Daniel Serwer is a Scholar at the Middle East Institute and Professor in School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. His current interests focus on the civilian instruments needed to protect U.S. national security as well as transition and state-building in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Balkans.For discussing the current unstable situation in the Middle East, and the imperative of establishing a new and sustainable regional order, and many other challenges that face this region,we have conducted an interview with him, and he answered our questions as the following:
• Prior to the Arab Spring in 2011, the experts and scholars pointed out that the root cause of the dilemmas of the Middle Eastern countries was the lack of democracy in these countries, but right now the urgent priority is the restoration of stability, and reestablishing the public order, so how this goal should be achieved?
I don't see stability and democracy as antithetical. Autocracies in the Middle East generate instability. The difficult question is how to transition from autocracy to democracy without opening the door to extremists. Tunisia still seems to be managing that process. Egypt and Libya failed. So too did Iraq under Maliki, though Haidar al Abadi has proven more adept. Syria is not stable with Bashar al Assad in power. He is slaughtering the moderates who could provide a reasonably peaceful transition to a more inclusive system of governance.
• According to many analysts the violent and extreme mayhem in the Middle East resembles the 30 years’ war in Europe, which was brought to an end by the Westphalia treaty, do you agree that stabilization of the Middle East, and crafting a new regional order in this region requires hammering out a similar treaty?
I do believe a new regional order is required, one in which all the countries of the region participate and provide guarantees both to their own minority populations and to other states. But we are a long way from realizing anything like that.
• In Iraq ISIS is about to be defeated, but, the reemergence of other ISIS like-minded groups in the future cannot be completely rolled out, so to what extent the governance structure of Iraq should be reconstituted to prevent such possibility?
It is up to Iraqis, but my advice to them would be to focus on devolution of power to the provinces, something that is possible under the existingconstitution. People in Iraq need to have confidence that their government will protect them, which will be a lot easier if the authorities at the provincial level are empowered to do so.
• After the nuclear deal with Iran, Israel and GCC countries expressed concerns, and feared that this deal is putting back billions of dollars to Iran, which enables this country to fuel more instability in this region. So if stabilization of the Middle East is one of the priorities of the next US administration, can we expect tightening sanctions on Iran, or the renegotiating of nuclear deal by the upcoming US administration?
I'm not sure stabilizing the Middle East will be a priority of the new Administration. The Americans have been moving in the direction of killing extremists and getting out, almost no matter what the consequences.
I don't see any real possibility of renegotiating the nuclear deal, nor do I think it desirable, since the U.S. would have to give Iran something on nuclear issues in order to get concessions on regional issues. Neither Washington nor the region would like that. But it is possible that the U.S. will tighten its own sanctions on Iran in response to Tehran's behavior in the region. I doubt however that the Europeans will follow suit, thus limiting the impact of unilateral American sanctions.
• the intervention of Russia in Syria not only saved the Assad rule, but also enabled his regime to engage in more brutal and cold- blooded campaign to retake all Syrian territories, as we has witnessed in recent days that has been able to recapture Aleppo city, which has resulted to newly displaced people, so how far remaining Assad in power constitutes a threat on regional and western security?
I think Assad remaining in power will enhance the extremists' ability to recruit and attack Western targets. That has also been the view of the current Administration. I am not sure about the new administration, which wants to cooperate with Russia but not Iran. That is going to be a difficult trick in Syria.
• For containing and restraining the savagery of the Assad regime, some have suggested carving out safe havens in that country, so to what extent such suggestion is feasible and yields desired outcomes?
The possibility of safe zones is much reduced from what it once was. They need to be enforced with constant patrols. Russian air defenses have made that a risky business in much of Syria. There does appear to be a kind of safe zone emerging in the north, along the Turkish border, but that is more in agreement with the Russians than against them. With Aleppo lost and Idlib dominated by Jabhat al Nusra, safe zones just don't look desirable or even possible. It would still be possible for the U.S. to use "stand-off" weapons to destroy aircraft that attack civilians. But that would require convincing the President of the United States to go to war against Syria, which Obama thinks Congress has not authorized. I don't know what Trump will do about that.