The Jeddah Summits: New Policy Shifts or Maintaining Traditional Ties?

By Rami Rayess (Al Anbaa)

Four important summits will be hosted by Saudi Arabia this week to discuss regional issues especially Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, in addition to Iran- West nuclear deal. Jeddah will be the venue of an American- Arab- Islamic summit, an American- Saudi summit, an American- Gulf summit and a Gulf state summit (GCC).

            In his first visit abroad since he was inaugurated last January 20, American President Donald Trump is set to meet the leaders of at least 18 Arab and Islamic states before heading to Israel and later on to Italy.

The first of a kind meeting comes after fears around the Islamic world rose with Trump’s controversial positions regarding immigration measures into the United States as he issued a travel ban on several states right after he commenced his work, in addition to fears within the immigrant minorities inside the United States.

Arab and Islamic states invited included, besides the Gulf States comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council members, Egypt, Turkey Azerbaijan, Indonesia, and Malaysia as well as many others.

Contrary to former President Barak Obama who chose to address the Islamic world from the University of Cairo in a conciliatory speech, Trump chose to meet face-to-face leaders of those countries probably in an attempt to cool down tensions and pursue a more pragmatic approach in Washington’s relations with Islamic countries especially that the Middle East has burning fires from Yemen to Syria, and from Iraq to Palestine.

The mere fact of Trump choosing Saudi Arabia to be the destination of his first visit abroad sends a signal of appreciation of the welcoming position, if not ecstasy, of the Saudi leadership’s reaction after Trump’s election. American support for Saudi War in Yemen and the limited, yet significant, military action taken by the Pentagon in Syria also proved a rapprochement between Washington and Riyadh on several regional issues.

However, most importantly, the American- Saudi summit might accumulate further strict policies towards Tehran. The Saudis are counting on a drastic policy shift from the new American administration, if not a retreat from the Western- Iranian nuclear deal that was reached by the Obama administration and the P5+1 back in 2015.

Similar to their common hostility to Communism and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Americans and Saudis are both hostile to Iranian expansion policies through its various proxy players in Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen. American military support, for example, to the Lebanese Army was on the rise recently which could be explained as a an attempt to strengthen the official state apparatuses vis-à-vis Hezbollah.

This support, though not new, and started with previous administrations, yet its acceleration signals increased attention from the United States towards this country that has been a regional battlefield in its long civil strife (1975-1990). Whether or not Washington plans to diffuse the power of the Iranian proxy parties in the region, this is to be tested further taking into consideration that sanctions on Hezbollah could be widened to reach other institutions or figures in Lebanon.

 Back to regional politics, this policy shift could inherently contradict previous policies adopted by former American administrations when wars were waged against three of Tehran staunchest antagonists: the war on Afghanistan in 2001 to fight the Taliban Movement which grew to enormous power after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the invasion of Iraq which ousted its longtime leader Saddam Hussein who led an eight year exhaustive war (1980-1988) against Iran right after the Islamic clergy took power in the country in 1979, and Osama bin Laden, the leader of al- Qaeda who was killed in 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Those consecutive American wars launched during the Bush Administration, intentionally or unintentionally, served Iran and paved the way for its rise as a powerful regional player. Enormous resources that were employed by Iran to confront Iraq, Taliban and Bin Laden were transferred elsewhere, particularly where Iran could stretch its arms wide via local players in several countries, Hezbollah in Lebanon being one prominent example.

The ability to construct a wide alliance of Islamic states against Iran might not materialize during this summit which will also deal with terrorism as an important threat to the West after attacks have transgressed all national boundaries and are targeting European cities.

Ramifications of these summits will require time before they are witnessed, but they will definitely set the track for new alliances, policy shifts and strategies.

(*) Rami Rayess is editor-in-chief of anbaaonline, he tweets @RamiRayess