The expansion of the EI in Iraq and the Levant has ended with a mask dance and forces to position itself in a less elusive way, stripping the limitations of each actor, as we see with Turkey, inoperative by proximity, Syria as a battlefield and board that welcomes the hegemonic pulse of great powers for the remanence Russia vs USA, Saudi Arabia with its monarchy less sheltered after the «estrangement» of the US, Iraq paying the broken plates or Iran taking advantage of the new dance to improve their situation.

The US has been a traditional ally of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is threatened this relationship to the alleged and future energy independence of the US, is expected to reach by 2035, which would make Saudi oil disappear from the equation by which the US supported Saudi Arabia in the region. This would give the US more freedom in the election or expansion of its allies (which Israel does not see with good eyes).

– The Islamic State is Sunni, and it has been questioned that some Gulf countries favored it. This moves the US away from the Saudi orbit.

– Given the rapprochement of Russia to Iran, the US can choose to move forward and want to approach Iran, with which it also shares a common enemy: ISIS.

On the other hand, the new tracing of relations between countries is conditioned by an urgent objective: the struggle against the SI. However, meeting urgent short-term objectives may have long-term counterproductive results. Specifically, arming the rebels fighting against the Syrian regime and even the peshmergas can be counterproductive as it was with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It seems that in the region, a conflict is waged «by proxy»: on the one hand, the US and Russia supporting different countries with the intention of keeping the US its influence and Russia to expand it and, secondly, Shiite and Sunni regimes supporting regimes of the same religious creed, even if it yields as a lesser evil to fight against a greater evil, as happened between Iran and Al Qaeda.

Washington’s policy in the region has been to promote a balance against Iran, since for the US the main source of insecurity in the region is this country (and now the Islamic State, a circumstance that is generating a convergence of specific interests between USA and Iran to fight against this new actor). The US would be counter-thinking Iran as a revisionist power. Following Mearsheimer’s theory, the US would intervene in the Middle East as an overseas balancer, not only to protect its interests (control of oil and trade routes), but to avoid the hegemony of a single power in the region. In this sense, it would be acting as an island power balancing regional power among the main countries in the area. The displacement of the balance of power towards Asia-Pacific and the energy independence that it seems can have the US are determining factors in the future strategy of Washington in the Middle East.

The theoretical model that could best explain the US strategy could be neoclassical realism: the domestic intervening variables could provide more concise explanations about US policy in the region. The perception of technicians and political decision-makers can give interesting clues. In this sense, the change of strategy adopted by Obama since his entry into the White House is clear.

This new actor is breaking the established order, putting at risk existing alliances, adding a large share of uncertainty to the future of the region. At the moment neither the US nor Turkey want to intervene directly with the force that some expect. Both the US and Iran have approached positions due to the convenience for both before an actor that bothers them. The reaction of the other participants to this approach is the great doubt. The future movements of Israel and mainly Saudi Arabia undoubtedly complicate both the US and Iran. I believe that the theory of defensive realism serves to explain the approach of Iran to the USA. On the other hand, the US should try to maintain the balance in the area. This clearly stresses relations with Saudi Arabia, a country that is suspected of financing some of these extremist groups (with the intention also to maintain a certain balance in the region.)

As I pointed out earlier, in the «chess board» between Iran and Saudi Arabia, actors who are apparently secondary are participating, but in reality they are the real protagonists, I mean USA, Israel and Turkey. As it is traditional in the great powers, the manipulations of medium powers to obtain particular benefits and above all, that assume the political costs of the changes that occur, is a reality. This double standard is evident with the emergence of the Islamic State, which was initially fed doctrinally by these powers and after losing control of these, have forced to change the strategies by which they were conceived. Hence, in my opinion there was a strategic migration, that is, the USA is forced to use a defensive realism, seeing itself with little political floor in its territory to re-offend with its war machine to this new Iraq, one that already It is not the same as that left, one that is undergoing a geographical and doctrinal metamorphosis. In turn, one that threatens more certainly than the Iranian «monster», constituting a common enemy for these old rivals, therefore, it is not strange that both powers soften their speeches and generated an approach of these parts. On the other hand, the great loser is Israel, this last power, betting on the weakening of Iran in the region and its offensive influence in neighboring states, being evident in the political tensions that it has had with the USA, product of the change in strategy American, which has strengthened Iran, placing him as a preponderant actor to stop the advance of the Islamic state, even legitimizing the actions of Hezbollah.

LT CMDR. EDWIN ORTEGA SEVILLA

GUAYAQUI, SEPTEMBER 2018