Robert Greenway: “The Middle East is going through the most trying period in its history”

Robert Greenway The Middle East is going through the most

A diplomat for thirty years, Robert Greenway coordinated United States policy in the Middle East under Donald Trump, along with the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. A former deputy US security adviser, he played a key role in the conclusion of the Abraham Accords in 2020, normalizing Israel’s relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, then with Morocco and Sudan.

Today at the head of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, an organization created by Jared Kushner to deepen commercial and diplomatic ties in the Middle East, Robert Greenway constantly goes back and forth between the region and Washington. Passing through Paris in early May for a symposium in the Senate, organized by Elnet France – a non-governmental organization working for rapprochement between Europe and Israel – the American diplomat details his concerns about the rise of Iran and the potentially devastating consequences of the war in Ukraine on the Middle East.

L’Express: At the head of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, you work closely with a large majority of countries in the Middle East. You say you are very worried about the current situation in the region…

Robert Greenway: In the coming year, or at least in the next two years, the Middle East will go through the most trying period in its history. The risk is above all safety. I have worked for thirty years in the region, and I have never observed so many threats against American interests, Israeli interests and those of our allies there, including in the areas of trade, communications and energy. . Iran, its network of cronies and militias, have never been so present and threatening. They threaten Israel, they threaten the Strait of Hormuz, they threaten the United States… Not only from Lebanon, but also from Syria, Iraq and Yemen. The context is dangerous and we must deal with it.

The second threat is energy and food prices, which are soaring and approaching historic highs. The invasion of Ukraine worsened the situation, which was felt very, very keenly in the Middle East. The risk has never been higher.

Hence the essential aspect of the Abraham Accords: we must ensure that our partners and our allies in the region are as strong as possible in order to be able to withstand the consequences of events, whatever they may be. We must make sure that we can defend our interests on the spot: can Europe imagine a disruption of the Middle East’s energy supply at the same time as Russia? It would be a disaster. But it is a possible scenario if we do not give ourselves the means in the region to detect and anticipate it.

You mentioned medium-term disaster scenarios, which ones do you have in mind?

Military attack against Israel, revolutions… A completely destabilized country. A military provocation, then escalation. A combination of all these scenarios. The Middle East has always had these kinds of events, but only in one or two countries simultaneously. Today, the risk is such that the situation could change in five or six countries at the same time. It’s new and very, very dangerous. We must not ignore it.

“Today, the risk is such that the situation could change in five or six countries at the same time”

Do you think the West is choosing to ignore these threats to the Middle East?

I think we are not in the best of situations to anticipate events and then prevent or respond to them effectively. We are not ready, and we have to do it in our own interests. Strengthening the ties between our partners in the region and helping them seems essential to me.

You also encourage US allies to unite against a common enemy, Iran. Is this part of the objectives of the Abraham Accords?

The countries that have decided to join forces share the same perceptions of the region and its threats. In Warsaw in February, they all sat down publicly at the same table to talk security and together affirmed that Iran poses the main threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. This view was clearly that of the previous administration. [celle de Donald Trump, NDLR] and it is that of a majority of Americans.

Security is, along with the economy, one of the dynamics of the Abraham Accords. Not so long ago, if you had asked these signatory countries what the main threat to peace and stability in the Middle East was, they would surely have answered Israel. This is no longer the case, and the Abraham Accords are recognition of this.

If you share the same point of view about a threat, then it makes sense to cooperate. NATO would not have been built without the threat of the Soviet Union. The same logic is at work here.

Can an international Iranian nuclear agreement, still under discussion in Vienna, change this alliance?

In a way, a diplomatic agreement could make this alliance more complicated: because if the Iranian threat persists and continues to grow, these countries could be less willing to confront it together.

In this context, American leadership has been and will continue to be decisive. In Europe, you perceive it today with the invasion of Ukraine: everyone perceives the threat from Moscow in the same way, but everyone decides and acts differently. It takes strong leadership to bring these countries together and help them cooperate. In this area, the United States plays a fundamental role and this is what the States of the Middle East hope for.

Some criticize the United States, accused of withdrawing from the Middle East to pivot towards Asia. Do you see this dynamic?

Every day, we understand more how China poses a real threat to the established international order and more specifically to the United States. I share this observation. But the answer to this threat is not to withdraw from this or that part of the world, because China pursues its objectives far beyond its borders and what it needs is no longer at home. Energy is the perfect illustration of this.

For this reason, whether you are from Europe or the United States, you cannot turn your back on the Middle East. Today, China consumes more than 40% of the region’s oil and gas. This number will most likely increase. In that case, why give up our influence in the region and let our partners and allies become Beijing’s perpetual suppliers? What will happen if an escalation occurs between the United States and China? If it matters to China, it should matter to us.

Our partners and allies in the Middle East hope to supply more energy to the United States and Europe, and to take the shares from Russia. Why would we let Russian influence thrive in this region? This gives Moscow considerable weight in world markets. It’s bad for Europe, it’s bad for the United States. We must not shirk our responsibilities.

And it’s not just about energy. All trade between Europe and Asia passes through the Middle East, which is considerable. 100% of the world’s information flows physically follow these commercial flows. All these undersea Internet cables go through the Middle East… We can’t leave it hanging, and the region doesn’t want to be left hanging.


lep-general-02