Dr. Al-Hayat
America, Iran and the six Gulf countries remind me of two wolves and six sheep that met to consider the dinner menu.
As I have said time after time, if they agree, they do it at our expense, and if they fight, we pay the price. As a matter of fact, this is the opinion shared by Gulf foreign ministers.
A week ago, I reviewed in this column the possibilities of war but could not reach a decisive opinion. Readers then showered me with their comments on this article. I was still reading their mails when two important developments took place. First, the US State Department announced that William Burns, America’s third highest-ranking diplomat, would attend the Geneva meetings between the European Union and Iran as a listener.
Second, the United States was considering opening a diplomatic interests section in Tehran for the first time since 1979 and the 444-day siege of the American embassy there. The Geneva meeting ended up giving Iran a two-week time limit. But, in my opinion, Iran will pursue uranium enrichment and solely views negotiations as a means to gain time.
According to the American and international press, last week’s developments reflect the victory of the pro-negotiation wing led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and the defeat of the war gang led by Vice President Dick Cheney. In an explanation of the American turnaround, the doves are now convinced that the siege policy is of no avail and that peace will not prevail in the Middle East without a direct role played by the parties the United States is trying to isolate, i.e. Iran and Syria along with Hezbollah and Hamas.
Readers’ mails came as I expected. Some readers supported me and could not decisively tell whether a war would erupt or not. To others, war was inevitable. Some others claimed that the US was too coward to fight another war in the Middle East following its quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today, every concerned party will interpret the new American stance according to his wishes. Senator Barack Obama saw it as an endorsement of his famous call to negotiate with Iran. To Senator John McCain, the new stance proved the validity of his policy calling for a multilateral stance (America and European countries) vis-à-vis Iran.
However, as all parties have interpreted the new American stance as driving away the specter of war, I need to express a different opinion.
I do not mean the war is imminent. I mean to say that if the Bush administration was intent on destroying the Iranian nuclear program before Iran possesses a military nuclear power, it would pave the way for the strike by reassuring the other party. War is about delusion as we all know.
America may be honest about following a new diplomatic course of action, but I personally do not rule out that the Bush administration is trying to delude us. Behind it are Israel, the Israel lobby, as well as the war and the evil party. While I can not conclusively address many issues, I can conclusively say that Israel will not give up on its determination to prevent Iran from possessing military nuclear capabilities, while Iran will not stop uranium enrichment, regardless of the negotiations it embarks on, whether in Geneva or elsewhere. Though Iran claims its enrichment program is designed for peaceful uses, we all know it can be also used to produce a nuclear bomb.
As such, I bring the readers back to the wolves and sheep I referred to at the beginning of my article. I will now move on to another issue of interest to most readers, namely Islamophobia.
I hope the readers have patience till the end of the series. There is another series of four articles coming in a few days. I have interrupted the previous one so as not to bore uninterested readers and in order to follow up and comment on other news in a timely manner.
I have been collecting the relevant material since the beginning of the year. The publication of the Islamophobia series coincided with the interfaith dialogue conference held in Madrid. This conference proved that there was indeed an evil gang whose intention is to attack Islam and scare the world of Muslims and their faith. While the Madrid conference was trying to bring peoples closer, calling for dialogue, the respect of religions, and combating terror, the Israel group was discrediting the conference and its objectives, warning of the Saudi motives behind it. At the same time, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy complained of Saudi tolerance abroad and intolerance at home. The pro-Israeli New York Sun openly referred to “The Danger of Madrid,” i.e. the threat posed by the conference.
Hezbollah unarguably achieved victory, whereas Israel admitted its defeat. Yet, many readers inquired about the price of victory. It is exorbitant. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah admitted it and said that had he known what would happen, the soldiers would not have been kidnapped.
I conclude by thanking all the readers who offered me their condolences and shared my pain at the loss of my mother. I thank them all.
