Lebanese riot police officers remove an anti-government protester in Beirut, October 31, 2019. /VCG Photo
Editor's Note: Guy Burton is a visiting fellow at the Middle East Center, London School of Economics, and adjunct professor at Vesalius College, Brussels. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
Last week I attended the Mediterranean Dialogue in Rome, a forum for high-ranking officials to talk about issues relating to the Middle East. Over its two days, the foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine were questioned on stage, along with other officials from the UN and other international agencies and think tanks.
Much of the focus over the two days' conference was what governments of the Middle East could do to respond to the various challenges they are currently facing in what is a highly contested region.
To stimulate thought and discussion, the theme for the dialogue was "Beyond Turmoil, A Positive Agenda." To that end, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir called himself an "optimist" and talked up U.S. President Donald Trump's peace plan for the Palestinians.
Israel Katz, the foreign minister of Israel, presented his Tracks for Regional Peace, an initiative which would see Israel and Jordan act as a land bridge and hub for trade from Europe in the west to the Gulf in the east. Everyone would benefit, he claimed, including the Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Lebanon's Gebran Bassil claimed that the current protests in his country constituted an opportunity rather than a crisis, opening the door for reforms and combating corruption. The Arab League Secretary General Ahmed Aboul Ghait said that Egypt's leadership was "doing wonders to engage the youth" while both the Egyptian and Qatari foreign ministers made positive noises about a possible rapprochement in the Gulf between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain on one side and Qatar on the other.
But listening to these warm words and upbeat assessments was perplexing for an observer such as myself. While it is the job of foreign ministers to be diplomatic and present the best possible image of their countries, I found the overwhelming optimism difficult to understand given the high level of conflict and contestation currently taking place in the Middle East.
Somewhat sarcastically, I posted a tweet, asking why it was then that they weren't able to live and work together.
Pretty quickly, someone tweeted back a reply: "Iran."
Whether or not the response was ironic, it got me thinking. Certainly, it was the case that throughout the two days many of the Arab representatives targeted Iran for criticism.
Al Jubeir claimed that Iran was a threat to the region and had failed its own people. He said that American sanctions needed to continue, so as to keep it isolated and contained. Israel's Katz called Iran the region's main source of instability while Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary of Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. State Department, said that it was "unacceptable" that Iran was supporting Hezbollah and threatening Israel. He said that America's aim was for Iran to behave like a "normal country."
As a thought experiment, I asked whether Iran was the cause of the regional turmoil. What if Iran were to disappear from the map tomorrow? Would that mean an end to discord in the Middle East?
Relatives mourn for people killed in a mortar attack in Suruc near northern Syria border, October 12, 2019. /VCG Photo
No, it wouldn't. There would still be conflict. Indeed, the protests currently taking place in Lebanon, Iraq and Algeria as well as in Sudan earlier in the year would have happened, whether or not Iran existed. The causes of those protest movements were domestic: the result of failed governance, economic stagnation and frustration by populations that they aren't being listened to.
As for the wars happening in Syria, Libya and Yemen, it is certainly the case that other states from inside and outside the region have provided arms and assistance to government and opposition forces fighting each other.
In Syria, for instance, Iran has been a visible and active presence since early on in the war. In Yemen too, it has provided support to the Houthi rebels, but not in a comprehensive fashion and certainly not enough to make them dependent. However, Iranian influence is also countered by a substantial Arab presence, by the Saudis and the UAE as well as Egypt and the UAE in Libya.
At the same time, the wars in Yemen, Libya and Syria were not instigated from outside. They followed earlier uprisings in 2011 which shared many of the features as more recent protests: a lack of economic opportunity and restrictions on freedom of expression and political representation.
It is important to point out the domestic origins of the conflicts and protest movements in the Middle East, because there are practical consequences. If the diagnosis of what caused them is incorrect, then so will the treatment be ineffective.
To illustrate this: In his opening remarks, the Arab League's Ghait emphasized external reasons for the region's various conflicts. In particular, he pointed to the failure to resolve the Palestinian question after more than 70 years as well as foreign interventions in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 which had destroyed the state and created political vacuums in both countries.
His answers to this were similarly oriented towards external and high-level solutions. They included settling the Palestinian question as well as containing Iran and reviving the nation-state. The last is somewhat ironic, since it has been precisely this institution which has failed in the eyes of many of its citizens.
In short, what is needed are not state-oriented measures, but society-focused solutions. Naturally, this will be hard for many of the region's regimes, since it will mean giving up power and sharing it. It will mean being more receptive to the views and opinions of others, over how best to organize, manage and distribute resources. For now, though, it's not clear that regional elites are ready for this, as Ghait's words made clear. For that reason, it's likely that protesters will continue to fill the streets in Algiers, Baghdad and Beirut until they see a real willingness and action for change.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)