PANEL: Geo-Politics and Geo-Economics of the Middle East
Master of Ceremonies:
David A. Andelman, Editor, World Policy Journal
Panelists:
H.E. Reza Pahlavi, Former Crown Prince of Iran
Dr. Paul Sullivan, Professor of Economics, National Defense University
Dr. Priya Satia, Professor of Modern British History, Stanford University
Zachary Karabell, President, River Twice Research
Dr. Mustapaha Tlili, Founder and Director, Center for Dialogues Islamic World, U.S.-The West, New York University
Felice Friedson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Media Line
Eyal Weizman, Director, Center for Research Architecture at Goldsmiths College
Panel summary by Max Currier, World Policy Journal
David Andelman focused the morning panel on two flashpoints: Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Reza Pahlavi began by reminding his New York audience that no place is “immune from the consequences of far away places.” He described the Iranian government as “corrupt authoritarians” with a “stranglehold over a defenseless population.” Noting especially the June 12 elections, he explained the government has “lost any semblance of legitimacy” and “robs Iranians of their dignity.” Mr. Andelman announced the breaking news that Iran reported a previously undisclosed nuclear enrichment facility and asked Prince Pahlavi if there is a consensus in Iran about the peaceful use of nuclear power. Nobody, Prince Pahlavi said, would suggest that sovereign nations could not use technology for its own peaceful means. But he did add that Iran has not convinced the international community that its nuclear intentions are peaceful. 
Prince Pahlavi recommended, and Felice Friedson later agreed, that, because “the luster of the Iranian revolution has vanished,” the international community should show humanitarian support for the people of Iran, creating “internal pressure” such that the Iranian regime “will be forced to change its policy.” Similarly, Zachary Karabell believes China’s economic growth, with enough political freedom to alleviate extremism, can be a model for the development in many Middle East countries. Dr. Paul Sullivan believes that economic development is imperative across the region: “[Tension] has more to do with money and power than religions.”
Dr. Sullivan emphasized the importance of water security in the region. Water is one of the defining aspects of paradise according to the Qur’an, Sullivan noted, yet the region conspicuously lacks sufficient water resources. He mentioned specific hot spots, such as the aquifer dispute between Libya and Egypt, and a potential conflict between Egypt and Sudan for the Nile. And, he added, Israel acquires nearly 80% of its water from the West Bank and Gaza. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others have water shortages as well, likely to be exacerbated by global warming. Dr. Sullivan proposed constructing five desalination plants on the Mediterranean, which, at a cost of half a billion dollars, would be far less than the cost of regional wars for water. “Water is worth more than gold, silver, platinum, oil, and natural gas. You can live without energy, you can’t live without water.”
Dr. Priya Satia characterized current regional tensions as “political” more than religious, ethnic, or otherwise. These tensions, she said, are tensions between the state and society, a bitter legacy of British colonialism. Police states emerged amid fear of another intervention, creating a vicious cycle of violent dissent and authoritarian repression.
Interestingly, several panelists disagreed about the gravity of their topics. Zachary Karabell asserted, “We are facing a time, excepting Iran, that the Middle East is less important” to the rest of the world, in the same way that Latin America had garned so much international attention decades ago and far less today. He warned, however, against ignoring the Middle East, “like sub-Saharan Africa.” Dr. Mustapha Tlili strongly asserted “the emotional centrality of the Palestinian issue” in most Arab publics but Felice Friedson responded that resolving the peace process will not in turn resolve other problems, which are independent of the peace process. Friedson considered the media to be an influential factor, which can informatively contextualize complex issues (if it chooses) and can also perpetuate biases and falsities.