FACULDADE DE DIREITO DA UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA

Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What is really going on in the Region? The intricate interdependence of conflicts
International Relations Professor Armando Marques Guedes 2012/2013

003083 Francisca Bastos 003303 Maria Francisca Brito 002807 Emilie Pierlot 003080 Maria do Mar Carmo 003082 Ana Margarida Mendes da Maia 003126 Paula Beleza 003150 Ana Rita Silva 003151 Guilherme Oliveira e Costa

Introduction
This paper was written as a part of the International Relations Program. We will focus on the topic of LIBYA, SYRIA, IRAQ, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE REGION? THE INTRICATE INTERDEPENDENCE OF CONFLICTS. Our goal was to emphasize the underlying tensions in the wide band running form the Wider Middle East into Central Asia, analyze the interacting roles of Russia and the US, and China and India in the region as well as to answer some questions: Is conflict interdependence a parcel of global complex interdependence? Is a new Great Game in the works?

Table of contents
The underlying tensions in the wide band running form the Wider Middle East into Central Asia ............................................................................................................................................ 3 The Black Sea Area .................................................................................................................... 5 The Sub-Region of Central Asia ................................................................................................. 6 What consequences may sociopolitical explosions in North Africa and the Middle East have in regional global terms? ........................................................................................................... 7 Consequences of the political changes in the Middle-East....................................................... 7 Iran and global influences ......................................................................................................... 9 USA .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Russia ...................................................................................................................................... 14 The New Great Game in Central Asia ...................................................................................... 18 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 21 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 22

The underlying tensions in the wide band running form the Wider Middle East into Central Asia
After the end of the Cold War and, consequentially, the end of the bipolar world, a new division between Europe and the Middle East was created. First of all, as Professor Armando Marques Guedes stands out in his article, A Linha da Frente Do Sudoeste das Balcs sia Central, the enlargements both for NATO and the European Union, have been the same. This means that when a country joins NATO shortly after it becomes a member of the EU as well or vice versa (there are very few exceptions). As can be seen in the maps (1 and 2) those enlargements have created a buffer zone1.

a) Map 1 - NATO's Memberships in 2004

A neutral area between hostile or belligerent forces that serves to prevent conflict.

b) Enlargements of the European Union (2007)

The Middle East

The Muslims in 1980 represented 18% of the world population and statistics estimate that in the first quarter of the 21 st century, they will represent 30% with continued growth. In Europe, however the population will tend to stabilize and may even decrease. According to the United Nations Development Program, the Arab States will have a total amount of 450 million habitants despite the deterioration of their living standards. The technological and economic gap between Europe, Russia and the Middle East will increase as well as their military power. Nevertheless their capacity to control these regions will decrease.

According to the Freedom House - a U.S.-based non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights- the Arab Countries are considered to be the least free (map 3). The reason behind these results is the rising of fundamentalists organizations such as the AlQaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood that are becoming more and more powerful as

c) representation of Freedom in the world

dictatorships, ruled by strong and charismatic leaders, are coming to an end.

The Black Sea Area

In the Bipolar period the region of the Black Sea was divided between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, belonging mainly to the Warsaw Pact, with the exception of the area bordering Turkey (NATOs Member). The location of Turkey was essential during this period because it helped protecting the left side of Occidental Europe from USSR. When the Bipolar World came to an end, many states were created and this region now has different political entities; Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and

Georgia. Moldavia, Greece and Armenia, even though they dont have borders in the seaside, are very close to it and whatever happens in that region affects them directly. This zone has been in constant conflict. For instance the insurgency in the North Caucasus, a direct result of the two post-Soviet wars fought between Russia and Chechnya, the Kurds in Turkey and so forth. When Russia started losing its interest regarding the region (due to the change of political orientation of some of the countries that used to belong to USSR), it also began reacting with political and military pressure, essentially because of the substantial oil and natural gas distribution of the region. Therefore, we can distinguish two periods in this regions history: the first one from 1917-1918 to the bipolar period, a period of relative peace, though occasionally tense, interrupted by the Second World War; and the second one which extend from 1991 till nowadays and can be considered much tenser and a less stable time. The Black Sea has become a space between borders and geo-economic limits, a region where there is a presence of NATO and Russia, a fragile and unpredictable region where the rise of efforts is definitely needed.

The Sub-Region of Central Asia

The sub-region of Central Asia (the strip that goes from Caucasus to the Chinese frontier, including the north and central region of Persian Gulf, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia visible in map 4) is, without a doubt, a tense area both in internal and external relations encompassing a variety of ethnic, religious, political and economic factors, that cant be separated. In 1983, the North American administration, worried about the USSR invasion in Afghanistan, created the United States Central Command known as CENTCOM. The CENTCOMs area of intervention was the Middle East, Oriental Africa and Central Asia. It was responsible for the American participation in the first Gulf War (1990), the attack in Afghanistan (2001-2002) and the invasion in Iraq (2003), there are also military forces in a variety of locations in this region. In 2005, George W. Bush made a new deal with India about nuclear technologies, and established a new political-military pact with Mongolia. With Japan and both North and South Korea, he created an enforcement of the navy force. In 2001, before the attack in Afghanistan, the USA had agreed to establish two military bases in Central Asia, one in Kyrgyzstan and another one in Uzbekistan. Both of these military bases are still there even though the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is
6

strongly against it. The USA definitely has an important presence in this region despite the other powers (China and Russia) antagonism. Nowadays, the division between Europe, Russia and the Middle East is much weaker than it was during the domination of the Bipolar World. However, because of the different conflicts that have taken place in the region, we are now confronted to a series of local power, and strips that divide the different blocs. Each power try to find a way to decrease lost and increase the gains.

What consequences may sociopolitical explosions in North Africa and the Middle East have in regional global terms?
The growing social problems generated by demographic situations (namely the rapid population growth in the last three decades), pervasive corruption, high rates of unemployment, flagrant social polarization, weak and corrupt judicial systems and rule of law in general as well as frequent violations of humans rights and fundamental freedoms seem to have simulated social tensions followed by sociopolitical revolutions in many Arab countries. Many believe that the United States and leading European powers were the financiers and organizers of the Arab revolts. According to this line of thought, by using its whole arsenal of political and information technologies, the West has changed regimes in a set of Arab countries in order to strengthen its influence in the Middle East and take regional energy resources and transportation routes under its direct control. We can then ask ourselves; why did it not start with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Oman that possess roughly half of the worlds discovered energy reserves? The oil monarchs made an offer the West could not refuse, specifically to make the entire Arab world politically loyal, trouble-free in economic and financial terms, and, most importantly, religiously autonomous, especially from Iran and its bid for religious domination in the Islamic world. By coordinating and encouraging changes of secular regimes in a set of Arab countries, the West is splitting up the Islamic world, having at one extreme theocratic Iran, capable of forging a new coalition of fundamental forces and movements, and at the other Saudi Arabia, successfully preaching its own version of orthodox Islam.

Consequences of the political changes in the Middle-East

The countries of Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and probably Syria will be actively splitting for the foreseeable future. The Libyan oil-rich province of Cyrenaica has already declared its
7

autonomy from the central government and has started demarking new territorial boundaries with barbed wire. A similar secessionist movement was sparked recently in the south of the country. Yemen has failed to become a unified state. Its expected division into North Yemen and South Yemen currently seems unreal, and it will probably split into more than two independent entities. Iraq has practically divided into three parts and maintains the status of a unitary state only in diplomatic documents. Egypt, according to many analysts, has all the preconditions for splitting into more than two separate entities. It can be assumed that the disintegration of regional countries and the formation of smaller entities will make the latter much more susceptible to external political influence and therefore will ease the task of reviving the all-Arabian national idea. So too it is with oil. Influencing the oil policy of smaller and consequently weaker political entities would require lesser diplomatic and political efforts. But it is without considering the current crisis that has arisen since the beginning of the Arab spring. There have been a lot of political changes in the Middle East countries for the past three decades. These political changes are the result of a variety of reasons such as technological innovations, especially with the Internet and television, which allows the population to have access to an infinite flow of information. A better educated population will, obviously, expect more economic and social rights from the government. This region is also an area rich in natural resources, especially oil. Its estimated, by the American Department of Energy, that the global consume of oil will increase from 77, 8 million barrels per day in 1955 to 104, 6 million barrels in 2015. This means that the Persian Gulf and Central Asia will have to double their production to face the rise of consumption. This concentration of energetic resources (oil and natural gas) in the Middle East is partly what turns it into a very instable region, particularly with the demographic explosion which makes controlling the population more difficult every day. All the above mentioned factors might explain why conflicts are prone to arise. Professor Armando Marques Guedes in the article mentioned before-, refers to four major areas of tension, which are: Politic Islam, with the violent rising of Shia Islam -the second largest denomination of Islam- in the area of Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq. The radicalization of another version of political Islam, the Sunni Islam - the largest branch of Islam- that have Al-Qaeda as a major symbol. The radical nationalism, with the Palestine and Anti-Israel case.

Another sovereignty reaction in the strip that goes from Central Maghreb to Caspian Sea, mainly because it is an area rich in resources that the industrialized countries would like to control.

Iran and global influences

As mentioned earlier, the division of Iraq into three parts is gaining momentum. As a result, the possibility of new states emerging in southern, central, and northern Iraq is becoming more and more realistic. The developments around the Southern part of the country (richer with hydrocarbons) may influence regional geopolitics greatly. Although this area is populated mainly by Arabs, they are Shiites and recognize Tehran as their spiritual (religious) center. Hence, one may infer that if a new state emerges in the south of Iraq, it will most likely be oriented toward Iran politically and thus may be influenced by Tehran significantly, or even fall under the latters control. Needless to say, the emergence of an oil-rich, proIranian state in the south of Iraq will significantly change the regional balance of forces in Tehrans favor. The Arab Spring democratic revolutions swept out the regimes that were resisting Irans bid for spiritual hegemony and ended up giving way to Irans greater influence in the region. Today, Tehrans anti-Western, anti-American, and especially anti-Israeli rhetoric, maintained in the background of the extensive Islamization of Arab countries, will strengthen Irans position in the Greater Middle East. One of Tehrans regional archrivals, Egypt, was considerably weakened without much effort by Iran. In the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report from November 2012, the UN agency confirmed that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and reiterated the need to address this situation as soon as possible. Across the Arab Middle East, the Iranian nuclear program is raising grave concerns, primarily with regards to Iran's intentions for regional dominance. In 2009, thenEgyptian President Hosni Mubarak said, "A nuclear armed Iran with hegemonic ambitions is the greatest threat to Arab nations today. As for the United States of America, as it faces down Iran over its nuclear program, while backing rebels in Syria and governments in the Gulf, Washington risks being drawn ever deeper into the historic Sunni-Shi'ite sectarian divide within Islam. Already having to face up to its dwindling influence over Iraq, it must broker its exit from Afghanistan and try to keep nuclear armed Pakistan from chaos.

Then, there are relations with its two key regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, both troublesome in different ways. Israel is threatening military action against Iran over its nuclear program, and U.S. officials fear Americans would feel the consequences if Israel does attack. If Iran decides to take measures in order to protect itself there is a good probability that they would shut down the Strait of Hormuz, one of two of the most vital oil transit checkpoints in the world. In late December 2011, Iran began to warn that it would close the strait to shipping if the United States and Europe imposed an embargo on Irans oil exports as a way of pressuring it to rein in its nuclear program. An Iranian blockade by means of mining, airstrikes or sabotage is logistically well within Tehrans military capabilities and would send oil prices soaring. The Obama administration has warned that any such move would constitute a red line that would provoke an American response. In the summer of 2012, the United States quietly moved significant military reinforcements into the Persian Gulf to deter the Iranian military from any possible attempt to shut the strait, and to have more fighter jets on hand capable of striking deep into Iran if the standoff over its nuclear program deepened. Let us now take a look at the situation in Syria: Around January 2011, following on from the Arab Spring where protests against ruling regimes erupted in a number of Middle East countries, protesters in Syria came out demanding President Bashar al-Assad and his government step down. In response, Assad sent in troops with some cities and regions being besieged for weeks and months. The ruling regime is a sect of Shia, so has support from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, while the opposition is largely Sunni, thus receiving support from other Middle East countries, such as Saudi Arabia and others. Since then, Syrias civil war has developed into something quite frightening, well beyond the blind insurrections of the so-called Arab Spring. In 2006, Iran and Syria signed a mutual defense treaty in response to the growing possibility of conflict with the West. Both countries are highly inclined to fulfill this treaty, and it would seem that Iran is already doing so at least financially as Syria spirals into civil war. Iran has steadfastly supported Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his bid to suppress an uprising which both Tehran and Damascus see as a proxy war by Israel and Western states to extend their influence in the Middle East. "If America were to attack Syria, Iran along with Syria's allies will take action, which would amount to a fiasco for America," Mohammad Ali Assoudi, the deputy for culture
10

and propaganda of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was quoted as saying. The Russian government has also clearly stated on numerous occasions that it will not step back during a strike against Syria. Russia has begun positioning naval ships and extra troops at its permanent base off the coast of Tartus, Syria. Tartus, Russias only naval base outside the periphery of its borders is strategically imperative to the nation. Action by the United States or Israel against Syria would invariably elicit, at the very least, economic retaliation, and at the most, Russian military involvement and possible widespread war. The Russian government along with China repeatedly vetoed a UN draft resolution seeking to condemn the growing pressure being applied to protesters by the Syrian government, and by doing so, they have Western diplomats capacity for creative contempt. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described their veto as despicable, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used the terms dangerous and deplorable. Britain said it was appalled, and Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant singled out Moscow and Beijing for having chosen to put their national interests ahead of the lives of millions of Syrians. Syria and Iran are, as it appear, the first dominos in a long chain of possible terrible events.

USA

The situation to be analyzed is set mainly between three countries the United States of America, Israel and Iran. These three nations are divided in two factions, Israel, which has the support of the U.S.A., versus Iran. The tensions between both factions have created an environment of fear which resembles the one felt during the Cold War. This scenery has its origin in the fact that Iran is battling to enrich its uranium stash. The reaction of the opposite faction is an attempt to lead Iran either into a policy change, or to profit from its internal conflicts. The U.S.A. and Israel act together, each one playing a different part. The first has a subtle approach, whilst the latter plays a more threatening role. Strategies based on pressuring enemies, leaking of misleading information and the urge for militarization characterize the approach that both factions have taken. We can also consider an opposite perspective which shows the consequences of their choices of action. The worst sin of intelligence is complacency (Friedman, 2008), this conception lays on the idea that the past events should not dictate the future ones, nor should they cloud the present judgment. In this case, we may refer to the threats of war that were never 11

materialized as being a fixed model for the current situation, as neither sides of the conflict expect an attack. Nevertheless, the truth is that it might, eventually, happen. STRATFOR has developed a series of thorough reports concerning the Iranians possibility of becoming the lead player in the war game. In July 2009s report, Iran was seeking to upgrade its stash of uranium. In spite of their determination to obtain it, it was assumed that the technology to transform it into a nuclear weapon was still not available. The table turned when, in the same year, an alliance between Russia and Iran was disclosed. The Russian support froze and the report analysis showed a new side. Iran had three responses to a possible air strike from the U.S.A. and Israel faction: Shiite militant groups (namely Hezbollah) Triggering chaos in Iraq Blocking the Strait of Hormuz

The discussion of these hypothetic counter attacks has centered itself in the latter. The risk imposed by this situation actually taking place is massive. Being Strait of Hormuz the spot where approximately 45% of global oil is exported from, the consequence would most likely be the rise of a devastating economic crisis. Therefore, the American strategy of starting with aerial attacks was taken out of the prospects.

The present view is that, although Iran has the materials, it doesnt have the technological means to build a nuclear weapon. The attempt to strip Iran from its accumulation of uranium, by striking its nuclear base, seems too fade as its faults come to light. Adding to the previously stated, there is still an unconsidered menace. It consists in the fact that Iran has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf. Whilst the U.S.A. is on the verge of demilitarizing Iraq, Iran is highly upgrading its military influence in the area. This demonstrates that the U.S.A. might lose the capacity to contain Iranian forces, raising the question: Would an air strike on Irans nuclear base bring any benefit? Or would it create an insolvable chaos? Minding the three counter measures available for Iran to use, it is essential to stress their individual importance. Hezbollah, for instance, is interpreted by the U.S.A. as the less hazardous, leaving us with two other options in hand. Assuming Iraq would form a government that would effectively contain pro-iranian factions, just as Hezbollah has been, the second of Irans possibilities would be taken out of the picture. 12

Finally, the most menacing of Irans measures still floats and pressures the U.S.A.s government to take action Hormuz. The only way to approach this threat is to do it before the decision to attack the nuclear sites. Therefore, any infrastructure near to a port, every maritime transport and any maritime war material would have to be destroyed. The damage in this situation would be mindblowing. This strategy is supported by two main benefits. First, there is no damage done to nuclear facilities. Instead, the targets are aimed to all the facilities which produce any kind of composing part of the weapon. The attack would also bring security and assure the expectations that Americans have of Iran not possessing the technological means to develop a nuclear weapon, since it would provoke the immediate escape of the scientists behind it. Secondly, the counter-nuclear approach would not end one of the most critical parts of Iran's military power their ground forces. Whilst a nuclear-centered attack would leave untouched several of Iran's military, a carefully planned air attack, using the qualities and the effectiveness of the American air force, would severely damage Iran's power of fighting back. Combining all the units the U.S.A.'s military has stationed around Iran and the ones available to travel across seas, engaging them in a thorough bombing campaign would be the most plausible option on the table. Most surely this would be the worst case scenario, at Iran's eyes.

The solution lies, not in threatening solely the Iranian nuclear bases, but in guaranteeing that Iran's options of game play are destroyed. Namely, Hormuz and the other counter-measures. The idea is to shut their options down, leave them airless and in need to reinvent their approach. The nuclear facilities never posed as one of the U.S.A.'s major features against Iran. What they fear is the withdrawal of military from Iraq and Iran's conventional forces. In spite of that fact, the destruction of nuclear bases is an added benefit to the American strategy. Iranians are not fearful of what the sanctions for their behavior might be. The internal tension grows and the discussion appeals to the conservation of their conventional forces, to avoid the threatening of their goals in the wider Islamic world and a policy shift. Iranians seem nervous with the constant menace of an American strategy shift, but considering Washington, we can only remain in mystery. Obama's government was bombed with new, shiny, pieces to add to their war game the withdraw from Iraq, Saudi pressure not to withdraw while Iran remains a threat, Saudi moves against Hezbollah to split Syria from Iran and Israeli pressure to deal with nuclear weapons and given the chance to create a new 13

strategy in the mist. The answer remains, now, in if the assessment of Iranian forces was bound by the truth or if they do require a broader treatment to the military problem their pose.

Russia
Considering President of Russia Dimitry Medvedev speech at the Meeting with Russian Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives to International Organisation, we can highlight, what some call the Medvedev Doctrine and Russias role in the international scene. After the Cold War, the underlying reasons for most of bloc politics and bloc discipline simply disappeared and nowadays the world is still searching for a new equilibrium. Russia believes that even an influential country as the United States shouldnt make all the decisions and the world should be multipolar. This position is enforced by Russias strength and ability to assume greater responsibility for solving problems on a regional and global scale. () the world is not just listening to Russia but looking to us for help with solving problems. (Medvedev, 2008)2 Russias Foreign Policy Concept is based on an analysis of all aspects of contemporary international life recognizing the primacy of fundamental principles of international law. Their relations with other countries will be built within the framework of these principles and the concept of international law that defines the relations between civilized people. Therefore, Russia has no intention of isolating itself neither wants confrontation with any other country. Only by working together and without double standards, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, crime, global poverty, climate change and the spread of infectious diseases can be fought. However Russia foreign policy decisions will be based on the need to protect the lives and interests of Russians wherever they are. This policy provides doctrinal basis for intervention in countries if Russia finds it necessary.

Medvedev, D. (2008). Speech at the Meeting with Russian Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives to International Organisations. Moscow.

14

Finally there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests because of their historical relations and for that, bound together as friends and good neighbours. Globally, the Russians want to use this general redefinition of the regional and global system to create a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center, plus substantial nuclear assets, to be a part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy. Russia sees the United States as the most influent state, still living in a paternalistic regime where they take decisions for the rest of the world. Russia interest in the Middle East lays on the American presence in the region. Since 2001, the United States are fighting a war with the Islamic World. Their main theatres are Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq the situation isnt very critical, in fact its just ideal. The government in Bagdad isnt pro-American but neither is an Iranian puppet. In Afghanistan, Talibans influence is increasing: large areas are falling to its control and US and NATO forces are insufficient. The United States are also in confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program demanding that Tehran must stop its enrichment of uranium or face U.S action. The U.S assembled a group of six countries that agreed with the U.S goal [engaging negotiations with Iran] and that sanctions should be imposed on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. This group also agreed not to sell arms to Tehran creating a sense of isolation in Iran. Due to all of these circumstances, the United States forces were stretchered from Iraq to Pakistan and their ground forces were stretchered to the limit. Also U.S air force, naval and land-based forces have to always be on standby for the possibility of an air champagne in Iran (just to maintain the bluff). As U.S forces are too busy in the Middle East, a window of opportunity was created for Russia to strike. For the likely future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain a combat. Also, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan. Consequently the U.S needed the Russians and couldnt block the Russians. The Russians are raising the possibility that U.S forces could be isolated in Afghanistan. Supply lines into the landlocked country never have been under the United States or NATO control. All supplies must come through third countries and their willingness to permit transit is the foundation of U.S strategy.
15

The Russians took advantage of this and stroke, invading Georgia on August 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. As U.S is off balance in the Islamic World, there is an opportunity for Russia to create a new reality before the United States is ready to fight back. This opportunity is also based on the fact that Europe hasnt the military power nor the will to actively resist Russia because of its heavily dependence on Russians natural gas supplies.

A U.S action against Russia would result in counteractions, so considering the present situation the Russian response would be to strike at the heart if American strategy in the Islamic World. The Russians have a long history of supporting Middle Eastern regimes with weapons shipments, and it was no accident that the first world leader they met after invading Georgia, was Syrian president Bashar al Assad. Russia could deliberately send weapons to factions in Iraq that do not support the current regime, as well as groups like Hezbollah. Moscow also could encourage the Iranians to withdraw their support for the Iraqi government and immerse Iraq back into conflict. Finally, Russia could ship weapons to the Taliban and work to further destabilize Pakistan. Concluding, with active Russian hostility plus the current situation in the region, the strategic situation in the Islamic World can spin out of control at any time. We now will focus our attention in the relations between Israel and Russia. Although they operate in the same areas of interest, their agendas seem disconnected but not always opposed. The Russians have complex relationships in the region, especially with Syria and Iran. As we have already said, Russia sees the United States as their prime adversary and consequentially believes that the U.S used the breakup of the Soviet Union to extend NATO and contain Russia, by supporting pro-democracy movements in the Middle East, and using these movements to create pro-American governments. This is why the Russians value the conflict in the Islamic World. They have interest in encouraging processes that draw the United States into this region in order to weaken them. Leading this is the support of Iran and Syria, not because they support these countries but because they oppose actions that might deteriorate Iran or undermine Syrian government.

16

Russia relation with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad represented a major danger to Israel. Nevertheless with the fall of the Soviet Union, Syria lost its sponsor and weakened as a threat. For Israel, the al Assad regime presented two situations: First they were predictable and their interests didnt include conflict with Israel. As a result, Syria held Hezbollah in check until it was forced out of Lebanon by the United States in 2005; Secondly, the regime wasnt Sunni but Alawite (a Shiite sect)3 With the withdraw of United States from Iraq and Iran filling the void left, Iran became a bigger threat to Israel, even bigger than the Hamas and the Sunnis. For this reason Israel now wants a Sunni regime in Syria that would block Iran wishes. Russians weapons supplies offers help on the maintenance of this regime. The ability of Russia to prevent or avoid sanctions helps, a lot, both countries but doesnt allow the Russians to create or impose solutions. However they can create circumstances that might draw in the U.S and diverted. The Russians have no interest in a radical Sunni group in Syria but could live with a more moderate one if they fail to keep al Assad or his regime in power. This is where Israels and Russias agendas coincide: Israel would accept the survival of al Assad regime as long as Syria stays out of Irans influential areas. Regarding to Syria theres even one more question to consider: Turkey has asked NATO some kind of intervention in Syria, this position is supported by their hostility towards al Assads regime from early on and this provides the opportunity to appeal the alliance under its common defense policy. From the Russian point of view, a NATO intervention involving large amounts of U.S. forces would be the best as they would spent a lot of U.S forces. From the Israeli point of view, having NATO take responsibility for Syria would be the best possible outcome by far. In conclusion: Israel would like Russia as a mild counterweight to the United States, but without disturbing relationships with them; Russia would like to have additional options in the Middle East beyond Iran and Syria but without isolating those states;
3

During the 2000s, Israel and the West believed the main threat emanated from the Sunni world. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were all Sunni.

17

Theres little conflict between Russians and Israelis interests because neither is nearly as powerful as would like to be in, so it is in their both best interests to make themself appear to have more weight than they have.

The New Great Game in Central Asia

d) The Caucasus and Central Asia

After the Cold War and all the conflicts in the XX century, a new great world game is emerging between USA, Russia, China and Central Asia. In fact, since 9/11, Americas priority in Central Asia has been to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. But as the US and NATO pulls out, there is a new danger: the West could become entangled in regional rivalries, local strongman politics and competition with Russia and China. Central Asian governments have tried for years to manipulate foreign powers interest in the region for their own benefit. As an example we can refer that in 2009 Kyrgyzstans president, Bakiyev, engaged war between Washington and Moscow over the fate of the Manas air base, the main staging facility for American troops in Afghanistan. The truth is that Kyrgz officials claimed that many of these payments had been laundered through a complex network of offshore bank accounts controlled by the former first family.

18

As America is withdrawing from Afghanistan, the Central Asia states are likely to increase their demands for tacit payoffs for cooperation among other things, conduits hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel contracts to local suppliers and intermediaries. Most controversially of all, NATO and the Central Asian states are still negotiating over the potential transfer of military equipment, used by coalition forces in Afghanistan, to Central Asian governments security services, which have a bloody human rights record. Withdrawal from Afghanistan also elevates the risk that the USA, together with other external powers, will be drawn into a number of local disputes and escalating regional rivalries. Over the last decade, Central Asia leaders have consistently invoked the specter of insurgents spilling over from Afghanistan to justify their own counterterrorism efforts and the need for security cooperation with Russia, China and the United States. Western withdrawal will encourage local elites to stoke these fears, justifying domestic crackdowns, rendition of political opponents and escalation of border tensions with neighbors. Russia seems to reinforce this narrative to justify extending its military basing rights throughout the country which Tajik officials will then use as leverage to demand more Western assistance. Washingtons new strategy, which the objective is to promote a sustainable development in Afghanistan infrastructure, energy transmission grids and pipelines to Central Asia, may lead to further corruption. The promotion on some projects has already provoked suspicion in Beijing and Moscow about the Wests regional ambitions. Furthermore, Russia is pressing the inclusion of Kyrsgyzstan and Tajikistan in the new Moscow union, while China continues to build new infrastructure and energy pipelines. But Washington seems to failed in the promotion of the same goals as Afghan government to improve governance and create democratic institutions. The Afghanistan withdrawal is dragging the West into a hotbed of domestic power struggles and regional rivalries. Despite that, in post-11 September American intervention in Central Asia, a strategic realignment was underway between US and India. Once the Soviet Union imploded, India began to rethink its strategy. The truth is that the principal foreign policy and national security officials in the new American government believed that with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and China looming as challenger, India, not Pakistan, was the worthier partner.

19

e) Pipelines in Central Asia

Moreover, as the five Central Asian states become increasingly important as a source of oil and gas, (a market for consumer goods and as the core of the strategically-important Shanghai Cooperation Organization) China is now clearly confident it can reorient Central Asia towards Beijing and away from the worlds other major powers. China is working to build its economic and political links with Central Asia and is now Central Asias principal trading partner as well as it is its main source of foreign investment. The truth is that the pressure on China to defend its interests in the region is rising. As trade with the region grows and China comes to depend more and more on Central Asian energy supplies, maintaining influence in the region is becoming a matter of crucial strategic importance. China is trying to position itself as a good neighbor to the countries of the region. They want to straighten its energy cooperation with Central Asia and the countries of the Caspian Sea. This cooperation is part of Chinas new strategic and geopolitical approach to this region of the world, an area in which China increasingly thinks of itself as a neighbor and a privileged partner.

Summing up, and knowing that the world has started taking more notice of Central Asia, we can conclude that: For the United States and its allies, the region is a valuable supply hub for the Afghanistan war effort. For Russia, it is an arena in which they utilize political influence. For China, it is a source of energy and a critical partner for stabilizing and developing the restive Xinjiang. The truth is that the Central Asian case today is not a throwback to the past but a guide to what is to come: the rise of new players and the decline of Western influence in a multipolar world. The first lesson to take from China, Russia, and the United States' involvement in Central Asia is that it has strengthened the hand of rulers, who have been able to play the suitors off one another to extract economic benefits and political support where possible.

20

Conclusion
When analyzing the present situation in Middle East it is easy to realize the intricate connections between the different States and entities as well as the Westerns role. The United States of America, Russia and China are among the most important decisionmakers of todays reality. Religion is a major factor in the conflicts that have risen since it is deeply rooted in those societies. The Islamic conflict opens a window of opportunity for a counterbalance of powers to Nations that have been, in the past, under ones domination. The world is now facing a struggle for power and the threat from the Islamic States is getting stronger as they are the holder of a powerful and valuable resource: oil. Although the world may not be as divided as it was during the Bipolar Period, new conflicts have emerged creating a new geopolitical situation. The regions in Middle East and Central Asia have seen their importance increased in todays international political sphere. These regions can be compared to a chessboard where every move is played strategically by the current powers in order to achieve their own personal agendas. The world is now looking for a new equilibrium and is using the Arab conflicts as a way to redefine the global order.

21

Bibliography
Armando Marques Guedes (2007), A Linha da Frente. Do Sudoeste dos Balcs sia Central, Geopoltica, 1: 19-77, Centro Portugus de Geopoltica, Lisboa. Dmitry Medvedev (2008), Speech at the Meeting with Russian Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives to International Organisations, programmatic speech delivered on the 15th June 2008, Kremlin. President of Russia, http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/07/15/1121_type82912type84779_204155.shtml George Friedman (2008), The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy, Stratfor. Geopolitical Intelligence Report (edited on September 2, 2008), http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medvedev_doctrine_and_american_strategy Richard N. Haass and Martin Indyk (2009), Beyond Iraq. A new US strategy for the Middle East, in Foreign Affairs 88, 1: 41-59, New York. Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman (2009), Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, available for download at http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf George Friedman (2010), Rethinking American Options on Iran, Stratfor, http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/es.aspx?s=1483&e=98319&elq=87ec91265bd04523b3cee4ff ed38e5c9 Nuno Lemos Pires (2011), Cartas de Cabul. O Afeganisto visto por um soldado portugus, text by Nuno Lemos Pires and annotations and postfacium by Armando Marques Guedes, Tribuna da Histria, Lisboa. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137813/alexander-cooley/the-new-great-game-incentral-asia http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/ca_central_asia_press_release http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/pakistan-russia-and-threat-afghan-war http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/putins-visit-and-israeli-russian-relations http://d3e11nsse60sj1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/120531-GrigoryanMiddle-East.pdf http://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/afghanistan-pakistan-preparing-taliban-comeback
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/after-afghanistan-a-new-great-game.html

22

23