Ask any Arab whether he or she thinks the US will attack Iran and the answer invariably comes that it will. The consensus of opinion that Washington has Iran in its sights as the next Middle East target is almost an article of faith in the region — unquestioned, accepted, believed — and not just in the Middle East but across much of South Asia and beyond. This paper is only too well aware of it. On an almost daily basis we receive letters denouncing Washington’s expected attack on Iran, either directly or by the Israelis as proxy.
But how realistic is any of this? That war drums are being beaten in the US is all too evident. The bellicose warnings of an Iranian nuclear threat and the need to act before it is too late come all too regularly from unreconstructed neocon voices intent on frightening the American public into voting Republican in November. So it is hardly surprising that people in the Middle East believe an attack is going to happen. Nor does it help that President George W.Bush continues to state that although he prefers diplomacy all options remain on the table. That sort of talk is profoundly unhelpful. It serves to convince many that, deep down, his intentions toward Iran are bellicose. If he genuinely prefers diplomacy, he could so easily say, when asked about any planned attack on Iran, that he does not look at events that way, that it is not a very helpful question, that things will not get to that stage. A more inspired diplomatic response would certainly take some of the tension out of the air.
It is not just in the US that the war drums are being beaten. They are being beaten in Tehran as well, and for much the same reason. There are Iranian populist politicians who want to rally support — and what better way than to play up the threat from the US.
But are they just that, war drums, nothing more?
It is a fair bet that if suspicions about US intentions toward Iran will not dissipate when the Bush administration goes, then at least it will reduce significantly. After all, they more or less started with his “Axis of evil” speech in 2002 in which he accused Iran, North Korea and Iraq of planning nuclear weapons and posing a massive threat to world peace. Not that relations between Washington and Tehran were cordial beforehand; frozen is the more apt word. After such a long winter, it is difficult to believe that a thaw could ever occur, but there are signs of one on the horizon. In the US, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen recently went on record to quash any idea of a US strike against Iran. Opening up a third regional military front, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, would be too problematic for the US and too risky, he said. As for an Israeli strike, the Middle East is unstable enough as it is; he did not want it to become even more so. Now from Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki comes the possibility that Iran will consider restoring partial diplomatic relations with the US and the opening of a US interest section in Tehran.
There have been signs before of an improvement in US-Iranian relations, only to be dashed by general enmity. But there is always hope. Moreover, there are good grounds for believing that the neocons and their militant take on international relations will soon be history, regardless of who wins the White House in November.
From an Arab perspective, there must be change in the relationship. As the admiral said, the region is unstable as it is (what a pity President Bush could not mouth such good common sense). Unlike him, though, we live here. We have greater reason to want it more stable, not less.
