The current US administration is proud to have achieved substantial success in confronting the Al-Qaeda organization, and terrorist groups in general, in the world and inside the United States. Indeed, President Barack Obama, like his administration's spokespersons, never misses an opportunity to focus on this aspect of US strategy. Alongside the process of military withdrawal from the arena of the two wars waged by the previous Republican administration, the current Democratic administration is engaged in a kind of political withdrawal as well, considering that the priority should be to persist in the war against Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups, and that the US strategy in the region should be in the service of this war. The strategy of the War on Terror can be summed up, in terms of field operations, in focusing on the assassination of targets accused of terrorist activity that has affected American interests or persons, by way of unmanned drone strikes or swift commando operations. Such a strategy spares the US from sending troops on the ground, with what this would entail in terms of logistic, financial and political complications, thus ensuring local support for the administration in its domestic battles, especially in Congress. Yet at the same time, such a strategy introduces fundamental changes to the way the United States deals with the issues of the Middle East – which are in the first place connected to the US War on Terror – and in fact leads to repercussions that negatively affect historical relations between the United States and the countries of the region. Under the slogan of focusing the battle on terrorism, President Obama's administration has placed the United States' main allies in both the Arab and Muslim worlds in a position of extreme embarrassment. Indeed, it clings to its airstrikes against the citizens of some of those countries, exposing the latter's governments to criticism and accusations of treason by violating their sovereignty. At the same time, Washington urges those governments to organize military campaigns on their own soil against locations that are supposed to be safe havens for terrorists and extremists. On the other hand, that same administration assumes a position of criticism, condemnation and threats to cut aid, every time authorities in these countries take practical steps in the field of the War on Terror, after accusing them of violating human rights, infringing on democracy, etc... This at the end of the day weakens those authorities and undermines their ability to take action at the domestic level, driving them to further failure – and this is what has happened in Pakistan and in Yemen, for example. In addition to the current state of harsh division and the likelihood of internal armed conflicts erupting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, coinciding with the US military withdrawal, in view of the lack of clarity of the American vision regarding the alternatives that could ensure a certain extent of stability in the two countries, Iran has found its way through the cracks, expanding its influence in the region and filling the vacuum caused by the absence of an American vision. This has taken place at the expense of those countries in the region that ensure, through the sources of energy they hold, strategic depth for the United States. Thus Iran has overwhelmed Iraq and has broadly infiltrated the remaining countries of the region, reaching the shores of the Mediterranean in Lebanon and Syria. The recent phone call between Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rohani has come to somehow reinforce this trend, which is arousing a great deal of fear and concern among the remaining countries of the region, whether with regards to repercussions in the Gulf or on the issue of Syria. Indeed, the way the US has dealt with the latter has been, from the beginning, governed by the obsession with the War on Terror. Thus, in the American mind, the peaceful protest movement of a people who have suffered for decades under the rule of a tyrant and oppressor became mixed up with the actions of suicide bombers who target US interests. Such a mix up has led, and continues to lead, to a lack of realistic vision of the significance of what is happening in Syria, going as far as to grossly exaggerate the role played by extremist fighters. In fact, this latter issue has for the administration become tantamount to confirmation of its fears about terrorism and of the necessity of persisting in the strategy of fighting it, without paying heed to the political significance that lies behind ceasing to understand and support popular aspirations. Thus, the strategy of the War on Terror, the way it is being applied by the US administration in our countries, becomes counterproductive. Indeed, terrorism and extremism are spreading, and with them widens the sphere of confrontations and local wars, while the margin of freedom and pluralism narrows.
