Iran Receives Iraq as a “Gift” while Syria Flounders in Its Mistakes
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 26/09/05//
Iran and Syria are today the two main poles of international interest and anxiety, for completely different reasons, in terms of the type of interest and sources of anxiety. Both countries are on the verge of a confrontation based on different forms of status, regionally and internationally. Tehran is in the driver’s seat, possessing the reins of initiative; European leaders plead with it and the US administration hopes that it will be reasonable and cooperative. In contrast, Damascus is in the back seat, waiting for the verdicts, falling into regional and international isolation, absent from the political map of the Arab world and Middle East. The common denominator between the two countries consists of Lebanon and Iraq, with strategies that could be considered practically opposite to one another. Iran appears to be a more important and stronger state than all Arab countries put together, while Syria presumes that it is important in terms of both Iraq and Lebanon. The coming days will see a fierce tug-of-war, and the coming weeks will see the draft of a new map for the region. This phase will crown Iran as the biggest winner in and beneficiary from the US war in Iraq, not only in terms of its influence inside Iraq but also in terms of its possessing nuclear capability. These months will also prove that the “big” decisions concerning the region are completely out of Arab hands, due in part to the flagrant mistakes committed by Arab leaders, such as the Arab security states, and due also to the fact that Arabic is not the language of the big players in the Middle East; rather, Turkish, Farsi and Hebrew are important on this score.
Discussions by heads of state and government on the sidelines of the recent United Nations Summit and 60th General Assembly were focused on Iran, represented by its President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, and Syria, which was absent. Discussions on Iran were “nuclear” while those on Syria were “investigative,” due to Damascus’ link to an independent international investigation headed by German magistrate Detlev Mehlis into the identity of those involved in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. In private sessions, Arab leaders avoided pre-judging the investigation, either in its Lebanese or Syrian components. However, they were completely clear that there would be no Arab “cover” for anyone whose involvement in the Hariri assassination is proven by Mehlis.
If the investigation issues charges against a person, security body or political regime, no Arab or Muslim leader will be able to challenge this – he will have to announce his support for the trial of anyone suspected of committing the crime. This is what leaders told each other and others during closed sessions.
The importance of this point is that there is no room for politicizing the results of the investigation, whether in the name of Arabism, hostility to Arabism, the Israeli plan, or hidden American intentions toward the region. The UN Security Council unanimously considered the assassination an act of terror; it tasked a professional with heading the investigation and gave him an unprecedented mandate through Resolution 1595. All of the Arabs considered the resolution binding, and even Iran, which has influence with Syria and through it to Lebanon, is completely aware that there is no room for give-and-take with the Mehlis investigation when it issues its proof and evidence. Iran is directly concerned with Resolution 1559, which demands that Hezbollah and other Lebanese militias be disarmed, since Tehran has a relationship with Hezbollah. However, Iran is unconcerned with Resolution 1595 and doesn’t desire such a direct relationship with it.
What will happen if Mehlis proves Syria’s involvement in Hariri’s assassination? Many of those gathered in New York posed the question, but the answers were varied. The question is occupying the minds of Arab leaders, some of whom have suddenly realized that it is time to think about it. Some quickly differentiated between trying individuals and trying a regime, some expected a last-minute deal, and some spoke of western capitals preparing for the post-Baath era in Damascus, with noticeable participation by Syrian groups and individuals. What they didn’t mention was “solidarity;” no one wants to appear to be standing against the investigation, as leaders in New York kept Arabism out of the Hariri investigation, while it’s obvious that the Arab street won’t be lured into “solidarity” in a matter of this sort. Arab public opinion won’t be convinced by talk of the neo-conservative agenda for Syria, if the investigation produces hard evidence of Syrian involvement.
To confirm this, everyone talked about standing with the Syrian people and protecting it from dangers, and about the need to prevent Syria becoming another Iraq. Everyone searched for ways to prevent Syria (the country) from being punished, even if the regime is implicated, as the country’s stability occupied a considerable amount of interest and concern by regional and international leaders. There is a determination that Syria not fall into religious extremism, chaos and division, and that elements that could prove necessary for a transitional period not be excluded, if the investigation leads to conclusions that demand seeing the fall of the regime in Damascus.
Israel hopes that Syria will disintegrate and fall into chaos through division; Israel worked for this goal and failed, until Damascus began to commit flagrant mistakes, beginning with its insistence on another mandate for Emile Lahoud, the Lebanese president, despite the wishes of the Lebanese.
The Syrian leadership’s mistaken calculations are not limited to Lebanon; they have included Iraq, past and present. If Syria had not joined the US and Arab countries in the first Gulf War (of 1991), perhaps the Arabs would have remained a party in the regional and nuclear balances of power. Syria knew that its participation meant removing Iraq from the military equation when it came to confronting Israel, but Damascus got involved because it thought that Iran was its ally.
Today, according to those familiar with the Syrian-Iranian relationship in its Iraqi dimension, Damascus and Tehran are in dispute, thanks to differing agendas for that country. Syria is encouraging the armed resistance so that the US experiment in Iraq fails, and so that Iraq fails to conclude a partnership with the US. Therefore, it supports failure in Iraq. In contrast, Iran supports the success of the US experiment in Iraq because it is certainly in Iran’s interest.
Calculations for the second Gulf War, in its external dimension, might have been concluded for the sake of Israel’s interest, although Iran’s benefit is just as great. The Iraqi card these days is among Iran’s strongest, after a pro-Iranian government appeared in Iraq and after Tehran gained a presence on the ground in its neighbor, with US-British protection. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told leading members of the American elite during a meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that the Iranians are now present on a wide scale in Iraq. The places secured by the Americans and the British are entered by Iranians, offering money and arms to militias. Saud al-Faisal told the Council words to the effect that “we (and Iraq) waged war together to prevent the Iranians from entering Iraq, while you have allowed them to do so without a war.”
Iran is in Iraq today, which is something hostile to the US vision for the country and the administration’s control over Iraq’s future. Iran has become a permanent player while the US wields passing influence. Whether this is on purpose or the result of American mistakes, Iraq is Iran’s chief source of capital, when it comes to everything from strategic thinking and petroleum to Tehran’s nuclear program and regional leadership.
The same America that supported Saddam Hussein in a war for leadership against Iran, armed him, and made him believe that he was America’s best friend, has now waged a war to get rid of Saddam and handed Iraq and regional leadership to Iran (the children of the Khomeini Revolution) on a silver platter.
Iran, regardless of who rules it, is a wise and skilled practitioner of political negotiation. Therefore, there won’t be a military confrontation between Iran and the US. The Security Council won’t impose sanctions on Iran. Tehran won’t give up its nuclear research and capability and Israel won’t strike Iran’s nuclear facilities like it did with Iraq’s more than two decades ago.
Iran holds the oil card, both in terms of prices and the energy needs of China and India. It is an alliance based on need; Iran is allied with the Chinese purchaser of oil without fighting with European negotiators who beg it not to escalate its position. Tehran understands the calculations of stepping back with the Americans, who have helped establish a regime in Iraq that serves Iran’s current and future interest. However, Iran also knows that the international political equation involves give-and-take and that it should identify issues over which there can be no compromise, and issues that can involve sacrifice. Iran is putting nuclear capability, Iraq and oil in the first category. Its differences with Israel can continue, in the form of lip service to the Palestinian question or Arab cause, or due to an ideological difference that does not need to be taken to extremes. However, aggression against Iran is a red line. If Europe and the US offer guarantees that Israel will be totally prevented from attacking Iran, Tehran will be ready to give up the Hezbollah card in Lebanon.
This is the weakest of Iran’s valuable cards, and the price necessary to conclude a big deal. Iraq is the prime engine, since Iran has its greatest influence there, and has the US administration by the throat. Iraq is the prize given by the US and the UK to Iran, which transformed the country into its primary shield to protect its nuclear capabilities.
Iran has become a nuclear player; this is a reality that others must prepare to acknowledge in the future. The Arabs, who have waged wars through, with, and in Iraq, on one pretext or another, find themselves today complaining, scolding and grumbling, in another page of their story of amazement, fear, and treachery.
The coming days and weeks will bring surprises that will put on trial all those who used wars and assassinations as a model of creating our pitiful Arab history, in the name of staying in power, for the sake of certain leaders, or as a price for security that is imported and not created at home.
|
