The New Nation - Internet Edition

Sultan Mohammed Zakaria

This is very interesting to notice that President Bush, all on a sudden, starts walking anti-clockwise direction of his past policy. A hawk who never knew anything besides war and war of words suddenly turns into a peace-broker! This move, however, raises some doubts among critics. Is this a groundwork for introducing another war in the Middle East? Is this the preparation of Israel and the US of so-called pre-emptive aerial attack on Iran's nuclear sites? The fear remains high. It would be interesting to see the following issues.

The US in the last several years is recklessly trying to halt Iran's uranium enriching process, which Iran relentlessly claims only for the peaceful purpose for generating nuclear energy and also could be what Israel-US-West ally says a process to be used for making atomic and plutonium weapons at the end. On the other hand, US arch-foe, Russia is trying the reverse, reinvigorating Iran's efforts in building more nuclear sites including supplying further needed raw uranium. The show came into intensity level during last two years. The US was looking to use UN Security Council to go ahead with Iran venture instead. Iraq experience barred the US go unilaterally and pushed them to think that way. But a number of US initiatives supported by the Western Powers were blocked by two other permanent members of the Security Council -- Russia and China -- who have a very good economic interest in Iran. Yet, the US unilaterally imposed more rigid sanctions on Iran and continually considering of attacking the Islamic Republic. Recently, President Bush ordered his military officials to attach strategic bombs (bunker bluster) with its B52 bomber which, some people worries, aim to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel, on the other hand, remained furious on the issue as if Iran, by any means, acquires nuclear weapons, its total security system and the role it played as a military threat in the region will be no longer. Its persuasion efforts worldwide to halt Iran from this process seemed very relentless.

Iran is also aware of the threats from the US and Israel. Therefore it is trying to uphold its military capacity by adding more sophisticated and strategic weapons and missiles into the stocks. Iran is also becoming a major political player in the Middle Eastern region by patronising Lebanese guerilla group Hizbullah and Hamass in the Palestinian territory and maintaining a strong tie with Syria, another arch-rival of Israel. Last-year-war between IDF (Israeli Defence Force) and Hizbullah group proved how stronger it became. Only a couple of months ago Hamaas took control over Gaza territory showing further strategic defeat of Israel and the US. The growing relation among Iran, Russia, and Syria relation sent a bloodcurdling signal to Israeli dominance in the region against the US-Israel tie. Further, the final blow was the failure of the US to impose more sanction against Iran using UN Security Council Resolution in the recent months.

All these trying render somewhat gloomy future of Israeli dominance in the region which in other words poses greater threat to the US mightiness in the Middle East. Another important issue is US military-industrial complex and the neo-cons of American conservative political clique. Their war venture in Iraq simply bounced back both in home and in abroad. Now they look for another adventure. Critics say it is Iran.

However, the abased US credibility in the international arena makes it quite impossible to form an alliance against Iran. Even war on Iraq was added another stigma on their fate which may hinder any effort of advancing with any of such hawkish ideas. Moreover, Afghanistan and Iraq war lowered the US image to historic low among the Muslim countries. Right at this point, when the US got nothing to ahead on Iran, they put the idea of Annapolis on the table. They are trying to kill more birds with a single stone. Playing a peace accord drama, increasing their credibility among Muslims, and make other Arab countries hostile against Iran. They invited almost all stakeholders regarding the Israel-Palestine issue and Middle East crises letting aside Iran, Hamaas and Hizbullah. Both Hamaas and Hizbullah are supported and deemed to be financed by Iran and have a substantial strength to foil any Middle East peace attempt. Both are excluded from the talk. Iran was not invited at all. Now what you guess? Alienating Iran from Arabs? Let's have a look at the comment of Ehud Olmert, Israeli President, while delivering the speech at Annapolis on 27th of November: "There's quite a lot that separates us (Israel and Arabs)," "Nevertheless, there is also a great deal that we share. Like us, you know that religious fanaticism and national extremism (Iran? Because many Arab Countries too feel threat of Iranian regime which they consider may introduce greater religious movement in the region) are a perfect recipe for domestic instability and violence, for bitterness and ultimately for the disintegration of the very foundations of coexistence based on tolerance and mutual acceptance." (NewYork Times, 28, November, 2007). He uttered about the fear of religious fanaticism and national extremism which are a perfect recipe for domestic instability and violence in the Middle East. Critics claim that is the clear indication to Iran and mean that it is the sole agent of these ideas which create a major threat not only to Israel but its Arab neighbours too! Unfortunate many

Arab rulers share the same view in this regard. That is the focal point of the talk we assume. The US will introduce a long (and never ending) endured 'final' peace talks among Arab countries and will go for military solution for Iran. The peace talks only will confuse Arab nations who, after Iraq war, seemed not to extend cooperation to the any US move to attack another Middle East country. And after the Annapolis talks, US will have a moral weapon on Arab countries that will push them to rally behind any US attempt in the region whether it is attack on Iran or something else. If they likely to impede the US attempt, US will pose threat to pull out their support from the so-called negotiation.

Now, it is finally Arab nations to realise their forthcomings. If Annapolis can bring any positive result for the fate of the millions of Palestinian people and the rest of the Middle Easterns, that would be unhesitatingly a real milestone. But previous failure attempts in this regard and the prevailing geo-political moves of the US (as one of their Congressmen observed President Bush is 'beating the drum of another war') make us more suspicious. If current US move is to implement their any hiding plan, it will only bring catastrophe in this region. And the only deterrent to further US hawkish move is the stark vigilance of the Arab nations on how the US really behave after the talks. If they can, I believe, they will contribute much to avert another war in this war-torn region or else it will be the ultimate collapse of the world order and the humanity as a whole.