The Arabs Between “Mama” America and “Aunt” Iran

From the stores of ancient history, it is as if Abu Nawas is overseeing the current era of international chaos and advising Iran to keep its tongue. Silence, as they say, “is a disease better than words.” Khamenie/Khomeini Iran has exaggerated and promoted a culture of empty hostility toward America and is becoming more and more like my “chattering” aunt. This chatter has heated the waters of the Gulf; it has caused tensions to span from Tehran to Lebanon and brought the two countries’ navy fleets to the limit.

Everyone is chattering: Ahmadinejad, Hassan of Hezbollah, Bashar al-Hakawati, Mama Hillary and even Aunt Angela Merkel. Let’s not forget Maulana Abul Kalam Davutoglu, Obama, Sarkozy, Hugo Chavez; even the mainstream Haytham Manna suffers from the talking disease. I am seeing a lot of fanfare but I am not seeing the grist. Iran continues to prefer fighting America and Israel by using the Shia in Lebanon and the Sunni warehoused in Hamas and the Gaza Jihad.

Why is there this increased abdominal pain which is causing everyone painful screams and sighs? After 30 years of Khomeinism, which unleashed the mullahs and the militias alongside the Revolutionary Guard Corps and al-Quds Militia, the regime has used its “metaphysical holiness” in order to falsify the election and presidency of Ahmadinejad. This is not enough to protect the system from America, nor from the newly desperate, unemployed and disappointed Iranian generation.

The breakthrough project of “aunt” Iran is of great concern to eastern Arabs because Iran is spending its efforts on the nuclear “miracle” instead of its continuously depleting oil resources while also provoking America and Europe. So if harsh disciplinary sanctions are imposed, this chatter may continue over the hot waters of the Gulf. The boycott of Iran’s oil and banking industries will cripple their “ballooning” nuclear program.

The effects of the sanctions began to bite Iran and Syria: Unemployment, economic stagnation, currency collapse and cost inflation. Bashar’s regime is losing control over islands of the rebel dirt whose influence is continuing to expand. Bashar is unable to provide electricity, water or fuel for the 10 million people in Damascus and Aleppo.

This is where Putin intervenes, outside of all the gossip. He doesn’t seem to be afraid of a bomb in the friendly “cousin,” Iran. Putin’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, drew several red lines: Western intervention in Syria is a red line. Bombing Iran would be “a catastrophe of dire consequences” for the West’s relations with Russia. However, the Russian project which was submitted to the Council is a toothless deterrent to the continuing massacre.

“The veto” is Russia’s peaceful weapon. But how does it prevent war? Logically, the war is impossible. Unless, of course, an Iranian Katyusha hit an American compound or aircraft carrier. Another possibility could be an Iranian strike on Israel. If Israel bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, it would leave out the details to the West and be cleared of the consequences of aggression.

Bashar is the biggest beneficiary of the Russian red line. The regime has come under the protection of the Russian fleet, which shows us that Turkey granted the fleet permission to use the Bosporus. Turkey is committed to international law which guarantees freedom of navigation in marine straits with the permission of the state officials stationed on the banks. Turkey seems to be a paper tiger. However, it appears now that the Turkish are talking about intervening on the side of the Syrian opposition. This could all be gossip and really Turkey is crouching in fear behind the Russian bear. This conjures images of the tragedy of Mutanabbi where the sword of the state actually bridged Byzantium and the Muslim Seljuk Turks:

And Rum settled, and he settled behind you. To which of your sides do you tend?

Diplomatic chatter has been silent. In secret, it is the gossip that can be waived in the face of pride and the pulses of dignity and sovereignty which can be marketed to the naive public. Here is where Iran backs down for fear of its oil and banking industries. Here is where America makes Iran surrender.

America is trying to get Iran to return to the bargaining table. Leon Panetta, Obama’s Secretary of Defense, said that they could acquire the nuclear bomb making technology. America would have already tried to intervene if Iran had tried making a bomb. In an election year, Obama is keen on appearing to be a peace-loving dove. However, he is undertaking military exercises with Israel. Obama sent his most senior generals, including Martin Dempsey, in order to stir up aggression.

After the Russians made clear their red lines, Ehud Barak announced that Israel has no plans to bomb Iran. Barak is not very talkative in Israel and no one in the region trusts him. The Israeli raid will likely remain on the table as an option at any hour.

Iran is opposed to U.S. “compromise.” It has withdrawn its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, “unless exposed to aggression,” according to Foreign Minister Ali Salehi. All of this without abandoning any of their chatter. Iran has agreed to return to the negotiating table after European threats to boycott its banking and oil sectors. Iran denied the previous conditions it had agreed to for the resumption of negotiations with Germany and the “veto” five. In fact, Iran is no longer demanding the abolition of sanctions in advance. Nor is Iran refusing the search of its nuclear projects — which is the goal of all negotiations.

So where exactly do the Arabs fall between troublesome “Aunt” Iran and chattering “Mama” America, incubator of the Arab uprisings, wet-nurse to the “Brotherhood” systems and caring ward of our resources? They will have to give up their rivalry with Syria and hostile Iranian culture directed at the Great Satan — America. Perhaps we have discovered the purpose of these slogans of resistance. This response, rejection and objection are meant to condemn the republics for their tears, gas and blood. Arab Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan reproached America, even though it guarantees the security of the Gulf. This has been true since the Arab identity of Iraq is now a portrayal of Iran. Iran’s neighbor in diplomacy and in politics is Prince Turki al-Faisal. But General Khalfan didn’t actually have a plan for what he was going to do. Only Saudi Arabia’s Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz recalled the transition from the “cooperation” to union. It was as if he was quoting the poet who advised the Arabs, “They showed you advice so don’t sacrifice tomorrow.”

Perhaps the Gulf’s preoccupation with the Iranian “Aunt” lends some apathy to the relationship with the Gulf Arabs who delivered the intifada. They were so quick and naive. The “Brotherhood,” on its Howdah, created a blockage of power. The hostility of the Muslim Brotherhood toward the Gulf Cooperation Council could prevent generous Gulf financing toward the development of social uprisings. This also reflects a sharp split in the Arab world on the Syrian crisis.

It seems that the majority of the Gulf — save for maybe two countries — would be unwilling to give an extension of aid to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Therefore, the Gulf countries are reluctant to see the internationalization of Bashar. Soon to follow, Bashar will be summoned before the Security Council, or the court that will try him for crimes against humanity.

What then is the solution to the Iran nuclear issue? There is a logical solution. The default should be negotiations that work toward stripping the Arab region of weapons of mass destruction, Israeli and Iranian. Unfortunately, a realistic solution is difficult to impose and would be like the West trying to catch its left ear with its right hand. The threat of disarming Iran’s nuclear teeth appears to be an attempt to protect Israel’s monopoly on the frightening bomb.

Is Israel wiser then Iran when it comes to having a finger on the nuclear button? Never; in the Yom Kippur war, when the Egyptians were in the Sinai and the Syrians in the upper Galilee, old Golda had her finger on the nuclear trigger. Inevitably, Netanyahu, Barak or Lieberman would do the same. Even Tzipi Livni would be ready to press the button and destroy more than one Arab capital if an Iranian nuclear missile was launched at Israel.