Iran: The Syria Lens w/Saudi Arabia (and Lebanon)

Image via Wikipedia

Nothing can excuse or defend the actions being taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran's current regime and it's clear that those who are demanding a "stronger stance" against the current violence are really demanding US troops be put on the ground in Iran and to force regime change -something no country in the entire world, currently, has the political desire or the troops to do considering NATO is over extended as is the US military. Not to mention that none of the opposition leaders have asked for outside assistance.

That being said, the timing of President Obama reinstating a U.S. Ambassador to Syria shows that he's already hedging his bet that this uprising won’t succeed, or at the very least that if it does, it'll be a long term situation. It is also part of his sustained push to improve relations, mend fences, with the Arab world but the timing is important to notice here. Although President Obama and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton sent two high level diplomats to Syria in March to try and change Syrian/American relations through "preliminary conversations", those conversations didn't just happen to come to fruition in the midst of the ongoing violence.

With former Sen. George Mitchell and current Special Envoy for the Obama administration's efforts for Middle East peace with Israel having visited Syria (seen as a key player in this administration in any future peace involving Israel) and Lebanon it appears that President Obama may have already determined that to hamper Iran's growing influence in the region, as well as the world, the U.S. must cut off its outside terrorist networks in Hezbollah and Hamas, starting with Hezbollah by taking advantage of Hezbollah's unexpected losses in the Lebanese elections to a U.S. backed majority which some have said were a broader regional affair. The Obama administration seems to be hoping that's the reality despite some observers making a strong case that the Lebanon elections were the most corrupt ever with the hundreds of millions of dollars that was spent in the elections by Saudi Arabia alone (both links via this article on WPR, sub. req.). With one adviser to the Saudi government saying “We’re supporting candidates running against Hezbollah, and we’re going to make Iran feel the pressure” it explains why the Saudi Arabian media is now taking an anti-Iranian government slant with Lebanon media following suit; meanwhile Syrian media is supporting the outcome in Iran as is. This assessment of Saudi Arabian feelings is very apt:

I think a Gulf Arab conclusion is that the problems, the threats they face from Iran, aren’t about the Shah, they’re not about Ayatollah Khomenei, and they’re not about Mohammad Khatami or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They’re about the traditional imperial ambition emanating from Tehran.

The view of many in the Gulf is that the United States may play a more prominent role in the Gulf or a less prominent role in the Gulf, but whatever happens, the Iranians will still be there.

They could also be worried about the numerous sleeper cells in Saudi Arabia that haven't been dealt with. In the same sleeper cell article, this jumped out:

Arab countries will have no independent role in the anticipated confrontation between the West and Iran. Arab countries will only contribute what the West designates for them. The West needs a united and stable Arab front; therefore, the United States will work hard to solve all the issues impeding a united Middle Eastern front against Iran. Jadallah claims the attempt to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict is evident in Israel’s conciliatory gestures toward Syria. An Israeli-Syrian peace deal would end the strategic Syrian-Iranian alliance, although Hezbollah would remain the biggest threat to Israel if war breaks out with Iran.

The cells, as well as the situation in Iran, explain Saudi Arabia contemplating buying more aircraft and satellite-guided bombs from the U.S. and Britain. The satellite-guided bombs could also be a signal that if it comes down to it, it won't be Israel taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

It seems in the Obama administrations' goals to connect (sub. to WPR req.) all of the Middle East problems by including the Near East and South Asia together in order to establish Middle East peace rather than focus on just Israel-Palestine or just Afghanistan-Pakistan, they're viewing flipping Syria into an ally and strengthening Saudi Arabia's influence in the region (plus other measures like putting pressure on India-Pakistan to thaw relations) as central to that -on top of taking advantage of the Lebanon election results. If this strategic view works it would go a long way to marginalizing Hezbollah -as long as reestablishing ties with Venezuela leads to help with cracking down on Hezbollah cells in South America.

Hopefully the ambassadors won’t merely be friends but instead real diplomats with legitimate political credentials. It is smart to consider the isolation inflation of Syria's importance but I'm not sure what other cards are available at the moment with this article (via Syria Comment) noting:

The United States is moving quickly to normalize relations with Syria, and there’s talk of working with the Saudis to draw elements of the radical Palestinian group Hamas away from its Iranian patrons, toward a coalition government that would be prepared to negotiate with Israel.
…It has, of course, long been a dream of some Israelis and allies of Israel that they could “flip” Syria away from its sturdy, 30-year alliance with Iran. “Peeling them away” is a less crude and possibly more nuanced version of the same idea.

Maybe all along the Obama administration viewed weakening Iran from the outside while talking directly with it as a winning strategy and they aren't going to allow the current situation to change that course.

Read more...

President Bush and his two step.

People keep talking about how President Bush is moving toward where Sen. Barack Obama is. Iraq and Iran specifically. Lets get a few things clear here. President Bush is going to try talking with Iran on very small levels and as some see this as him moving toward Obama he is simply doing this to show that yet again, talking with Iran isn't going to work (from Bush and his supporters view that is). Now one could argue that President Bush and previous presidents before him have never tried hard enough, which may or may not be true, but it shouldn't be ignored that Iran has never backed down or given in on anything. They have tremendous influence through out the entire Middle East; they have proxies in every Middle Eastern country. The only thing that differs from country to country is how much influence Iran's proxies have.

One thing that seems to be getting missed is that the president of Turkey in a couple interviews has said that the enite Middle East is looking to go nuclear; to have nuclear power. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt all have or will have nuclear power. The United States has even now struck a deal with India to help with nuclear power. When we allow all of these countries to have nuclear power it makes it that much harder to tell Iran no; arguably impossible.

On Iraq, the key reason President Bush has said he'd agree to a time horizon is because the Iraqi's are asking for one. He can't afford a hit to his legacy by not getting a deal done with Iraq; he can't afford for the deal to be struck by this countries next president. Conditions on the ground have also allowed for the idea of an end result.

Read more...

Iran

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/06/fzgps.01.html

That is the transcript of Fareed Zakaria's GPS show on 7/6/08 and is absolutely a MUST read if one wishes to see where we may or may not be headed in regards to Iran. This week he interviews Manhouchehr Mottaki, Foreign Minister of Iran and then has three people (Michael Ware, Christiane Amanpour, & Vali Nasr) on to discuss Iran. This should also be read if you're one that doesn't believe we've been at war with Iran since we went to Iraq. Some have argued that we've been at war with Iran for 40 years, they may be right, but that's another story. Two key snippets for me-the entire dialogue with Mottaki is important-that took place during the analysis/discussion of Iran:

ZAKARIA: Michael Ware, I was struck by the fact that he repeated his public opposition to the Status of Forces Agreement. That seems as though it was a very clear, public Iranian position. They could be saying this privately. They have been saying it.What's going on here? Why is this so important to them?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: Well, in many ways, this agreement, should it be struck, is going to be a very useful barometer to guide us as to the success or failure of the U.S. mission. I mean, look, let's face it. From the moment the first American tank crossed the Kuwait border and the Saudi border to march on Saddam's Baghdad, America was, by default, at war with Iran. Now, the only problem is, Iran knew that, but America did not. America didn't start waking up to this until 2006, when it started to create its amendment to the campaign plan, countering Iranian influence. So, Iran's gains had already been secured. It's in a position of strength.

ZAKARIA: The visit with -- Ahmadinejad's visit to Iraq did not go well.So, clearly, they're also searching for some degree of control, which is maybe why they're publicly saying, "Guys, don't sign this."If they sign the Status of Forces Agreement, will that be a defeat for Iran?

WARE: No, it won't be. It'll depend on two things. One is the terms themselves.And there's a couple of key issues to look at there, to gauge the level of Iranian influence. And I would point primarily to the fate of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service.Right now, technically, it's not even on the table. This is Iraq's CIA. But it's owned, funded, operated by America's CIA. It doesn't answer to Maliki. In the meantime, Iran has helped the Iraqis set up their own competing intelligence agency. And the SOFA, whatever happens to the INIS is going to be a key indicator of who has the real influence.

Read more...