No Trade-Off for Middle East Ideals
Iran’s negotiations with the United States will not jeopardize interests of any nation in the Middle East. By Mahmoud Shams-ol-Va’ezin
US envoy for the Middle East is currently in the Middle East negotiating with leaders of Arab countries. Dennis Ross is reportedly carrying a message on Iran’s nuclear program for Arab states and is going to discuss issues of mutual and regional concern. Mahmoud Shams-ol-Va’ezin has commented on Ross’ visit and its implications:
The US-Arab relation on Iran’s nuclear program has had three significant stages: from Condi Rice’s visit to Middle East in her last days in US Secretary of States when she tried to unite Arabs against the Iranian nuclear program; Arabs’ every now and then concern over Iran’s nuclear program; and Obama’s policy which avoids exaggerating the assumed threat of Iran’s nuclear activities. Obama is not interested in disturb the climate. Despite United States’ new policy Arabs are still acting like the Bush’s era.
Ross’ visit to Middle East has these likely goals: one, to inform Arabs about Iran-US likely negotiations and assure them that it would not jeopardize their interests. Rapprochement between Iran and America clearly frightens Arabs and Egypt’s crackdown on Hezbollah supporters and Morocco’s squabble with Iran over Bahrain related to this concern. Second, is an attempt to unit moderate Arab countries over Iran’s nuclear issue if negotiations proved futile. Third is the peace process in Middle East. As we know, Dennis Ross was an advocate of ’dual containment’ policy of Clinton’s administration. He’s a key Middle East expert.
Likud’s rise to power in Israel has worried Arab states. With Lieberman’s radical remarks many countries of the region have lost hope in the possibility of a two-state solution. Ross is seizing the opportunity to assure Arab countries that United States still backs the solution and will force Israel to accept it.
I believe that start of talks between Iran and the United States will influence regional developments due to the significance of Iran-US negotiations, Iran’s stature in Middle East and moderate Arab states’ concern of their future position as a result of the negotiation and global economic crisis.
But I believe that moderate Arab countries’ prediction of Iran’s future stance after its talks with U.S. are wrong and fall at odds with the realities of Iran’s politics. They should know Iran better. It doesn’t seem that Iran will trade off Middle East’s ideals (e.g. formation of a Palestinian state) with friendship with U.S. Iran is the most persistent country over collective interests of Middle East and Arab states are mistaken if they think Iran-U.S. reconciliation is against their national interests.
Such an illusion shows how blind Arab countries are in following United States. Instead of toeing the line on America’s policies, they should adopt resistance and consider the aspirations of Middle East nations. Compare Arabs’ worry with every single event in the region and Israel’s radical line and its time and again negligence of United States’ reaction. Arabs can even rely on UN Security Council’s resolutions against Israel and force America to take tougher measures against this country.
The US-Arab relation on Iran’s nuclear program has had three significant stages: from Condi Rice’s visit to Middle East in her last days in US Secretary of States when she tried to unite Arabs against the Iranian nuclear program; Arabs’ every now and then concern over Iran’s nuclear program; and Obama’s policy which avoids exaggerating the assumed threat of Iran’s nuclear activities. Obama is not interested in disturb the climate. Despite United States’ new policy Arabs are still acting like the Bush’s era.
Ross’ visit to Middle East has these likely goals: one, to inform Arabs about Iran-US likely negotiations and assure them that it would not jeopardize their interests. Rapprochement between Iran and America clearly frightens Arabs and Egypt’s crackdown on Hezbollah supporters and Morocco’s squabble with Iran over Bahrain related to this concern. Second, is an attempt to unit moderate Arab countries over Iran’s nuclear issue if negotiations proved futile. Third is the peace process in Middle East. As we know, Dennis Ross was an advocate of ’dual containment’ policy of Clinton’s administration. He’s a key Middle East expert.
Likud’s rise to power in Israel has worried Arab states. With Lieberman’s radical remarks many countries of the region have lost hope in the possibility of a two-state solution. Ross is seizing the opportunity to assure Arab countries that United States still backs the solution and will force Israel to accept it.
I believe that start of talks between Iran and the United States will influence regional developments due to the significance of Iran-US negotiations, Iran’s stature in Middle East and moderate Arab states’ concern of their future position as a result of the negotiation and global economic crisis.
But I believe that moderate Arab countries’ prediction of Iran’s future stance after its talks with U.S. are wrong and fall at odds with the realities of Iran’s politics. They should know Iran better. It doesn’t seem that Iran will trade off Middle East’s ideals (e.g. formation of a Palestinian state) with friendship with U.S. Iran is the most persistent country over collective interests of Middle East and Arab states are mistaken if they think Iran-U.S. reconciliation is against their national interests.
Such an illusion shows how blind Arab countries are in following United States. Instead of toeing the line on America’s policies, they should adopt resistance and consider the aspirations of Middle East nations. Compare Arabs’ worry with every single event in the region and Israel’s radical line and its time and again negligence of United States’ reaction. Arabs can even rely on UN Security Council’s resolutions against Israel and force America to take tougher measures against this country.