Counter-Terrorism 12 - Geo-Politics and Terrorism
Summary
TLDRThis 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
- π The Middle East serves as a case study to understand the relationship between geopolitics and terrorism.
- π 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.
- ποΈ Geopolitics is defined as the relationships and interactions between states, regions, and various interests on a global scale.
- π₯ The complexity of terrorism in the Middle East is underscored by the necessity to understand its geopolitical context.
- π Definitions are crucial; terrorism can be local, international, or inter-regional, implicating different geopolitical interests.
- π― Hamas, as a case, operates locally within Gaza, but its actions have broader geopolitical implications for neighboring states like Egypt.
- πΊοΈ Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates how a non-state actor's focus can shift, impacting regional geopolitics.
- πΈπΎ The Syrian civil war is a geopolitical hotspot, involving international powers, rebel groups, and extremist organizations like ISIS.
- π« The difficulty in distinguishing between moderate and extremist groups in Syria complicates geopolitical strategies and interventions.
- π¦ The potential overthrow of the Saudi regime by terrorist organizations could have profound geopolitical and economic impacts globally.
- π Geopolitical realities lead to unusual alliances, as seen in the temporary agreement between Israel, Hamas, and Egypt to end conflict.
- π 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
π 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.
π 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.
ποΈ 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.
π 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.
ποΈ 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.
π 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Geopolitics
π‘Terrorism
π‘Nation-state
π‘Non-state actor
π‘Middle East
π‘ISIS
π‘Syrian conflict
π‘Refugees
π‘Saudi Arabia
π‘MENA
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
Browse More Related Video
What Makes A Country Powerful?
#463 | Jim Sciutto: Are the US, China, and Russia on the Path to World War? - The Realignment Pod
Impact of Political Globalisation | A Level Global Politics
π΄AS Cari Mati seusai Kirim Senjata Baru ke Israel & Rudal Hizbullah Sukses Hancurkan Pertemuan IDF
The most important country youβve never heard about
Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis - Iran's proxies at work - The Global Jigsaw podcast, BBC World Service
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)