A Verbal Battle
Mohamed Al Ashab Al-Hayat - 13/12/05//
The state of Israel did not engage in a verbal war as Iran did, thus, the statement of the Iranian President Ahmedinejad about Israel and the European remorse are useless and do not conceal the facts. Although their backdrop on the Iranian scene implies a continuation of the rebellious approach and a revival of the radical rhetoric, which faded out during the mandate of former President Mohamed Khatemi, they seek to foresee the battles, which will neither be staged in Israel nor in Iran, but specifically in Iraq. The latter has become an experiment field for anything, including illegal US arms, farthest sectarian tendencies, and a wager on the unknown the region has not witnessed since the end of WWII. It is most likely that the Iranian President is using a high pitch to say that Tehran is not just a player, but a major and central one, in any regional arrangements in Iraq and the Middle East. His cards are distributed between the nuclear obsession in Iran itself, and the growing power of the Shiites affiliated to the religious authority in Iraq. This is in addition to the US predicament, wherein the Arab role is absent. He shall find in the statement of the Arab Mohamed Al Bardai, who criticized the Iranian nuclear obstinacy, an additional argument to confirm that he shall not remain still until the Security Council decides upon its file like the Iraqi version that rocketed in all directions.
The Iranians are aware that the ambition of their bitter enemy, the ousted President Saddam Hussein, started with the July reactions and ended with the legend of the giant canon. Between these incidents, there was the war with Iran and the fiery statements to burn half of Israel. However, Saddam secludedly asked for protection from a judiciary, whom he knows will condemn him, as a way to evade a judiciary that executed his regime. There is no doubt that the Iranian President wants to struggle in the space he chooses, and in the outfit he controls. The best thing for him to do is to stake on the Iraqi elections and benefit from the US mistakes. Brandishing the Israeli paper today and not tomorrow can only stand for speeding up the preoccupation with the Iranian case. The Americans instructed their Ambassador to Iraq to possibly open a dialogue with Tehran, and the transitory authority in Baghdad no longer opposes dialogue with the resistance. The US public opinion is anticipating an upcoming end for the situation in Iraq, and the US administration is keen on improving its human rights track record before the European partners. This is probably the most suitable time to test the Iranian wit. Only in times of calamity, the search for roles and players becomes a need, even against enemies and opponents.
It is not important that the Israelis issued roaring statements against Iran, since they are aware of what is being brushed aside in the relations. Even if this previously involved the arms bargain or the alleged rebels, it is impossible at this stage to implicate the US allies in another war. However, they may tend to shake the foundation of the relations between Tehran, Moscow, Beijing, and the European capitals that are inclined to stir up fears of the Iranian nuclear agenda. The fact is that the Iranian themselves are testing their potential in the struggle. Hence, the calculations will vary depending on whether the struggle will be staged in Iran or in the Iranian neighboring countries, namely Iraq and Syria. It is simplistic to imagine that Tehran seeks to lure them to its territories and gulfs in the warm water, without realizing that the US forces are at a stone's throw away. If it is the case, it is well evoking the lessons of the eight-year-war with another Iraq that has become yielding. At the same time, it is closely monitoring the situation in Syria and Lebanon. However, this carefully wrapped message may be addressed to Damascus, since the Iranian escalation may not mean loosening its grip of Syria, even if the goal equally involves Damascus and Tehran. However, implicating Israel in stand-in struggles warns of some upcoming risks. This is why the Iranian President Ahmadinejad is probably rushing to grant his country the role it wants without intermediary. Israel wants to gain the Palestinian nuclear exclusivity and the strategic weight of Pakistan regionally, and what is more sizeable than the arrangements surveillance in the region of the fertile Islamic crescent. It is not a coincidence that Ahmedinejad his burst forth in line with the Extraordinary Islamic Summit. Nothing is more serious than distorting or misusing the commitment ceilings. Does Iran have a scheme it wants to secure without waging struggles, since these struggles start with words and may not move to deeds?
|
