Counter-Terrorism 12 - Geo-Politics and Terrorism

Summary

This session explores the intricate relationship between geopolitics and terrorism, using the Middle East as a case study. It emphasizes the need to understand this connection to grasp terrorism in the region. The discussion covers the roles of nation-states and non-state actors, like Hamas and Hezbollah, and how their actions impact regional geopolitics. It also delves into the Syrian conflict's international implications and the potential geopolitical shifts with increasing involvement from global powers.

Takeaways

• 🌍 The Middle East serves as a case study to understand the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism.
• 🔍 Three main objectives are to examine the link between geopolitics and terrorism, discuss the nation-state and non-state actor relationship, and describe the geopolitics of the Middle East.
• 🏛️ Geopolitics is defined as the relationships and interactions between states, regions, and various interests on a global scale.
• 💥 The complexity of terrorism in the Middle East is underscored by the necessity to understand its geopolitical context.
• 🔑 Definitions are crucial; terrorism can be local, international, or inter-regional, implicating different geopolitical interests.
• 🎯 Hamas, as a case, operates locally within Gaza, but its actions have broader geopolitical implications for neighboring states like Egypt.
• 🗺️ Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates how a non-state actor's focus can shift, impacting regional geopolitics.
• 🇸🇾 The Syrian civil war is a geopolitical hotspot, involving international powers, rebel groups, and extremist organizations like ISIS.
• 🚫 The difficulty in distinguishing between moderate and extremist groups in Syria complicates geopolitical strategies and interventions.
• 🏦 The potential overthrow of the Saudi regime by terrorist organizations could have profound geopolitical and economic impacts globally.
• 🔄 Geopolitical realities lead to unusual alliances, as seen in the temporary agreement between Israel, Hamas, and Egypt to end conflict.
• 📈 The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region's expanding definition adds complexity to state and non-state actor interactions.

Q & A

What are the three main objectives to understand the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism?

The three main objectives are: 1) Examine and discuss the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism, 2) Discuss and understand the relationship between the nation-state and non-state actors, and 3) Describe and articulate the geopolitics of the Middle East.

Why is it essential to understand geopolitics to truly understand terrorism in the Middle East?

It is essential because of the extraordinary complexity of both terrorism and the Middle East. Geopolitics helps to connect the puzzle of different interests, concerns, and anxieties in the region and globally.

How does the geopolitical impact of Hamas's conflict with Israel affect Egypt?

Egypt views Hamas as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is located in Egypt. An uptick in tension between Israel and Hamas may impact the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, thus affecting Egyptian domestic policy.

What is Hezbollah's stance on external interference in their conflict with Israel?

Hezbollah has rejected efforts from other groups like Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and ISIS to interfere or help in their conflict with Israel, indicating their exclusive interest is in their region.

How has Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian conflict affected its geopolitical relevance?

Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian conflict has made it less focused on Israel and more relevant to the Syrian conflict, complicating the geopolitics of Syria.

What was the Dutch Parliament's question regarding the Syrian conflict?

The Dutch Parliament asked whether the European Union or Holland should provide arms to 'moderate' Syrian terrorist organizations, rebels, or guerrillas.

What are the challenges in defining a 'moderate' group in the Syrian conflict?

The challenges include defining what makes a group moderate and ensuring that a moderate group won't become extremist or transfer its weapons to extremist organizations.

How does the Syrian conflict highlight the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism?

The Syrian conflict highlights the relationship by involving major international powers like the United States and Russia, with unclear sides and interests, making it a complex geopolitical issue.

What is the potential geopolitical impact if Al Qaeda were to undermine the Saudi regime?

The impact would be enormous, considering Saudi Arabia's oil reserves and the potential ripple effect on other Gulf states, possibly affecting the international economy and requiring military intervention.

Why did the United States intervene in Libya but not in Syria during the conflicts?

The reasons are complex and involve how the United States defined its interests in each situation. The decision reflects the geopolitical considerations and the perceived threat to U.S. interests.

What is the significance of the term MENA in the context of the Middle East's geopolitics?

MENA (Middle East North Africa) signifies an expansion of the traditional Middle East to include North African countries, reflecting a broader geopolitical landscape with more complex inter-state and non-state actor relationships.

Outlines

00:00

🌍 Geopolitics and Terrorism in the Middle East

This paragraph introduces the main themes of the session, which are the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism, using the Middle East as a case study. The speaker outlines three objectives: understanding the link between geopolitics and terrorism, the dynamics between nation-states and non-state actors, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. The speaker emphasizes the importance of these topics, especially given the complexity of terrorism and the region. Geopolitics is defined as the interplay between states and various interests within regions and globally. The speaker uses Hamas as an example of a local terrorist organization focused on regional issues, while also highlighting the broader geopolitical implications of its actions, such as how conflicts between Hamas and Israel can impact Egypt's domestic policies due to its connection with the Muslim Brotherhood.

05:01

🔍 The Geopolitical Impact of Terrorism: Hezbollah and the Syrian Conflict

The paragraph delves into the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon and its shifting focus from Israel to the Syrian conflict. It discusses how Hezbollah's actions in southern Lebanon are independent of the Lebanese government, yet have broader geopolitical implications, especially in relation to the Syrian civil war. The speaker also recounts a discussion before the Dutch Parliament about arming 'moderate' Syrian rebel groups, highlighting the difficulty in defining 'moderate' and the risks of arming groups that may become extremist or transfer weapons to extremist organizations. The Syrian conflict is portrayed as a complex geopolitical issue involving major international powers like the United States and Russia, with unclear alliances and interests.

10:02

🏛️ The Syrian Conflict and the Broader Geopolitical Landscape

This section continues the discussion on the Syrian conflict, emphasizing its impact on the geopolitical landscape. It mentions the involvement of ISIS and how the conflict extends beyond Syria's borders due to the refugee crisis and the presence of international actors. The speaker also discusses the potential geopolitical implications if Al Qaeda had succeeded in destabilizing the Saudi regime, given Saudi Arabia's oil reserves and its strategic importance to the global economy. The paragraph highlights the interconnected nature of geopolitical events and how actions in one region can have far-reaching consequences.

15:04

🔄 The Complexities of Middle East Geopolitics and the Role of Outside Actors

The paragraph discusses the complexities of Middle East geopolitics, especially with the involvement of outside actors. It recounts an instance where Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt collaborated to end a conflict between Israel and Hamas, only to be undermined by an alternative agreement proposed by Turkey and Qatar. The speaker critiques this outcome, suggesting it reflects a lack of understanding of long-term geopolitical possibilities. The paragraph also touches on the broader definition of the Middle East, now often referred to as MENA (Middle East North Africa), which includes more countries and adds to the complexity of the region's geopolitics.

20:04

🏗️ Defining Interests and the Role of the United States in Regional Conflicts

This section examines how states define their interests and apply them in geopolitics, using the United States' involvement in Libya versus its non-involvement in Syria as an example. It discusses the importance of state leaders clearly defining their interests and the implications of not following through on threats or promises, such as when President Obama drew a 'red line' regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons and did not act when it was crossed. The speaker argues that such actions can be interpreted as weakness and can have significant geopolitical repercussions.

25:05

🌐 The Future of Geopolitics in the Middle East and the Rise of Outside Actors

The final paragraph speculates on the future of Middle East geopolitics, particularly the increasing role of outside actors such as the United States and Russia, and the potential interest of China. It suggests that understanding the geopolitics of the Middle East requires considering the broader region and the interplay between state and non-state actors, as well as international influences. The speaker advises being sensitive to the evolving roles of major powers and their impact on the region, especially in relation to terrorism.

Keywords

💡Geopolitics

Geopolitics refers to the study of how political, economic, and strategic factors interact with geography to influence a country's foreign policy and decisions. In the video, geopolitics is central to understanding the complex relationships between states and non-state actors in the Middle East. The lecturer uses the term to discuss how different interests and concerns of nations intersect, particularly in relation to terrorism, creating a web of geopolitical interests that affect policy and actions.

💡Terrorism

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to achieve political aims. The script explores the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism, emphasizing how terrorist activities can have both local and international implications. The lecturer mentions organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS to illustrate how their actions are intertwined with geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East.

💡Nation-state

A nation-state is a sovereign political entity defined by a shared identity marked by common characteristics such as language, culture, and sometimes religion. The video discusses the relationship between nation-states and non-state actors, highlighting how the actions of non-state entities like terrorist groups can impact the domestic and foreign policies of nation-states, as exemplified by the conflict between Hamas and Israel and its repercussions for Egypt.

💡Non-state actor

Non-state actors are individuals or organizations that have influence and effect political outcomes but are not part of formal governmental structures. The script uses this term to describe entities like Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS, which, despite not being official governments, play significant roles in geopolitical conflicts and influence state policies and actions in the Middle East.

💡Middle East

The Middle East is a region encompassing Western Asia, Turkey, and sometimes parts of North Africa. In the video, the Middle East serves as a case study to explore the intricate links between geopolitics and terrorism. The lecturer discusses various geopolitical scenarios in the Middle East, such as the Syrian conflict and the role of Hamas, to illustrate the complex interplay of regional and international forces.

💡ISIS

ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is a terrorist organization known for its extreme violence and territorial ambitions. The script mentions ISIS as a key non-state actor whose actions have significant geopolitical implications, not only within Syria but also across the Middle East and globally, due to its goal of establishing a caliphate and its influence on regional stability.

💡Syrian conflict

The Syrian conflict refers to the ongoing civil war in Syria that began in 2011. The video uses the Syrian conflict as a prime example of how geopolitics and terrorism intersect, involving multiple nation-states, non-state actors, and international powers, each with their interests and agendas, leading to a complex geopolitical landscape that is difficult to navigate or resolve.

💡Refugees

Refugees are individuals who have been forced to flee their country to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. The script discusses the Syrian refugee crisis as a geopolitical issue, highlighting how the displacement of people due to the Syrian conflict has impacted neighboring countries and Europe, thus broadening the geopolitical implications of the conflict beyond Syria's borders.

💡Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is a Middle Eastern country with significant geopolitical importance due to its vast oil reserves and influence in the region. The video script mentions the potential geopolitical ramifications if terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda were to undermine the Saudi regime, emphasizing the importance of stability in the region for global economic and political interests.

💡MENA

MENA stands for Middle East and North Africa, a region extending from Morocco to Afghanistan. The term is used in the script to highlight the broadening scope of geopolitical analysis in the area, which now includes not only the traditional Middle Eastern countries but also North African nations, reflecting the interconnected nature of geopolitical dynamics in the region.

Highlights

The Middle East is used as a case study to understand the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism.

Three key objectives for the discussion: examining the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism, understanding the nation-state and non-state actor dynamics, and describing the geopolitics of the Middle East.

Geopolitics defined as the relationships between states, interests, and regions, and its connection to global community concerns.

Terrorism can be local, international, or inter-regional, implicating geopolitical interests of nation-states.

Hamas' conflict with Israel is localized, yet has geopolitical implications for neighboring countries like Egypt.

Hezbollah's focus shift from Israel to the Syrian conflict illustrates changing geopolitical relevance.

The Syrian civil war's complexity and international involvement exemplify the intertwining of geopolitics and terrorism.

The Netherlands' consideration to arm 'moderate' Syrian groups raises questions about the predictability and reliability of such support.

The Syrian conflict's internationalization through the involvement of ISIS and its goal to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate.

The Syrian refugee crisis expands the conflict's geopolitical implications to include neighboring countries like Turkey.

The potential geopolitical impact if Al Qaeda had succeeded in destabilizing the Saudi regime, given Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

The importance of understanding the difference between rhetoric and action in geopolitical strategies, as illustrated by the Obama administration's 'red line' on Syrian chemical weapons.

The concept of 'strange bedfellows' in geopolitics, seen in the temporary alliance between Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt to end conflict with Hamas.

The expansion of the Middle East concept to MENA (Middle East North Africa), increasing the complexity of state and non-state actor relationships.

The need for state leaders to narrowly define their interests due to the increasing complexity of the Middle East's geopolitics.

The potential for major powers outside the region, like China, to become interested in the Middle East's geopolitics.

The recommendation to view the geopolitics of the Middle East as a complex jigsaw puzzle, considering intra-regional, inter-regional, and international aspects.

Transcripts

in this session

we are going to discuss the relationship

between geopolitics and terrorism

in order to have this discussion i'm

going to use the middle east as our case

study

to have this discussion there are three

objectives that you need to remember at

all times

one you must be able to examine discuss

the relationship between geopolitics and

terrorism

two you must be able to discuss and

understand

the relationship between the nation

state and the non-state actor

and three you must be able to describe

and articulate

the geopolitics of the middle east

i think it's fair to state that if we

would be having this discussion

20 years ago we would not have asked

ourselves

what is the relationship between

geopolitics and terrorism

we reviewed terrorism as part of the

middle east

but i don't think we would have asked

ourselves what's the relationship

between geopolitics

terrorism and the middle east and

particularly the geopolitics of the

middle east

however given the extraordinary

complexity

both of terrorism and of the middle east

i am one of those who firmly believe

that to truly understand

terrorism in the middle east it's

essential to understand

the relationship between geopolitics and

terrorism

so definitions are important

what is geopolitics geopolitics is the

relationship between

states between different interests

between different interests amongst

different regions

how to connect the puzzle of different

interests

different concerns different anxieties

um

in the context both of the region of the

region in its small sense region largely

speaking

and the of the global community

while terrorism is perceived by some and

justifiably so

in some cases to be local in other cases

clearly it's international or if it's

not

international it's inter-regional and

therefore

because in some cases inter-regional and

other cases international there are

clear

geopolitical interests amongst different

nation states

to give some examples

when one thinks of the organization

hamas

which is located in the gaza strip i

would argue

that hamas's exclusive interest

is gaza and they are unwilling

and forcibly so to have outside

interests

try to interfere their conflict with

israel based on the gaza strip

to that extent hamas over the years

has rejected efforts from hezbollah to

interfere or help depends how one looks

at it

they have clearly rejected efforts from

al qaeda

to interfere slash help they've clearly

rejected efforts

by isis to interfere help and they've

also rejected international efforts

more than that hamas's terrorist actions

occur only in gaza in the gaza strip

slash israel

hamas has never attacked israeli targets

outside of the immediate region meaning

that their focus is solely and

exclusively intro region not inter but

intra however

in the context of geopolitics note

that when hamas is engaged in conflict

with israel

it is of concern to egypt why is it a

concern to egypt

because the egyptians view hamas as an

offshoot

offspring of the muslim brotherhood

located in egypt and when there's

an uptick in tension violence between

israel

and hamas from egypt's perspective

that means that that may impact muslim

the muslim brotherhood in egypt

and therefore geopolitically that has an

impact

on egypt so note the following even

though hamas's

conflict with israel from hamas's

perspective is

very very specific to the region between

israel

and hamas from egypt's perspective

it has potential ramifications on

egyptian policy

with respect to the muslim brotherhood

which impacts

egyptian domestic policy that's a clear

example

of of a specific geopolitical impact of

conflict a

how it impacts nation state be egypt

let's look at hezbollah hezbollah is

located in

southern lebanon it literally

aims its guns directly at israel

over the years there has been there have

been a number of conflicts

between hezbollah and israel

note that hezbollah which is the party

of god

largely controls if not exclusively

controls southern lebanon the government

of lebanon

really does not exercise any authority

and or power in southern lebanon

meaning that a terrorist organization

hezbollah

occupies a significant swath of land in

southern lebanon

largely independent of the lebanese

government

clearly to the chagrin of the lebanese

government but conducting its own policy

attacking israel when it when it so

wishes

independent of any any input by the

lebanese government

however if one really tracks this very

carefully

one will see that over the course of the

past

months and year years perhaps during the

course of the conflict in syria

hezbollah has largely become involved in

the syrian conflict

so that means from a geopolitical

perspective

hezbollah at the moment is less focused

on

israel more focused on the conflict in

syria and therefore from a geopolitical

perspective

at least temporarily more relevant to

the syrian conflict

than to a former conflict between

hezbollah and

israel that of course does not mean

that tomorrow everything may change and

hezbollah may

refocus all of their efforts on israel

but

given its its interests its direct

interest in syria

that only complicates the geopolitics of

syria

so that's obviously a segway to the

civil war

in syria and how that impacts the

geopolitics

not only intra regionally but clearly

inter-regionally

if not internationally

a number of years ago i was invited to

testify on the syrian conflict

before the dutch parliament the question

that

the dutch parliament asked me was the

following

should the european union or in this

case should holland

provide arms to quote moderate

syrian terrorist organizations

rebels guerrillas whatever term of art

one wishes to use

in preparing my testimony before the

dutch parliament

i focused on the following how do you

define a moderate

group and even if you provide arms only

to a moderate group

what's the guarantee that the moderate

group a won't become extremist tomorrow

or b that it won't transfer its weapons

to a terror to an extremist organization

so i recommended to the dutch parliament

that the netherlands

not provide arms to any syrian group

self-described moderate and certainly

not self-described extremist

but if we think about the conflict in

syria which has raged for a number of

years

which has led to hundreds upon thousands

of

innocent civilians being killed a

tragedy

that is beyond tragic

if we think about the number of foreign

actors engaged in the conflict

that is the manifestation of the

relationship between geopolitics and

terrorism

both the united states and russia

perhaps haltingly limpingly

stumbling sought to interfere intervene

in an effort to bring an end to the

syrian civil war

the effort ultimately was unsuccessful

because

clearly both the united states and

russia

had different and distinct interests

which they could not sufficiently or

satisfactionally resolve

in order to work together to resolve the

conflict

from a geopolitical perspective then

syria is very important to our

conversation

because it highlights the following a

terrible conflict

that sucks in major international powers

particularly russia and the united

states with the lines

or the sides not clearly marked meaning

there's not clear demarcation

between which side or who's on whose

side who represents whom

who's fighting on behalf of whom and we

need to recall

that in addition to the syrian rebel

groups

and the presence of of or the interests

of the united states and of russia

there also happens to be a syrian

government

that is in control of at least part of

syria

and the syrian government which is

committing endless amount of war crimes

causing unimaginable damage and horrors

to the syrian population

but it is a legitimate government or at

least legitimate in its own

eyes legitimate in the eyes of most

nations

of the world never say all but from a

geopolitical perspective the fact that

there is a syrian government

that is engaged in killing its own

civilians

has also played a role in again bringing

in

the united states russia various ngos

in order to try to bring an end to the

conflict

but because it is largely impossible

to differentiate or to articulate the

difference between a moderate group and

an extremist group

the syrian government is able to play

literally all sides against each other

and thereby staying in power

add to the complexity the fact that isis

is playing is playing an important role

in the syrian

conflict and given the fact that

most not all most nation states

view isis as posing the greatest danger

to stability in the middle east the

syrian conflict must then

be viewed not only as intra-syrian in

terms of the rebel groups in syria

but note inter-regional because of the

active presence of isis

and because isis has clearly articulated

that its primary purpose the primary

goal is the re-establishment of the

islamic caliphate

we cannot view their presence in syria

as

limited slash restricted only to syria

we must understand that isis's goals go

far

beyond syria

what accentuates and exacerbates the

tension and conflict

obviously is the following syrian

refugees

are spreading or syrians as refugees are

spreading

whether it's to jordan whether it's to

europe but particularly for our purposes

for the moment

to turkey means that the presence of

syrian refugees

in turkey means that the syrian conflict

again in the context of geopolitics

because it now goes outside of syria

because of the refugee question

also brings turkey into the geopolitical

discussion

so if you look at the map of syria and

you ask yourself what resources are

there in syria

the answer is largely none but

look what has happened because of the

conflict in syria because of the number

of terrorist organizations

and because of the active role played by

isis in syria

there are three major powers that have a

stake in what's happening in syria

if not four three for sure united states

russia turkey and the fourth would be

israel which has largely if not

not quite exclusively but largely stayed

out of the conflict

saying the syrian internal conflict is

for syria to resolve

but there's obviously um something

disingenuous about that

given that the syrian conflict is now

inter-regional because of the presence

of syrian refugees in turkey because of

the presence

in syria of isis and because of the

potential danger posed to israel

by terrorist organizations in syria

let's continue the discussion there is

no doubt

that before bin laden was killed by

the navy seals that one of his primary

goals efforts was to undermine if not

overthrow

the saudi the regime in saudi arabia

the impact on geopolitics

if bin laden had been successful in al

qaeda had been successful

in undermining overthrowing weakening

this the saudi regime

from a geopolitical perspective is

enormous

obviously given the oil reserves in in

saudi arabia

given that it's like literally like a

house of cards if saudi arabia falls

would the other gulf states fall how

would that impact

obviously oil reserves how would that

impact the international

economy so again think about it not only

intra regionally not only inter

regionally but clearly internationally

so i would suggest

that had as an example had al qaeda been

successful

in undermining the saudi regime

the impact on the international economy

would have been

more than enormous may well have

required the united states

to come to the aid of the saudi regime

keep in mind that the saudi government

is the beneficiary of an enormous

arsenal from the united states military

there are deep concerns as to the sonic

military capability does it know

the difference it's not enough to have

the arms you also have to be capable in

how you use them

so while the united states has provided

arms to

the saudis over the years and the best

of the best and the most sophisticated

of american military of

american hardware that does not

automatically translate

to saudi capability in terms of using

the weapons

so if again hypothetically

bin laden would have been successful in

penetrating into saudi arabia

and undermining or potentially

undermining the saudi regime

from a geopolitical perspective we would

need to ask ourselves

would that then justify or would have

justified an american president whoever

it may have been

to come to saudi arabia's aid with not

only advisors

but actually with american servicemen in

saudi arabia in order to

assist the saudis in putting down bin

laden

it's obviously not the first time the

united states has come

to the aid of a country in the middle

east i take us all

back to the first iraq war where when

after saddam hussein attacked

kuwait the americans clearly took the

fight to the to saddam hussein

as we say the rest is history but what's

really

important then is to understand in the

context of the larger geopolitics

that the impact of terrorism today

is far more significant than it had been

in years past

and we therefore need to understand the

interlinking pieces

in the context of geopolitics

one of the interesting aspects of

geopolitics is

how reality makes for quote-unquote

strange bedfellows

and the best example is the following a

couple of years ago

during the last conflict or one of the

last conflicts between israel and

hamas there was an almost peace

settlement peace agreement imposed on

hamas

by israel the palestinian authority

and egypt interesting think about it

look at a map

and you'll see israel and hamas are in

conflict

the palestinian authority which is

distinct from hamas

reaches the conclusion that this does

not serve the interests of the

palestinian authority

brings to the table both israel to end

the conflict

and the and egypt remember what i told

you earlier about what happens in hamas

and gaza impacts egypt the three parties

come together

to articulate a way to end the conflict

between israel

and hamas

at the last minute that very interesting

um agreement particularly interesting

given that three different entities that

generally don't have the best of

relations

came together for a very specific

purpose

at the end of the day unfortunately that

agreement did not come

to fruition why

because secretary of state kerry

preferred an alternative agreement that

had been

put together by qatar and turkey

but note in the context of geopolitics

the following

the turkish qatari agreement arrangement

did not include israel as part of the

discussions

did not include the palestinian

authority as part of the discussions

obviously did not include egypt as part

of the discussions

and secretary of state carries

unfortunate decision to support the

turkish qatari agreement

at the expense of this very interesting

three-part

puzzle between israel the palestinian

authority and

egypt from my perspective reflected a

lack of understanding of long-term

geopolitical possibilities

because always remember that out of bad

situations for if the cards are played

correctly

good things can happen needless to say

israel and hamas rejected the turkish

qatari agreement

the conflict while ultimately coming to

an end from my perspective in the

context of geopolitics

a very important opportunity was missed

when we think about the middle east we

need to also ask ourselves

what is the middle east and who does the

middle east include today

if we would have had discussion this

discussion 20 years ago

safe to assume we would have discussed

five countries israel

egypt jordan syria lebanon

and perhaps saudi arabia so that's five

or six

most experts when they look at the

middle east today

don't only talk about the middle east

but they use a new term called

mena menas middle east north africa

which means extending from north africa

through the traditional middle east

and perhaps even as far out as

afghanistan perhaps

down to saudi arabia the emirates plus

minus it's between 20 to 22 countries

that means then in the context of

geopolitics

and the relationship between non-state

and non-state between state actors

and non-state actors the situation is

far more complex than it used to be

it also requires therefore state leaders

to do the following

a to narrowly define their

their interests because how you define

your interest is also how you will

apply your interests two problematic

examples

one i remind all of us that the united

states as

after gaddafi fell in libya the united

states intervened along with other

countries in libya

that's in direct contrast to at the end

of the day not really involving

themselves in syria

in the context of geopolitics and the

requirement

the recommendation that i make to you to

truly understand the relationship

between the state and the non-state

actors

why the united states involved itself in

libya as compared to why the united

states didn't involve itself in syria

is a very important issue for you to

examine

because it highlights how interests are

defined

and then how interests are applied

in that sense i also remind all of us

that president obama drew the mythical

red line that if the syrian government

will engage in in biological weapons and

mustard gas and cross that magical line

then the united states will intervene so

yes the syrian government did

exactly what was clear they were going

to do and no

president obama didn't respond to that

note then in the context of geopolitics

and particularly with respect to

rogue regimes like syria and clearly

with respect to terrorist organizations

if a nation like the united states draws

that line in the sand

says if this line is crossed such and

such and such and such will happen

and if the na rogue state and or

terrorist organization

crosses that line and the nation state

doesn't respond

it is clearly a message that the nation

state

is good at rhetoric good perhaps at

robust

rhetoric but does not deliver quote

unquote the goods

from a geopolitical perspective it sends

the following messages

we engage in rhetoric

but we resist the actual engagement

sending a message to the other side

that can be interpreted as weakness

a failure to stand behind your words

and because terrorist organizations and

rural countries barbara countries like

syria

are engaged at all times in reading the

tea leaves and i'm trying to understand

exactly what was meant

as compared to what was done i would

suggest that president obama's

again drawing up that line that red line

in the sand

and that not standing behind it sent

absolutely the wrong message to

terrorist organizations

that it indicated that when push comes

to become when push comes to shove

the united states will not stand behind

its word

in the context of geopolitics that

is again from my perspective a profound

mistake because again note this very

complicated

three-part aspect to geopolitics

terrorism in the middle east

intra-regional inter-regional

and international and in the

internationalization of the geopolitics

to really understand this you have to

view this as a

jigsaw puzzle and it requires you go

back to the three objectives

i gave you the very beginning i'm going

to repeat them because you must

understand this lecture

in the context of these three one

the clear relationship between terrorism

and geopolitics the second is the

relationship

between states and non-states

clearly at the moment the most profound

non-state actor in the middle east is

isis so you need to be able to examine

from a geopolitical perspective

the relationship between isis and the

united states

isis and russia isis and turkey

and isis in syria and the four the third

issue that you must be able to resolve

and discuss and resolve

is the geopolitics of the middle east

but when you do so i warmly recommend

that you not limit yourself

to the middle east narrowly defined but

rather to the

broader middle east because that's the

way that you most effectively

will be able to understand what i refer

to as the interlocking pieces

amongst the nations again intra inter

and international i would suggest

that when you think about these three

objectives in the years to come

the geopolitics of the middle east

because of

terrorism will become far more

complicated

because of the increasing visibility

role

of outside actors not only the united

states

obviously not only russia not only

russia

is it possible for instance that the

chinese would become interested in the

middle east

while that is presently an unknown i

would certainly suggest

in the context of geopolitics that you'd

be very sensitive

to the increasing or rather the possibly

increasing role

of major powers who view their

self-interest

as relevant to the middle east and their

need to protect their self-interest

and how that plays off with respect to

again terrorism

role countries and the international

community