Better Middle East policy

On Wednesday January 8, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted an event titled The Land of Endless Wars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East? to showcase the recently published book co-edited by AEI Resident Scholar, Michael Rubin. The book, Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East? served as a launching point for the panel, which was comprised of three of the book’s authors and two editors: Michael Rubin, a Resident Scholar at AEI, Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-editor of the book, and A.Kadir Yildirim Fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute and chapter author.

The key takeaways from the discussion are consolidated here: 

Reform Islam

Katulis, while noting the multiplicity of factors involved in ISIS’s rise to power, specifically credited its ability to exploit and act upon the failed responsiveness of local governance. Many of the seeds of instability were the result of local government’s failure to respond effectively to and engage with its people. All three panelists agreed that ISIS exploited religion to leverage and gain power, rather than focusing on the particularities of faith. Yildirim noted that the rise of religious-backed regimes was a result of the failure of secular ideologies, particularly their failure to deliver on promises. This failure, Yildirim claims, led to the rise of Islamist, Salafists, and other radical religious groups. 

Yildirim underlined that Islam is not by nature different than other religions in terms of its ability to act as a stabilizing or disruptive force. The panelists largely agreed in their overall response to the moderator’s question regarding whether or not Islam needs reforming. While their individual interpretations and explanations varied, each agreed that reform is needed. 

Katulis alluded to a more hands-off approach, stating that the United States should not play a substantive role in initiating reform. On the other hand, Rubin insinuated that the United States should help shine the international spotlight on different Muslim schools of thought. He used the example of Saudi Arabia as an Islamic thought producer that consistently receives more international attention than Moroccan schools of  thought. Yildirim posited that there is a still a clash between modernity and Islam; many of the deep-seated issues with Islam are a result of this relationship. No panelist provided a clear, descriptive answer as to how best to ignite reform or what reform really consists of. 

Revitalize diplomacy

The discussion around the role of diplomacy commenced with Rubin’s remark about the continual ripple effect of Benghazi and its aftermath. Rubin highlighted that one of the fallouts from Benghazi was that diplomats are more isolated. Katulis concurred and further emphasized that diplomats should be engaging with the public sphere as a method of completing one of their essential duties: identifying local social trends and sentiments. Instead of American diplomats engaging on the local level and establishing human connections and trust, it appears that the US government is focusing on military moves. This generates mutually reinforcing cycles of violence and mistrust.

Raising Voices, Not Forces

The panel touched upon the historic role of the United States military in the region, which led to the discussion of more recent interventions and if they are worthwhile. The moderator cited the expense of trillions of US dollars spent only to have more coups and unrest in the region. Katulis warned against the promotion of war, as wars increase the hardline interpretation of religion, allowing the cycles to feed off each other. 

In connection with the aforementioned discussion of reforming islam, Rubin and Katulius emphasized that the US should help provide local safe spaces for reform and debate to take place in. In addition, the US should internationally condemn the imprisonment and execution of reformists who are vilified in these ‘safe spaces’ by oppressive regimes. The US should be mobilizing governments through outrage, rather than through military power.

Yildirim agreed, but added the caveat that these ‘safe spaces’ and the way in which they are created are important because of the constant anti-Western interventionist trope. In response to Yildirim’s caution against undermining the local government, Rubin countered that at some point you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t, thereby suggesting military use might be necessary at times despite it not being an ideal solution.