NCRI – Arab News, in an article titled "Choices Before Iran" wrote: Iran’s policy direction is driving that country toward a dangerous path. It seems …Iran has two options: Either continue with the offensive option or take the North Korean option.
The first option places Iran in a state of direct confrontation not only with the United States and European countries but also with the Arab and Islamic countries, particularly the Gulf states, Arab News added.
Choices Before Iran
By: Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi
Source: Arab News
Arab News Since President Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union address grouped together Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil,” Iran has felt threatened. Determined to defend itself against any possible US aggression, Iran intensified its military buildup, formulated alliances with countries of shared interests and goals in the region, and announced on Aug. 14, 2002 the revival of its peaceful nuclear program, which it could potentially turn into a nuclear weapon program if needed as argued by Westerners.
These Iranian actions were seen by the neighboring countries, at first, as legitimate policies for any country that is targeted and wants to defend itself against a foreign strike. With the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Iran felt more threatened and started to oppose Washington’s policies in the region in an attempt to weaken the US position there and defeat the American agenda for promoting freedom and democracy. Simultaneously, Iran meddled with the internal affairs of Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories displaying a potential role capable of threatening peace and stability in the area.
This aroused the fears and concerns of the Gulf states who saw in Iranian actions a threat to the peace and stability in their own backyard. The standoff between the United States and Iran forced Saudi Arabia to play an active role to reduce tension in a troubled region. The Kingdom held a summit in Makkah so the various factions in Iraq could work out their differences. It sponsored the Makkah Agreement between Fatah and Hamas that ironed out the differences between these two Palestinian factions leading to the formation of a national unity government. Saudi Arabia also worked extremely hard to ease off the disagreements between the opposing parties in Lebanon by encouraging the political leaders to resume talks around the table of “National Dialogue.”
However, all of Saudi Arabia’s efforts were frustrated by Iran’s refusal to cooperate with them. As a result, Iraq is in turmoil. Tensions between Sunnis and Shiites surfaced for the first time in Iraq causing horrendous massacres and brutal atrocities on both sides. On the other hand, the Makkah Agreement sponsored by Saudi Arabia between the two major Palestinian factions was disrupted setting off a geopolitical division between Gaza Strip and the West Bank territories.
Meanwhile, Lebanon remains threatened as an independent sovereign state due to the irreconcilable standoff between the government and the opposition. Lebanon is completely paralyzed, its political institutions are dysfunctional, its economy is stagnant, and the peaceful coexistence of various Lebanese sects, especially the Sunnis and the Shiites, is under threat. All these heighten fears and concerns about the security and stability of the region.
Saudi and Iranian leaders were particularly concerned with these developments and therefore met and were able to control the viciousness of the sectarian clashes but could not agree on other regional issues due to conflicting national interests. Historically, barring minor disagreements, Saudi Arabia and Iran have had good relations with each other. They made joined efforts during the Shah regime in confronting the spread of communism and radical nationalism in the region. Both the regimes cooperated well inside the OPEC. But following the Iranian revolution, the relations took a different course as Tehran launched a policy of exporting the revolution to the Gulf region.
Tension also increased during the Iraq-Iran war but was contained toward the end of the war. Iran realized then that its policies and actions, as was noted by President Rafsanjani, were causing anxiety to Saudi Arabia and its neighbors. Eventually, relations were normalized and Iran was drawn back into friendly relations with all the Gulf states. Yet, Iran’s interference in the Arab affairs and the attempts to undermine their security and stability is turning the whole region against it once more.
What is worrisome is that Iran is trying to impose a form of regime similar to its own that adheres to a dual leadership, one religious and the other political, on Iraq, Gaza, or Lebanon. Such a regime, it is thought, would promote the basic Iranian interests. All these Iranian endeavors in those troubled countries prompt one to raise some pertinent questions.What is the main goal behind Iran’s hegemonic ambitions? Where are the Iranians heading with their buildup of nuclear capabilities? How should we interpret Iran’s policies in the region? Is their foreign policy a defensive one or an offensive one? Can their actions stand up to the challenges of the US power? All these need some valid and transparent answers from the Iranian leadership.
Today, Iran’s policy direction is driving that country toward a dangerous path. It seems to me that Iran has two options: Either continue with the offensive option or take the North Korean option.
The first option places Iran in a state of direct confrontation not only with the United States and European countries but also with the Arab and Islamic countries, particularly the Gulf states.
This option has not helped Iran resolve its standoff with the United States but has heightened the possibility of a US strike against its nuclear installations. It has also jeopardized its friendly relations with the regional countries. The other option is to follow the North Korean example.
Thus Iran could consider bringing to a halt its nuclear program while strengthening its economic and security ties with the Gulf states and others in the region. It will then enhance its security and work with the neighboring states to achieve common economic goals.The Gulf region is economically and strategically vital to the Western industrialized world. Any threat to its security and stability will not be taken lightly neither by the United States nor by the rest of the free world. Iran must rethink its foreign policy direction simply because what it has been following so far has not served its national interests or enhanced its security.
The Iranian people deserve peace and stability and should hope for a better future of growth and prosperity instead of violence and war. The policies Tehran pursues in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and Bahrain can only be construed as a hostile strategy that will only lead to more foreign interventions and increased military bases in our region. Our region needs to work out with all the surrounding countries on development, reform, and progress, not on inviting foreign aggression, mayhem, and backwardness.
Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She holds a doctorate from Canberra University in Australia. E-mail at [email protected]
