Go for a new system of stability

For some time the conventional wisdom about the Middle East has claimed that we are in a restaurant with a two-item menu.

One item is Pax Americana, a balance of power shaped in Washington and imposed by the United States' economic and military power. The other, under the label Pax Iranica, is devised by the radical Khomeinist regime in Tehran.

Without implying moral equivalence between the two, one must note that both emerged in response to a real need: a new system of stability in the region.

With the Khomeinist revolution in Iran, the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Taliban in Kabul and the Baathists in Baghdad, the traditional equilibrium shaped over decades was destroyed, leaving in its place instability, chaos and war.

The situation has been further complicated by divisions among the Palestinians, now effectively carved into two mutually hostile camps, and the threat of a new civil war in Lebanon.

The recent diplomatic tour of several European and Middle Eastern nations undertaken by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz and hailed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel as "the emergence of a voice that deserves to be heard all over the world", was designed to convey a different message.

What was the message that seems to have attracted attention in places as far apart as Britain, the Vatican, Germany and Turkey?

The heart of the message consists of two assertions.

The first is that the Middle East is a far more complicated place. The second is that options for evolving a new balance of power in the region are less limited than the choice between Pax Americana and Pax Iranica might suggest.

At a joint press conference with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez in Tehran last week, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that the attempt to impose a Pax Americana had failed, implying that time was coming for the Pax Iranica.

Tehran and Washington are already engaged in what could be described as a lukewarm war. They are fighting through proxies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Transcaucasus, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories among other places. Some analysts even expect the two adversaries to come to direct blows before President George W. Bush leaves the White House in January 2009.

The truth, however, is that neither of the two rivals has what it takes to impose a new status quo in what is the world's most conflict-ridden region.

Despite its economic power and military might, the US is hampered by its internal divisions and evident lack of popular support for any peace-making scheme on the grand scale. Building stability is a long-term job, unsuited to the current American mood of impatience not to say fickleness.

To complicate matters further, there is no evidence that the US could mobilise enough popular forces within the region to back whatever it has to offer. Iran's claim of leadership is equally open to question. Although Tehran has the means to wage low intensity war in many theatres at the same time, it lacks the wherewithal for major conflict for any length of time.

More importantly, perhaps, the Khomeinist ideology has failed to win any significant level of popular support in the region, outside Lebanon.

Lack of ability

The Saudi sovereign's tour reminded many that a majority of the region's states and nations do not wish to be drawn into a Manichaean conflict that could lead to war.

The US maybe the last remaining "superpower" but, alone, it does not have the ability to decide the fate of the Middle East. Iran, for its part, may be a mini "superpower" in terms of the mischief it can make. However, it, too, lacks the staying power required for building empires.

To be stable, any new equilibrium in the greater Middle East would have to reflect the diversity of the region. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, plus Yemen which has drawn closer to them in recent years, could provide one piece of the new jigsaw.

To these must be added other pieces of stability, notably Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Anxious to reclaim its historical role in the region, Turkey would provide another piece.

In time, new Iraq, which seems to have halted its slide into chaos, would also add an important piece as will Afghanistan under its new system. There is even the hope that Pakistan, currently passing through a major crisis, might become a contributor to stability under a new government.

The Saudi sovereign invited his hosts to pay attention to the fact that the forces of moderation still represent the largest constituency throughout the region.

In almost all parts of the region, the politics of moderation, economic development and reform enjoy much wider support than presumed. Every country in the region needs reform, albeit at its own pace and in accordance with its own moral and political potentials. Fear of change would only play into the hands of those preaching a cult of violent rupture.

Despite their obvious shortcomings such structures as the GCC, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference, and the less formal ones such as the Group of Eight Muslim nations, can and must be considered as so many bricks in building a new stability in the region.

At the same time, The European Union, China, India and Russia can, and must, also make their distinct contributions to building a new status quo in a region that is vital to them all.

The Middle East has been called an "Arc of Crisis". Changing its appellation to an "Arc of Peace" cannot be achieved by a single power or "superpower." The mischief of the few might be sufficient to provoke war. To make peace, however, the efforts of the many are needed.