is more likely to be the result, just after one year. A roaring laughter from Assad in Syria, who survived the civil war and got the Russians and Iranians to fight the serious battles on behalf of his army. Giggling in Iran must be common in the high circles of power, with a US President unenthusiastic to confront Iran militarily (and now that Flynn is out, not even confront Iran verbally), unwilling to rescind the Iran Nuclear Deal by passing the bucket sheepishly to Congress, and uncomfortable with international affairs, in general, as long as they do not involve the building of a resort or the licensing of a casino. Finally, on the Arab-Israeli front, the US administration paid a check in advance to PM Netanyahu, with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, without getting a paper receipt back. The Palestinians for their sake, have delved into a combination of mass depression, mass shouting, and a barrage of empty threats.

Waking up and adjusting quickly to the reality of Trump, as depicted in the Wolff accounts provided they are accurate by a modest margin, bring us to ponder on the thought that stupefaction, if it persists, becomes stupidity.

Ever since Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have thwarted the takeover of Egypt by the Islamists (a civilian, but no less lethal version of ISIS), the liberal press has been at their throats. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and on occasions, the Boston Globe, are out to get them no matter what. Why? Because the Obama-Hillary-Kerry axis had depicted the Muslim Brotherhood as the modern way to democratize Islamic countries, a sort of Christian Democrats of Europe. The plot went as follows: once Mubarak, a corrupt military ruler is removed from power, justice and equality will prevail under the edicts of Islam as implemented, and worse, as interpreted by the Muslim Brotherhood. Except that the dreadful naivety of the Obama administration at the time the Arab Spring hit the banks of the Nile, was almost identical to the Carter’s administration ‘deer-caught-in-the-headlights’ reaction to the early rise of Khomeini and the downfall of the Shah.

The Shah was feted in D.C., London and Paris, his SAVAK trained by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies, and the National Iranian Oil Company was the darling of oil majors. Suddenly, all were vilified and viewed with disdain by the liberal press of such erstwhile supporting nations. All eyes and ears were now focused on the secluded and charismatic religious leader, living in the Paris suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau. Khomeini would send-in, every week, his vitriolic speeches by tape cassettes to his growing followers in the streets of Tehran, Qom and Mashhad. He was viewed by the left-leaning press as a religious reformer and a genuine leader of a nation that has been governed for too long by a corrupt, puppet of the West. Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, was precisely seduced by the popular uprising in Iran, which he claimed might signify a new "political spirituality", with the potential to transform the political landscape of Europe, as well as the Middle East. Thus, for example, in his October 1978 article, "What Are the Iranians Dreaming About?", he adopted an almost mythic rhetoric to describe the revolutionary struggle:

The situation in Iran can be understood as a great joust under traditional emblems, those of the king and the saint, the armed ruler and the destitute exile, the despot faced with the man who stands up bare-handed and is acclaimed by a people.

The Shah was thrown to the dogs, whereas the religious zealot, anti-Western agitator Khomeini was hailed as the candidate chosen by the ‘Street’. The ‘Street’ is assumed to reflect the true sentiments of the populace in countries where parliaments are rubber-stamp institutions. President Carter at the time, just as Obama at his own time, misjudged the moment and miscalculated the consequences of such seismic shift in regional politics. Not only was an ally (the Shah, for those who remember) allowed to free fall, but a sworn enemy slipped in, with much fanfare and rhetoric about the need for Iran to move past the Shah. Iran did indeed move, but backwards. From 1978 it went back few decades at all levels: socially, financially, and politically. Mass migration of the educated people commenced in the aftermath of the revolution, so did the dispossession and chasing out of the Jews, Baha’is and other minority groups. Then soon followed the severing of ties with the US and most of the civilized world, with the wanton ransacking of the US Embassy in Tehran and the hostage-taking of US diplomats for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981.

Would such repeat scenario be pleasing to the pundits and experts at major newspapers and media outlets in NY and London if it were to occur in Cairo? Have they ever read, let alone learned anything from the history of the Middle East? After King Farouk of Egypt was removed, he was replaced by Col. Nasser. The quintessential popular hero, the darling of the ‘Arab Street’,

Palestine is no more the central issue of the Middle East, it remains an important one though. For the GCC, Iran is the real threat, whilst Israel takes second place. For Turkey, under the heavy-handed rule of President Erdogan, secularism and the Kurds are the main challenges. For Iran, its dominant role in the region and its aching need to be perceived by all powers, chief among them the US, as the only regional power capable of delivering stability is the main mission, and the one to ensure continuity of the Mullahs’ regime. For Iraq getting back on track, eradicating corruption, patching sectarian divisions, and pumping oil at pre-war levels are key to its survival. For Algeria, finding a balance between a decaying military junta and the needs of a younger population that demands a greater role in this energy-rich country will be cause for headaches for years to come. For Egypt, regaining normalcy, whatever that term means in the local context, will keep the Generals up at night, the pens of government-paid journalists flowing, and the terrorists busy in the foreseeable future. Syria’s fate is being decided in Sochi, Geneva and some other less known venues where larger powers are dividing up the spoils of a terrible conflict. Ah, and there is tiny Lebanon! That country sandwiched between Syria and Israel and shackled by a mountain of debt, hounded by a kleptocratic ruling class, and weakened by years of religious wars.

In this part of the world, the Cold War is terribly missed. Long gone are the days when the former USSR commanded a camp and the US protected another. The ideological divide of the Cold War took precedent over the nationalistic and religious fault lines that prevail at the present time. Socialism was in fashion in Cairo, Bagdad, Damascus and Tripoli not ISIS, or the Sunni-Shia divide, or the hegemonic ambitions of less relevant regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. Capitalism thrived in Tunis, Beirut and other capitals that saw a rapprochement with the West (now an outdated political terminology) as a means to join the modern world and improve the prospects of their nations. A precursor to joining the globalization process, one could imagine. However, despite the harsh demarcation lines between regional countries, the so-called super powers maintained a modicum of calm and stability and ensured that red lines were seldom crossed. Surely, there were the Arab-Israeli wars, hardly a walk in the park or a sign of tranquility. Still said wars had referees: the US and the former USSR who could be counted on to calm nerves, enforce cease fires and even bring protagonists back from the front lines and into the UN to air their grievances. Demarcation lines were drawn up, demilitarized zones were established, and a cautious quiet was reinstated. Granted, the school yard was never trouble-free, but the headmasters aka super powers, were not too far from the skirmishes, ready to step-in and save the day. They needed their client nations to remain whole, to avoid disintegration, to steer away from internal strife, to keep religious discourse at a minimum, and to heed their authority when required.

With the fall of the Berlin wall and the receding role of the former USSR, compounded by the fumbling years of the Bush and Obama administrations, the children –so to speak- took charge of the school, and all hell broke loose. Bullies namely, Iran and Turkey pretended to be legitimate heirs  of the former powers. Terror groups spread their poisonous rhetoric claiming it would bring believers onto the promised land (literally and figuratively). Peaceful and resource-rich countries sought alliances wherever they could find them and, more often than usual, were saddled with disappointing outcomes. All told, the puzzle was tossed on the ground shattering its tiny and fragile pieces all over the floor.

In ancient history, the Battle of Carthage was a siege that ended in the spring of...

The General in His Labyrinth (original Spanish title: El general en su laberinto) is a novel by the Colombian writer and Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It is a fictionalized account of the last days of Simon Bolivar , liberator and leader of Gran Colombia. Our actual story, has a different trail than Columbia’s and leads to present day Lebanon, where the country has a former General taking it, once more, into a narrow, dangerous path.

This story started with the obsessive ambition of a young Lebanese army officer whose longing for power at any cost (literally) tells a tale of expediency, moral turpitude and opportunistic moves that often (if not always), end up in disasters. After scaling up the national army’s middle ranks, he was spotted by the leader of the Christian militias during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), the late Bashir Gemayel. The Christian militias fought the PLO and later Syrian troops, with the help of some regular army officers including, Aoun. After the election of Bashir Gemayel as Lebanon’s president, and his assassination in 1982 by Syrian agents, Aoun moved closer to Bashir’s brother, Amine, who was elected as his successor. Towards the end of Amine’s mandate, which ended in a cul-de-sac when Syria tightened the screws on his presidency, the outgoing president nominated Michel Aoun, as interim Prime Minister, for lack of a better choice. He was by then the commander of the national army. From that moment onward, it has been one Quixotic quest after another, with several descents into the abyss.

Once interim Prime Minister, the General waged war on the Syrian regime, purporting to expel its troops from all of Lebanon’s territory, whilst Aoun himself exerted authority on only 25% of the national soil. In such rightful but asymmetrical war, he forged a brief alliance with Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, who vowed mortal enmity to Assad’s Syria. When such war proved unwinnable, he turned against the Christian militias, at that time led by Samir Geagea. Aoun’s goal, as usual, was to remain the sole leader of the territorial redux under his dominion. That war also proved to be bloody, costly and futile pitting brother against brother and destroying the last enclave the Christians had under their control. The Christian areas were literally devastated, their infrastructure in ruins and a population in despair. In the meantime, the world was tired of Lebanon’s internecine wars and of Aoun’s follies. In 1989, under the auspices of the U.S. and Saudi, Lebanon’s parliamentarians met at the resort town of Taef to amend the national constitution. The postwar power-sharing arrangement allocated power more evenly among Christians and Muslims and saw the office of the presidency clipped of most of its executive powers. The General took issue with such compromise and viewed it as an affront to Lebanon’s sovereignty; he argued that the proposed agreement lacked a timetable for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. In doing so, he sided against the Maronite Church, the Christian militia, Lebanon’s majority Muslims, and the Arab world, but especially Saudi Arabia.

What ensued was a swift military intervention by Syria, with tacit U.S. consent, that physically ousted the General from his dark labyrinth at the presidential palace and sent him into exile in France for more than a decade. During his years in exile the General honed his diatribe against Syria’s regime and its dictator (Assad père), as well as, against Hezbollah, Iran’s army in Lebanon. He even testified before the U.S. Congress riling against Syria’s excesses and the armed militia of Hezbollah.

Fast forward to 2005, Syrian troops were ousted from Lebanon after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria’s hasty and unglorified exit from Lebanon came under the pressure of popular riots and threats from President G. W. Bush, emboldened by Iraq’s invasion only few months before....