The “Dispersed” Gulf Diplomacy

A pitched battle of repeated advances and retreats is taking place between the Western capitals and Tehran, while the capitals of the Gulf are busy watching the play “Gharbistan”.

For the moment, Tehran seems to be oscillating between acceptance and irresponsiveness in what regards the [agreement] to enrich the majority of its uranium abroad, all in order to achieve political gains, and to gain more time and more Western incentives and rewards.

Was the Velvet Revolution, meanwhile, defeated, following the start of the trials and executions of those who were deemed by the government of President Ahmadinejad as having “caused” the turmoil that shook the country and threatened the Wilayat-e-Faqih [Supreme Leader of Iran]?

Also, how accurate are the accounts of a scheme by the Revolutionary Guard to liquidate Arab and Gulf journalists opposed to the Iranian ambitions and policies in the region?! Is Iran actually capable of carrying out the assassination of journalists by giving the green light to its militias and columns to execute its plans?

Perhaps, but Iran will not do so if compromises should be agreed upon with the West regarding its nuclear program. Instead, Iran would carry out its plans by using its Special Forces unit which enjoys an unlimited budget and powers, including issuing passports and diplomatic passports for any of its operatives; this in addition to the fact that most of the latter, including those operating inside Iran, are fluent in more than one language, in particular Arabic, many of whom having being seen speaking with a fluent Lebanese dialect. These individuals are carefully selected so as not to arouse any suspicions around them, whether in terms of their presentation or dialect, something that also applies to all the members of the unit. (I will detail this and more in another forthcoming article).

Did the collapse of the Velvet Revolution, then, along with the decline in the reformists’ resolve in confronting the conservatives – following their being oppressed, abused, imprisoned, and murdered –, in addition to the Western incentives bundle, did this all encourage the government of Ahmadinejad to regain its “aggressive” determination? Did it encourage this government to resume its “hostile” ideology of exporting its revolution in order to fill the vacuum and distract the people with “illusory” external dangers? It is thus in fact, that Iran will set off its allies in the region, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Huthis, while activating some of its supporters and partisans in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Gulf countries to carry out acts aimed at inciting sectarian riots and insurgency in order to sabotage the relations between Arab governments and their peoples.

Nevertheless, will the shared interests of the West and Iran lead to the weakening of Arab governments, and render them the victims and satellites of the new relations drafted by the Western capitals and Tehran?

A while ago, Karim Sadjapour, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, prepared a study that urged Washington and Tehran to resolve their differences on the basis of common concerns and mutual or shared interests, in a manner that would modernize Iran and reintegrate it in the global economy, in addition to restoring mutual trust in dealing with the sensitive issues. Sadjapour also pointed out that the interests of the United States meet and overlap with those of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than with any other neighbouring country. (Al Mushahid al-Siyasi [Political Observer] Magazine – Issue 700; August 16 – 2009).

Iran is behind everything in Iraq, and is interfering there not far from the eyes and ears of the Americans. In fact, the ones who gave Iran the strength and ability to be free to do whatever it wants in Baghdad are the Arabs themselves, by shunning Iraq and the Iraqis under the pretext of the security situation, until Iran managed to completely have its way there, and build bridges and roads on the backs of Iraq’s own inhabitants to serve its own policies and interests.

In Afghanistan meanwhile, the overlapping interests [of the U.S and Iran] are even more evident, despite the fact that the Iranian behaviour in Afghanistan is almost “schizophrenic”, when its official radio for instance, describes the Afghan President Karazai as being “an American puppet”, while Iran is actually one of the top ten countries that grant aids to Karazai’s government. This in addition to the fact that what brings Washington and Tehran together in this regard is their number one enemy, the Taliban.

Is Iran seeking to dominate the Middle East and threaten Israel, or is it seeking to shake hands with the latter by extending a long arm above the Arab disarray, in order to oppress the Arab peoples and discipline them?! Is there some kind of a need for the religious establishment in Iran that pushes it to further zeal in order to protect itself from “unstable” neighbours, and from American and the neighbouring governments that have a common animosity against Iran?!

What is certain is that Iran has non-peaceful intentions, and that Iran cannot be trusted no matter how many pledges, commitments, promises or guarantees were offered. As such, the international community must not allow Iran to enrich uranium, as long as Iran is playing with both fire and water, as it supports extremist groups and armed militias, and is carrying acts of sabotage against neighbouring countries. Iran must not be allowed to do so since it also threatens all those who dare whisper against it, so that the world would not become a jungle of beasts that can throw sand in our eyes, and “slip poison in the honey”, all in order to carry out murderous assassination plans and criminal schemes.

The negotiations between Iran and the West and the incentives package do not concern Tehran alone; the Gulf countries as such must learn all the secret items on the negotiation table and the developments related to the latter, since there is no bigger threat to the Gulf countries than the Iranian menace. The Gulf countries remaining politely neutral, or respectfully diplomatic, will not achieve anything for them, and may perhaps even become a factor that exacerbates political pressures against them in the future, similar to what their neglect of Iraq has incurred upon them.