The strange thing about US policy in the Middle East: It worries both Arabs and Israelis

Those who think that only "right wing neocon ultranationalist Jew Zionists" like Avigdor Lieberman are worried about US policy in the Middle East need to think again. You don't have to be Jewish to be scared of US - Iranian rapprochement, as this article from Gulf News tells us. Pay attention to the last part:

 

Gates said in December that the US was not seeking "regime change" but "behavioural change" in Iran. This line was echoed last week by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who stated that "we [Americans] are not for regime change [in Iran]. Our effort must be reciprocated by the other side. Just as we abandon calls for regime change in Tehran and recognise a legitimate Iranian role in the region, Iran's leaders must moderate their behaviour and that of their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas".

 

This is exactly what worries the Arabs in the region. What does Kerry mean when he bluntly says he "recognises a legitimate Iranian role in the region"? Why would Iran cave in and acquiesce, and be cooperative and accommodating, if the price was not right? The US has already given Iran the ultimate assurance - that there will be "no regime change".

 

The Americans have to put themselves in the Arabs' shoes and see their dilemma. The siege mentality that has set in does not emanate from speculations but from the situation that is unfolding before our eyes.

 

When the Americans deny something, it is likely to be true. So, should the Arabs in general and the Gulf states in particular be concerned by the ongoing open fist-close fist monologue, which could evolve into a productive dialogue when the interests of Washington and Tehran intersect? Or are concerns about the possibility of a 'grand bargain' between the US and the Iranians unfounded, as Gates and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contend?

 

If a US-Iran deal comes through, it will most likely be at our expense. If we do not wake up and get our act together, we will be in for a rude awakening. Then we will have only ourselves to blame.

Ami Isseroff

 

 

 

US-Iran relations worry Arabs
By Abdullah Al Shayji, Special to Gulf News
Published: May 10, 2009, 22:52

US officials have reassured Gulf and other Arab officials that America's opening up to Iran won't be at the expense of the Arabs because of the historical and strategic ties between the US and its Arab partners and allies in the region.

 

The latest assurance came from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates during his visits to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He downplayed the thawing of relations with and the cosying up to Tehran, which is keeping Arabs on edge. They fear another betrayal by the Americans if the Iranian price is right.

 

"There's probably some concern in the region that may draw on an exaggerated sense of what's possible. And I just think it's important to reassure our friends and allies in the region that while we're willing to reach out to the Iranians, as the president said, with an open hand, I think everybody in the administration, from the president on down, is pretty realistic and will be pretty tough-minded if we still encounter a closed fist," Gates said. He went on to lament Iran's "closed fist".

 

Gates highlighted the opening up to Iran "for the purpose of improving security throughout the region". In order to reassure those of us in the Arab world, Gates made it clear that "building diplomacy with Iran will not be at the expense of our long-term relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have been our partners and friends for decades". But these reassurances, ironically, seem to strengthen our sense of insecurity and confirm our fears about the prospect of a grand bargain between the two rivals if the price is right - and if the Israelis endorse it, after ensuring that Iran's nuclear programme is discussed.

 

This dialogue could be more direct and gather steam after the Iranian presidential elections on June 12. What is alarming for us in the region is the publication a few days ago of an intelligence report by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The report cites Iran's nuclear progress, and says faulty intelligence was responsible for underestimating Iran's progress towards designing a nuclear warhead before Tehran halted its programme in 2003. The report suggests that the US engagement with Iran must convince Tehran to halt its nuclear programme and accept tough international controls.

 

But what alarms the Arabs are the current geo-strategic realities, which Iran uses for its own advantage and employs to serve its interests and project its power. This is made possible as a result of US miscalculations and through Tehran's proxies in the region.

 

Iran realises that the US is seeking "responsible withdrawal from Iraq". Iran is following the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, and is alarmed at the re-emergence of the Taliban. Iran is worried at the situation in Pakistan as the US seeks to stabilise that nuclear state, which has become a major security challenge for the Obama administration.

 

The Obama administration is increasingly engaged in what Richard Hass calls the "war of choice" - that is, the war in Afghanistan, the major frontline in the 'war on terror'.

 

In addition to this, the Obama administration needs Iran to play a constructive role in the Arab-Israeli peace process, and to reign in its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. All of these regional problems give Iran a strong card to play in its confrontation with the Americans.

 

Gates said in December that the US was not seeking "regime change" but "behavioural change" in Iran. This line was echoed last week by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who stated that "we [Americans] are not for regime change [in Iran]. Our effort must be reciprocated by the other side. Just as we abandon calls for regime change in Tehran and recognise a legitimate Iranian role in the region, Iran's leaders must moderate their behaviour and that of their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas".

 

This is exactly what worries the Arabs in the region. What does Kerry mean when he bluntly says he "recognises a legitimate Iranian role in the region"? Why would Iran cave in and acquiesce, and be cooperative and accommodating, if the price was not right? The US has already given Iran the ultimate assurance - that there will be "no regime change".

 

The Americans have to put themselves in the Arabs' shoes and see their dilemma. The siege mentality that has set in does not emanate from speculations but from the situation that is unfolding before our eyes.

 

When the Americans deny something, it is likely to be true. So, should the Arabs in general and the Gulf states in particular be concerned by the ongoing open fist-close fist monologue, which could evolve into a productive dialogue when the interests of Washington and Tehran intersect? Or are concerns about the possibility of a 'grand bargain' between the US and the Iranians unfounded, as Gates and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contend?

 

If a US-Iran deal comes through, it will most likely be at our expense. If we do not wake up and get our act together, we will be in for a rude awakening. Then we will have only ourselves to blame.

 

 

 

Dr Abdullah Al Shayji is professor of international relations and head of the American Studies Unit at Kuwait University.