The US-led P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran are nothing more than a sorry replay of the Obama administration’s thrust to divest the Assad regime in Syria of its chemical weapons, a scenario which bolstered the Syrian leadership’s claim to legitimacy. Over 201,000 Syrians have been killed and many millions have been displaced, so merely divesting Syria of its chemical weapons arsenal has done little to prevent the ongoing carnage. Indeed, Syrian forces are currently making gains with the assistance of Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hezbollah partnered with hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) members.
President Obama blinked on launching military strikes on regime targets and abandoned opposition fighters in so doing. Shipping out Syria’s chemical weapons stocks was nothing more than a token effort to prove to the world that the mighty US was doing something. Now the US and its allies are scrambling to train and equip “moderate” opposition militias and are calling for further sanctions on the regime. Too little, too late! Indeed, just last month, one of the leaders of the IRG’s elite Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, boasted “From Bahrain and Iraq to Syria, Yemen and North Africa…we are witnessing the export of the Islamic revolution (read Shiite revolution) throughout the region.”
Critics of the Iranian deal currently being hammered out before the supposed end-July deadline — most prominent among them, the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu — say it will ultimate leave Iran free to become a nuclear-armed threshold state able to produce bombs in one year or less. They point to the fact that although North Korea’s nuclear facilities were being monitored by the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, the leadership simply threw the inspectors out to reignite its nuclear weapons ambitions.
However, even if the assumptions of Netanyahu and his US following turned out to be correct, the Iranian ayatollahs have never displayed suicidal tendencies; even if Iran produced nukes, they wouldn’t be deployed because of swift and devastating repercussions. The bomb would only be valuable to Iran as a deterrent. But that doesn’t mean there would be serious downsides for this region.
Firstly, the Iranian leadership would be emboldened to expand its influence over yet more Arab territory, and secondly, a nuclear-armed Iran would trigger regional nuclear proliferation — unwise in a neighborhood where terrorists are commandeering military sites. Just merely imagining a group like the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda with nukes at its disposal is enough to make anyone shudder.
The main problem with America’s scheme to turn long time foe into friend is that the deal is focused on resolving just one aspect or preempting a situation that doesn’t currently exist. The nuclear file should be part and parcel of comprehensive negotiations that should include Tehran’s interference in Syria and Yemen where Iran is openly flying-in weapons to consolidate the grip of Shiite Houthi militias over that historic Arab heartland where Sunnis count for 55 percent of the population. However, in the long run, Houthis will require more than arms to maintain their supremacy; that will take money, lots of it. And whereas Tehran might be tempted to be as generous to the Houthis as it has been to Hezbollah, it is currently cash-strapped due to anti-Iranian sanctions. But once those sanctions are lifted, its coffers will swiftly re-fill with revenue garnered from oil sales, which could indirectly benefit the Houthis and other Iranian proxies.
The White House is just as short-sighted on Iraq, where Iranian forces are fighting alongside the Iraqi Army to liberate Saddam Hussein’s hometown Tikrit from IS fighters. According to the New York Times, “More openly than ever before, Iran’s powerful influence in Iraq has been on display as the counteroffensive against Islamic State militants around Tikrit has unfolded in recent days. At every point, the Iranian-backed militias have taken the lead in the fight against the Islamic State here. Senior Iranian leaders have been openly helping direct the battle, and American officials say Iran’s Revolutionary Guards forces are taking part.”
The paper highlights the fact that US airstrikes “have not been brought to bear in this new and crucial battle”. That’s probably because, although the US has given Iran the green light to intervene militarily, it doesn’t want to be seen as partnering the IRG in this particular fight. There are two ways of looking at this. Iran should be commended for being the only country willing to put boots on the ground to free Iraq from IS; on the other, Iran is motivated by the expansion of its influence, which is likely to alienate Sunni tribes and dampen hopes that they can be wrested from the sway of the Islamic State with persuasion.
Interestingly, while Washington smiles at Iran’s involvement in Iraq, it frowned upon Egypt’s retaliatory strikes against IS in Libya, which were authorized by the internationally-recognized Libyan government.
If Sunni Arab states fear the US is quietly throwing them under a bus, who can blame them! This is why the idea of a joint Arab defensive force that will top the agenda of the Arab League’s annual summit, to be held at the end of this month in Sharm-El-Sheikh, should be treated with the urgency it deserves.
