Gilles Kepel, the well-known French scholar and Middle East expert, arrived in Baghdad for his first visit. Kepel Charirs the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies Department and heads the post-graduate program in Arab and Muslim minds at the Institute of Political Studies (SciencesPo), in Paris. Niqash met with him to discuss his theory of the triangular Middle East crisis and the future of Iraq.

Niqash: What are the reasons for your visit to Iraq?

Kepel: I am here to support an attempt to foster better academic relations between France and Iraq. I lectured at the French Cultural Centre and met some officials from the Ministry for Education. We discussed the possibility of academic exchanges for students and professors between France and Iraq. This is an exciting new phase of relations that would never have been possible under the old regime. The focus is on building relations with Iraqi civil society. We concentrate on youth. There is a strong political will in France to support better Iraqi-French relations, especially since [the Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki and [President Jalal] Talabani visited Paris.

Niqash: You speak of a crisis axes or an triangular crises speak forming the new Middle East identity. Can you elaborate more about this triangle?

Kepel: There are three axes of crisis affecting the modern Middle East: one is the so-called “Oriental” crisis reflected in the Palestinian-Israeli and Lebanese-Syrian relationships; the “Gulf” crises centres on sources of energy and the rivalries between Iran and the Arab world and Sunnis and Shiites. Finally, also the crises of Afghanistan –Pakistan region.

Each access comes with its own logic but they are all deeply and dynamically related to the Middle East’s identity. They provide for the international order a complex situation par excellence. This is why I urge [US] President Obama, if he is addressing the Islamic world from Cairo, or [French President] Sarkozy, if he is inaugurating a French military marine base in Abu Dhabi, to consider these intertwined axes.

Niqash: Does this means that the traditional Arab-Israeli conflict, which has formed the identity of the Middle East for more than half a century, is no longer the main crisis axis?

Kepel: Yes, the emotional element of the Israel-Palestine conflict has helped to make it the focus for media but this is now shifting to the Gulf axis. There are several reasons for this, including the amount of hydrocarbons crossing daily the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for approximately one-fifth of the world energy consumption.

There are many challenges associated with this axis. Perhaps the main one is to end the chaos in Iraq and withdraw American troops. It’s also important that Iran is integrated into the regional security system and re-integration into the global economy.

Niqash: To what extent did the occupation of Iraq contribute to increasing the international interest in the Gulf axis?

Kepel: The current Gulf crisis is the result of the failure of George W. Bush’s policies there. The neo-con policy was to change Iraq into a peaceful country that complies with the US vision of the region – governed by a Shiite-Kurdish majority, with no conflict with Israel and willing to join OPEC [The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries].

The new administration has changed tack. They are searching for a comprehensive solution to the three-dimensional problems in the Middle East by opening up to Tehran.

How Important has Ahmedinejad’s election been?

In 2005, when Ahmedinejad was elected, there was the real opportunity for Iran to assert much greater pressure on the US, especially in Iraq. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei, has strongly supported the re-election of Ahmedinejad for this reason. Other centres of power, however, like former President Rafsanjani, were in favour of nominating the reform-minded Moussavi, who is more open to the US vision for the region. The reformists believe that they can maintain Iranian dominance over the Gulf, even with a consensus between Washington and Tehran.

Niqash: Who is dominating political Islam in the region? Is it the Sunnis or the Shiites?

Kepel: I have said on more than one occasion that most people don’t know what happened on 15 February 1989 because of what happened the day before. On the 15th, Sunni political Islam won its war against Communism in Afghanistan. People remember an event that took place the day before, however, which was the fatwaissued by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie, following his publication of The Satanic Verses. Khomeini has perceived the victory of the Sunni political Islam against communism as a defeat of the Shiite Iranian Revolution and its Islamic rule model. The fatwa was a challenge to Sunnis in the conflict over who will lead global political Islam.

Niqash: But Iran is closely associated with today’s Sunni political Islam (al-Qaeda) and Shiite political Islam (the Shiite militias in Iraq, Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Hawthy’s in Yemen)?

Kepel: This is due to the failure of radical Sunni political Islam. The failure opened the door for Ahmedinejad to gain a good reputation through, for example, support for Hizbollah against Israel. At that time, Al Qaeda were very much in the back seat. The competition between the two sects for control of political Islam will continue and will open the door to conflicts within the Arab countries with populations divided between Sunni and Shiite.

Niqash: What impact will the sectarian Sunnis-Shiite conflict have on Iraq’s future?

Kepel: Iraqis have the chance to choose a sectarian system like the one in Lebanon based on distinguishing between Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite provinces. But these many splits will eventually lead to the end of the country. The question of a united Iraq, where all agree on the importance of preserving the country’s unity, under a federal or semi-federal system, will soon be answered by the ballot boxes. We have already seen some changes after the provincial elections of the last year. The voters voted against sectarianism.

Niqash: The change coming from outside has failed. Do you believe in the change from within?

Kepel: The change that came from the outside by tanks and military planes led to the fall of Saddam’s regime. Overall, this was a good thing. The Americans thought that toppling the regime would lead to a prosperous civil society. They forgot that Iraq was under economic siege for the previous teb years, a siege that destroyed the country’s civil society and damaged its social relations. People’s response was to focus on their religious identity. Thus, a person living in what was once called Saddam city, now Sadr city, has become more affiliated to his tribe. The same with the Kurds and their Kurdish identity, and so on. What is important now is to build an internal Iraqi harmony and this has to come from within.