• 1328809317422709700.jpg
 
بيروت
°22 م
°21 م
مشمس
لندن
°21 م
°11 م
زخات مطر
الرياض
°40 م
°26 م
مشمس
 
Dow Jones Industr(10340.7)
NASDAQ Composite(2915.86)
FTSE 100(5875.93)
^CASE30(0)
USD to EUR(0.7539)
USD to GBP(0.6325)
أرسل إلى صديق تعليق
تصغير الخط تكبير الخط
  • Tehran… the Fourth “Negotiator”!
    Sun, 05 September 2010
    Elias Harfoush

    Iran was never as “present” at the Middle East negotiations table as it is present today. Indeed, in spite of Tehran’s absence from this table, Ahmadinejad and his allies stood at the Israeli border, from the North and from the South, facing Mahmoud Abbas, Benjamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell – that negotiator ill-fated with such a task, who did not deserve an end like this one to his rich diplomatic career.

    The cards Tehran holds at this table are many. Indeed, inasmuch as the three who are negotiating, the American, the Palestinian and the Israeli, lack the cards of a solution, Tehran holds the cards of obstruction: the conditions set by the Israeli side, announced by Netanyahu even before the start of the round of negotiations; the powerlessness of the American side, confirmed by Hillary Clinton when she announced that her administration would not impose a solution on anyone; and the fragmentation of the Palestinian side, headed to Washington against its will. All of the above, alongside the missiles and bombings, are the cards of obstruction held by Tehran, and those negotiating have no response to them but that of asserting obscure intentions of achieving peace – intentions which have failed to spread any peace over the past two decades, i.e. ever since they began trying out this magical recipe for resolving the prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

    Thus, in a certain sense, the negotiations which the Obama Administration is trying to revive seem like yet another round of the confrontation between itself and the Iranian regime. Indeed, in this struggle between the diplomacy sponsored by Washington and the continued armed confrontation against Israel which Ahmadinejad called for in response to these negotiations, Tehran feels that any diplomatic progress sponsored by Washington could bring defeat to its plans in the region and represent a fatal blow to its possibilities of expansion, whether on the Palestinian front or on the two fronts of Syria and Lebanon. This is what has driven Iranian politicians to raise their voices high on Al-Quds Day, repeating, in a language they hold in common with the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, that the negotiations were “stillborn”, that the Palestinians participating in them did not represent their people and that their decisions were binding to no one.

    And because Tehran is armed with the ability to obstruct, it in effect does not lose anything in these negotiations, whatever their result. If these negotiations fail, as is expected, Tehran would come out winning. And if the negotiations succeed at achieving something, an unlikely wager, Tehran’s toolkit for doing away with such success would be ready, by accusing the Palestinian negotiator of treason and of “selling out the cause”. Indeed, any “success” these negotiations might achieve, no matter how advanced in terms of fulfilling the wishes of the Palestinians, will not lead to “the destruction of Israel” as Iran’s leaders wish it, and will therefore be a “defeatist solution” in their view.

    One can therefore say that the Palestinian negotiator will be the only loser in these negotiations, whatever their result. Indeed, what are the capabilities of the Palestinians to obtain a reasonable amount of their just rights, when they stand in the middle between the extremist plans of each of Israel and Iran, having nothing to rely on but the support of the US, which has on several occasions proven its powerlessness to achieve any solution that would agree with international law?

    If this happens, as many fear it will, Netanyahu would return to Tel Aviv to resume building his settlements and Judaizing his “eternal capital”, Obama would return to Congress to make use of his reconciliation with Israel and achieve the success he seeks in the midterm elections, and Abu Mazen would return to Ramallah, to reap the fruits of the fierce struggle against his “brothers” in Gaza – a struggle which the Obama Administration would have driven him to against his will, without affording him any means of salvation.

    Hopefully such fears will prove to be misplaced!

أرسل إلى صديق تعليق
تصغير الخط تكبير الخط

اضف تعليق

بريدك الإلكتروني لن يظهر علناً احتراماً للخصوصية