The Treacherous Route Between Washington and Tehran
Published in La Presse
(Tunisia) on 3 October 2013
by Hmida Ben Romdhane (link to original)
A simple telephone call between the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, and his American counterpart, Barack Obama, and Israel and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are in a near-hysterical state. Yesterday Benjamin Netanyahu jumped into his plane bound for Washington looking for explanations from the American president, whereas Saudi Arabia, acting for itself and on behalf of the other members of the GCC, began piling on the pressure to block any kind of overture between the United States and Iran. This information was revealed yesterday by The Wall Street Journal, which also published the reasons put forward by both Israel and the Arab Gulf states: “Tehran would seek to use the cover of diplomacy to continue advancing its nuclear program.” As a result, Washington has been asked to turn its back on Iran so as not to encourage the continuation of its weapons of mass destruction production program. Such is the demand of Israel and the fervent hope of the GCC countries.
In fact, although it would appear that Riyadh and Tel Aviv are in the same camp, they are driven by different considerations and motives. Israel does not want the situation between Washington and Tehran to improve because it needs a werewolf-like Iran so that it can justify crying out every time it pretends to be frightened of being devoured. This tactic has proven very effective in the success of its core strategy: to ensure that the world forgets the Palestinian question. Indeed, since Israel started to feign terror when faced with the Iranian nuclear program, who remembers that there is a Palestinian people whose territory is occupied and whose children are oppressed?
The motives of Saudi Arabia and its GCC partners are different. In their eyes, Iran is attempting to establish a zone of influence in the form of a “Shiite crescent,” spreading from the west of Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. Saudi Arabia’s hounding of the Syrian regime and its incessant but unsuccessful efforts to convince Washington to attack Syria can only be explained by the Saudis’ desire to make a breach in this “Shiite crescent.” For them, it is a strategic necessity which is all the more urgent since the race for influence in Iraq has been won by Iran.
But what does the most concerned party think of all of that? Harried by their allies in the region, the United States, though they may be a great power, find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They are torn between the often intense pressure from their allies in the region, especially Israel, and the obligations of American national interests which, in this case, consist of renewing relations with a major country in the region with which all contact has been broken since 1979, the date of the Khomeini revolution.
Just after his meeting with Netanyahu last Monday at the White House, Obama made a declaration in which he once again threatened Iran with military action … American officials have for years been uttering such threats each time they come under pressure from Israel and its “lobby.” That the American president once again utters the usual threat just one week after his telephone conversation with the Iranian president shows its ritualistic nature, which strongly resembles an empty gesture, and also shows Obama’s wish to spare himself the usual whining of his Israeli guest, a bit like giving candy to a temperamental and badly brought-up child just to get a minute’s peace.
However, if Israeli and Saudi pressure continues to be felt in Washington, another actor seems to be coming into play, one which Barack Obama cannot ignore — the American public who, if the polls are to be believed, is starting to take an interest in the country’s foreign policy and to have an influence on the direction this takes.
We can safely say that if Congress didn’t give the green light Obama needed for military intervention in Syria, it is because the majority of the American people were against a new American war in the Middle East. The majority of members of Congress listened to the voice of the people, their electors, as opposed to that of the president, and the war he desired did not take place after all. Just after the telephone conversation between Obama and Rouhani, a CNN/ORC international poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans support direct talks with Iran (76 percent “for” and 21 percent “against”). A worrying result for the Israelis and Saudis for, this time, it won’t be easy for them to get their lobbying heard. After having personally started a process of openness toward Iran, Obama cannot withdraw and tell the majority of his countrymen who support this process: “I can’t resume the dialogue with Iran because it will make Israel and Saudi Arabia angry”…
In fact, although it would appear that Riyadh and Tel Aviv are in the same camp, they are driven by different considerations and motives. Israel does not want the situation between Washington and Tehran to improve because it needs a werewolf-like Iran so that it can justify crying out every time it pretends to be frightened of being devoured. This tactic has proven very effective in the success of its core strategy: to ensure that the world forgets the Palestinian question. Indeed, since Israel started to feign terror when faced with the Iranian nuclear program, who remembers that there is a Palestinian people whose territory is occupied and whose children are oppressed?
The motives of Saudi Arabia and its GCC partners are different. In their eyes, Iran is attempting to establish a zone of influence in the form of a “Shiite crescent,” spreading from the west of Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. Saudi Arabia’s hounding of the Syrian regime and its incessant but unsuccessful efforts to convince Washington to attack Syria can only be explained by the Saudis’ desire to make a breach in this “Shiite crescent.” For them, it is a strategic necessity which is all the more urgent since the race for influence in Iraq has been won by Iran.
But what does the most concerned party think of all of that? Harried by their allies in the region, the United States, though they may be a great power, find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They are torn between the often intense pressure from their allies in the region, especially Israel, and the obligations of American national interests which, in this case, consist of renewing relations with a major country in the region with which all contact has been broken since 1979, the date of the Khomeini revolution.
Just after his meeting with Netanyahu last Monday at the White House, Obama made a declaration in which he once again threatened Iran with military action … American officials have for years been uttering such threats each time they come under pressure from Israel and its “lobby.” That the American president once again utters the usual threat just one week after his telephone conversation with the Iranian president shows its ritualistic nature, which strongly resembles an empty gesture, and also shows Obama’s wish to spare himself the usual whining of his Israeli guest, a bit like giving candy to a temperamental and badly brought-up child just to get a minute’s peace.
However, if Israeli and Saudi pressure continues to be felt in Washington, another actor seems to be coming into play, one which Barack Obama cannot ignore — the American public who, if the polls are to be believed, is starting to take an interest in the country’s foreign policy and to have an influence on the direction this takes.
We can safely say that if Congress didn’t give the green light Obama needed for military intervention in Syria, it is because the majority of the American people were against a new American war in the Middle East. The majority of members of Congress listened to the voice of the people, their electors, as opposed to that of the president, and the war he desired did not take place after all. Just after the telephone conversation between Obama and Rouhani, a CNN/ORC international poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans support direct talks with Iran (76 percent “for” and 21 percent “against”). A worrying result for the Israelis and Saudis for, this time, it won’t be easy for them to get their lobbying heard. After having personally started a process of openness toward Iran, Obama cannot withdraw and tell the majority of his countrymen who support this process: “I can’t resume the dialogue with Iran because it will make Israel and Saudi Arabia angry”…
Next article![]( "US, or the 'Banana Republic'")
