"It is also provisionally given the grand-sounding title of Middle East
Strategic Alliance (MESA). I think that should be changed to Middle East
Strategic Stooges, which would then give the rather appropriate acronym
"MESS”…seriously, though, this proposed US-led Arab force is a contemptible
joke. Most of its proposed members are deeply destabilizing, despotic regimes in
the Middle East,” Cunningham told Tasnim on Wednesday.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international
affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast,
Ireland, he is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before
pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an
editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his
columns appear on RT, Sputnik, and Strategic Culture Foundation.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim: According to media reports, the Trump administration is quietly
pushing ahead with a bid to create a new security and political alliance with
six Persian Gulf Arab states, Egypt and Jordan, to contain Iran’s growing
influence in the region. What do you think about the so-called "Arab
NATO" force?
Cunningham: This renewed plan for a US-led Arab coalition military force
was reported by Reuters on July 27. It has been called an "Arab NATO”. It is
also provisionally given the grand-sounding title of Middle East Strategic
Alliance (MESA). I think that should be changed to Middle East Strategic
Stooges, which would then give the rather appropriate acronym "MESS”.
Seriously, though, this proposed US-led Arab force is a contemptible joke. Most
of its proposed members are deeply destabilizing, despotic regimes in the Middle
East. To say this coalition’s mission will be for "countering terrorism and
extremism” is absurd and an insult to intelligence. It’s like calling up
arsonists to perform as a fire brigade. Hence, the more accurate initials for
this motley crew of rogues should be "MESS”.
Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf Arab crony regimes are the biggest sponsors of
Wahhabi terrorism, both financially and ideologically. This terrorism has served
American imperialist interests well for the purpose of inciting regime change in
the region, as well as for fomenting general chaos and sectarian conflict
between Muslims and other religions. This mayhem is a deliberate objective to
suit American interests, as well as those of Israel and the Arab dictatorships.
The idea for such a force is not new. It goes back decades. One can trace, for
example, the present Saudi-dominated (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
and its so-called military "defense shield” to its rationalizing inception back
in the early 1980s. That was a reaction and a deliberate attempt by the American
Arab client regimes to counter Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979. This latest
drive for an Arab NATO is a continuation of the American imperialist obsession
with Iran.
US imperialist interests in the oil-rich Middle East totally depend on its
instrument of surrogate regimes, principally Israel and the equally despotic
Arab dictatorships led by Saudi Arabia.
This proposed newer version of US imperialist military proxies, or surrogates,
is being openly declared as a "bulwark” against Iran, as well as pretending to
have the other missions of "countering terrorism and extremism”.
Countering Iran is a real purpose, but the rhetoric about "countering terrorism
and extremism” is a barefaced absurdity. It’s an oxymoron.
Note, however, that this will be a colossal boon for US military profits. As
Reuters reported: "The White House wants to see deeper cooperation between the
countries on missile defense, military training, counter-terrorism and other
issues such as strengthening regional economic and diplomatic ties.”
An attempt to organize such a coalition could indeed be a practical way for the
Trump administration to increase its hostile pressure on Iran. But even
regardless of that possible outcome, Washington stands to gain hundreds of
billions of dollars in the proposed installation of more missile systems in the
region.
In short, this proposed "MESS” is a military instrument to enforce American
aggression against nations that don’t kowtow to its objectives; it is also,
crucially, more of the same money-spinning racket for the US military-industrial
complex. But in doing so, such a force, will unleash more violence, death and
destruction across the long-blighted and suffering region. Just look at the
horror that Yemen and Syria have been put through. That horror is by the same
people who are now absurdly proposing to set up a "security” force.
Tasnim: Saudi officials raised the idea of a security pact ahead of a Trump
visit last year to Saudi Arabia where he announced a massive arms deal, but the
alliance proposal did not get off the ground at the time. How much do you think
an Arab NATO could be a game-changer in the region?
Cunningham: If this Arab coalition becomes organized and operational, it
will be giving itself a legalistic mandate to be more interventionist and
destructive in the region. A license to violate sovereignty and international
law, in much the same way that the US-led NATO alliance in Europe has done with
regard to conducting illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Objectively
speaking, this would-be Arab coalition is nothing but a gang thug who will
enforce American aggression. In that way, it may be a game-changer for all the
wrong reasons, not in any complimentary sense of the phrase. It’s a potential
"game-changer” in terms of propagating more sectarian conflict, despotism,
terrorism, bloodshed, violence, war… and mega profits for American militarism.
Tasnim: Similar initiatives by previous US administrations to develop a more
formal alliance with the Persian Gulf and Arab allies have failed in the past.
Do you think this would fail as well?
Cunningham: Yes. Going by decades of past initiatives, this will be another
flop. Because the real purpose for its being is entirely false and nefarious.
There is no coherent, unifying, good and genuine purpose. It is all about
fomenting aggression and conflict. The proposed individual members are too
compromised and corrupt to have any professional function. But the danger is
that such rhetoric about "confronting Iran” is recklessly inflammatory for a
region that is already racked with US-led aggression and war crimes.
Readers may find the following articleof interest by Doug Bandow at The American
Conservative (TAC). Notably, Bandow is a former aide to President Ronald Reagan
(1981-89). One insightful quote from the article is the following: "Creating
MESA [or as I prefer to say MESS] would double down on Washington’s manifestly
failed Mideast strategy… Virtually every Middle East problem today that elicits
cries for more American involvement resulted from misguided US interference a
year ago, a decade, or more.”
In my view, that is a fair – albeit understated – summary of the historical and
contemporary reality of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Yet now we
are somehow expected to take Washington and its client regimes seriously when
they talk about setting up a new military "security” force. It’s like calling up
the arsonists.
Source: Tasnim