By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Dec 14 2015 (IPS)

When, in June 2006, former US National Security adviser and, later on, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, spelled out the George W. Bush administration new, magic doctrine for the Middle East, tons of ink was poured and millions of words said in a harsh attempt to speculate with what she really did mean by what she called “Creative Chaos.”

Baher Kamal

Most Middle East analysts concluded then that the new doctrine would lead to or build upon a new wave of conflicts and violence in the region.

Whether they were right or not, this is at least what has been happening. No Need to recall what is now going on in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and even Tunisia and Egypt-–the so-called “Arab Spring” countries.

Now another U.S. neo-liberal, neo-conservative Republican “hawk,” John R. Bolton, has just come out with a new vision that might explain the rational behind that “Creative Chaos” doctrine.

“Create a New State”

In his recent article in the New York Times, published on 25 November 2015 under the eloquent header “To Defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State” this scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and former US ambassador to the United Nations (August 2005 to December 2006), poses this question: “What comes after the Islamic State?”
Bolton then explains that “Before transforming Mr. Obama’s ineffective efforts into a vigorous military campaign to destroy the Islamic State, we need a clear view, shared with NATO allies and others, about what will replace it. It is critical to resolve this issue before considering any operational plans…”

Iraq and Syria Are Gone!

According to Bolton -who could hold a key post in the US coming administration should a Republican like Donald Trump be elected- “Today’s reality is that Iraq and Syria as we have known them are gone…”

He then says that defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power President Bashar Assad in Syria and Iran’s puppets in Iraq, and “that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable… Rather than striving to recreate the post-World War I map, Washington should recognize the new geopolitics.”

“The best alternative to the Islamic State in northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni state.”

An Oil Producer “Sunni-stan”

Bolton explains further: This “Sunni-stan” has economic potential as an oil producer (subject to negotiation with the Kurds, to be sure), and could be a bulwark against both Mr. Assad and Iran-allied Baghdad. The rulers of the Arab Gulf states, who should by now have learned the risk to their own security of funding Islamist extremism, could provide significant financing. And Turkey — still a NATO ally, don’t forget — would enjoy greater stability on its southern border, making the existence of a new state at least tolerable.”

He believes that the Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia “must not only fund much of the new state’s early needs, but also ensure its stability and resistance to radical forces. Once, we might have declared a Jordanian “protectorate” in an American “sphere of influence” for now, a new state will do.”

Bolton’s visionary plan for the new Middle East would then explain what has been behind the “Creative Chaos” doctrine. And it would clearly revamp the nearly 100-year-old Sykes-Picot map (link to Middle East Part II – 99.5 Years of (Imposed) Solitude https://www.ipsnews.net/2015/12/middle-east-part-ii-99-5-years-of-imposed-solitude/.

Such vision would be just another step on the successive US-West roadmaps for the region. In fact, in addition to the “Creative Chaos” doctrine, the George W. Bush second term administration came out with a new name for the region: the “Greater Middle East,” which would include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Cyprus, Somalia, and eventually also Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The Middle East Is “Served”, the “Creative Chaos” Has Worked

The “Creative Chaos” has turned to be a reality. The whole region has been boiling specially over the last five years. Violence, death and terrorism have been rapidly growing everywhere: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, even in Tunisia. Tensions between Arabian Peninsula kingdoms and principalities and Iran,all of them oil producers, have been ramping.

Mercenary groups, under a more than doubtful religious flag have been gradually dominating the region and tragically though sporadically also some Western countries.

In short, the scenario could not be more “chaotic”. The new Middle East has been served.

The Doors of Hell Are All Open

Though Bolton’s vision should not be taken for “biblical,” things could well go in that direction.

For now, (Shii-ruled) Iraq has warned (Sunni) Turkey against deploying its troops in the DAESH-controlled Mosul area; Washington paves the ground for further military actions in conjunction with the axis Paris-London; (Sunni Wahhabi Saudi Arabia works intensively with (Sunni) Egypt for setting up a joint Army/military intervention force to fight terrorism, and (Shii) Iran warns that any attempt to remove Assad in (Alaui) Syria is a “red line”, etc.

One last question, for now: where would DAESH go once it has been militarily defeated? Libya would appear to be the next DAESH stronghold. After all, this country lacks stability, is full of weapons (up to 25 million arms) out of the government’s control, it is a big oil producer, and DAESH has an active operational branch there.

And, should this be the case, would DAESH further expand its deadly operations from Libya to neighbouring countries like Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, in addition to some Africans countries in conjunction with Nigerian Boko-Haram?

(End)

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama has selected Senator John Kerry as his next Secretary of State. Above, Senator Kerry in 2009. Credit: Ralph Alswang for Center for American Progress Action Fund/ CC by 2.0

By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Dec 21 2012 (IPS)

U.S. President Barack Obama nominated Massachusetts Senator John Kerry on Friday to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, calling him “the perfect choice to guide American diplomacy in the years ahead”.

But Obama offered no hints as to whom he will pick for the rest of his national security team, including replacements for Pentagon chief Leon Panetta and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director General David Petraeus (retired), who resigned abruptly last month in the wake of reports of an affair.

The White House reportedly intended to announce its picks for all three posts Friday but backed off, primarily in response to an intense campaign led by prominent neo-conservatives and leaders of the Israel lobby against the possibility of former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as head of the Pentagon.

Hagel, who currently serves as co-chair of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and like Kerry is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has come under heavy fire for his outspoken criticism of Israeli policies and the influence of the Israel lobby on Capitol Hill.

Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 27 years and chaired it since 2009.

In that post, he has defended the Obama administration’s policies and has occasionally carried out specific diplomatic missions on the its behalf. Where he has differed from Obama on foreign policy, he has done so privately.

In his new role, he is expected to be very much a “team player” who will faithfully carry out orders from the White House where national security adviser Tom Donilon and his deputy, Denis McDonough, are likely to continue dominating policy-making in Obama’s second term.

His nomination has been a foregone conclusion here since United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice took herself out of consideration earlier this month after Republicans accused her of misleading the public about the circumstances surrounding the attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi, in which Washington’s ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other embassy officers were killed.

Rice and Kerry were reportedly the only two people being considered to succeed Clinton, whose tenure was marked by seemingly unrelenting overseas travel and a strong – if very low-profile – emphasis on building transnational partnerships on global issues, notably women’s empowerment, climate change, education, health and engagement with civil society.

Clinton is also credited with restoring the State Department’s status, in part by prioritising “smart power” over the “hard power” favoured by the Bush administration.

Kerry first burst into the public spotlight as an articulate spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Unlike most children of patrician families who evaded the military draft in the 1960’s, Kerry enlisted in the Navy and served on so-called “Swift Boats” that patrolled the Mekong Delta in what was then South Vietnam.

He was elected to the Senate in 1984. During the 1990s he worked with Senator John McCain to help establish diplomatic ties with Hanoi, a benchmark formally achieved under the Bill Clinton administration in 1995.

Kerry acted as a loyal supporter of that administration’s foreign policy, supporting Washington’s controversial interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, albeit with some reservations. 

Under the Bush administration, Kerry voted for the resolution that gave the president the authority to invade Iraq, although like Hagel he quickly became a critic of the war. Republicans have criticised this flip but Kerry is still unlikely to encounter serious opposition from Republican senators to his confirmation next month.

His general foreign policy views largely echo Obama’s. “If there is such a thing as a Kerry Doctrine, it is a clear-eyed willingness to pursue engagement and test the intentions of other countries, even present and former enemies or difficult partners on the world stage,” wrote his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, on the foreignpolicy.com website Friday.

“Kerry – patient but quick to see opportunities – has a negotiator’s mindset,” he noted, adding that, in addition to his expertise on Southeast Asia, he has “amassed an encyclopedic knowledge of the Middle East” and “was the first senator to call for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to step down”.

In 2009, Kerry travelled to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, suggesting on his return that Assad was a “reformer” who could be weaned from his alliance with Iran. He has since called for Assad to step down and supported the administration’s measures to achieve that goal.

On Iran, which is likely to hover around the top of the administration’s foreign policy agenda for the next year or longer, Kerry has strongly supported diplomatic engagement, as well as tightening economic sanctions against Tehran as pressure to curb its nuclear programme.

In introducing Kerry at the White House, Obama stressed the senator’s views about U.S. military power. “Having served with valour in Vietnam,” Obama said, “he understands that we have a responsibility to use American power wisely, especially our military power.”

That understanding could be critical with regard to both Syria and Iran in the coming months, but how much more influence Kerry will exert on the administration’s decisions than he has as the Foreign Relations Committee chair is unclear.

Whoever is chosen to head the Pentagon, however, is likely to wield more influence on decisions of war and peace. As a result, Panetta’s succession is considered particularly critical, particularly to neo-conservatives and the Israel lobby.

Hagel, a personal friend of Kerry, hails from the Republican realist tradition of former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush, and could be expected to strongly reinforce opposition to any further U.S. military intervention in the greater Middle East.

As more of a liberal internationalist, on the other hand, Kerry may be somewhat more inclined to use military force to achieve a “greater good”, such as an end to the increasingly bloody civil war in Syria or preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

If Obama decides that nominating Hagel will exact too high a political price, he is likely to turn either to the current deputy defence secretary, Ashton Carter, or the former undersecretary for policy, Michele Flournoy.