As Tony Blair seeks to once more play a role in British domestic politics, he has taken several opportunities to be interviewed – a decision which, rather naturally, has led old questions on Iraq to be re-asked. Being Mr Blair, he has old answers, but they sound new.
In a recent interview with his former spin-doctor Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair lamented that he did not know enough about Iraq before he set about attacking it without cause. “The biggest reproach I make to myself all the time is that our knowledge of the depth of the religious and ethnic problems in the Middle East was inadequate,” he said.
The extraordinary thing – and the immense tragedy for the many millions affected by that brutal conflict – is that that information was not only freely available but was repeatedly proffered.
Before the war, King Abdullah of Jordan warned that military action against Iraq would unleash “a Pandora's box”. Since that interview appeared in a British newspaper on the day in 2002 when he met Mr Blair in Downing Street, the then-prime minister can hardly pretend he wasn't warned.
Rather, he wasn't listening. Sadly, he wasn't the only one. The number of western officials who have blundered into the Middle East thinking they know best, only to leave the region to cope with some devastating aftermath, would fill several storied volumes.
It is in that context that the preparations for Donald Trump's first trip to the Middle East and his first overseas trip ought to be seen. And a significant part of that was the most high-level visit to Mr Trump by UAE politicians so far.
“It’s a friend of a friend coming over and saying this is going to be an important trip, let us help you understand the ground realities,” was how one former US ambassador to Yemen explained the visit to Washington this week of Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.
But it goes further than that. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are seeking to alter the conversation inside the White House about the Middle East – essentially shifting the centre of gravity of US policy from the Levant and Egypt, and the focus on Palestine and Israel, to the Gulf and the challenges of Iran.
The Gulf's focus has long been on the stability of the region. Anything that affects the political stability of the region would, the countries have calculated, inevitably affect the social and economic stability. When the Arab Spring erupted across the Middle East's republics, and particularly after the hand of Iran could be detected in Syria and Iraq, those fears acutely materialised.
Therefore, the Gulf is predominantly concerned with any cross-border destabilisation, whether that comes from the ideologies of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIL, or from an expansionist Iran involving itself in many Middle Eastern countries.
Both present different challenges, but they can, as is happening now, become locked in a symbiotic embrace. By contributing to the instability in Arab countries like Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Iran also created the breeding grounds for sectarianism or the opening for more utopian visions of the world to be accepted. Once a society's stability is shattered, people seek security in the old ties of sectarianism or new utopias like ISIL’s dystopia.
For a long time, it felt like the United States did not understand this perspective of the Gulf. Even under George W Bush, there was a belief that grand projects could be conducted over the heads of the region. The bloody experience of Iraq ended that belief.
But, from the perspective of the Gulf, Barack Obama was worse. Not only did he immediately jettison US support for Hosni Mubarak after Egypt's revolution began, but he then compounded the error by setting and then forgetting his red lines over chemical weapons in Syria. Most egregious of all – and a sin for which Mr Obama will not easily be forgiven in the Gulf – were his overtures to Iran, behind the backs of the Arab Gulf states. The result of all of this is felt acutely in the region, with the current instability costing the UAE and Saudi Arabia blood and treasure.
In Mr Trump, both countries finally see a president who appears to understand their perspective – someone who takes the threat of Iran as seriously as the threat of ISIL. That is an opportunity the Gulf is not willing to give up, despite understanable misgivings about some of Mr Trump's other policies and rhetoric.
After years in which old answers were offered, the UAE and Saudi Arabia feel they finally have someone in the White House to whom they can address old questions – on Iran, on the Muslim Brotherhood, on ISIL – and be met with new answers.
falyafai@thenational.ae
On Twitter: @FaisalAlYafai
