November 14, 2006
Dangers of Iran’s bid for regional hegemony
Off-the-record interviews are tricky for journalists. They are often the best way of getting somebody important to speak frankly. But then what are you meant to do with the information? The usual tactic is to sprinkle your articles with quotes from “senior officials”. The difficulty is that, depending on the contacts and scruples of the journalist involved, the phrase “senior official” can cover anyone from the US Secretary of State, to the doorman at 10 Downing Street.
So it is with some hesitation that I am about to offer you gobbets from a long interview that I have just done with a “senior official” dealing with the Middle East.
The discussion struck me as particularly interesting because of the extremely dark view the individual concerned had of the future – and of the role played by Iran. If this particular senior official had been an Israeli or an American or even a Briton, I wouldn’t have been too surprised to hear such views. But he is none of these. My interviewee has a longstanding and continuing involvement in the Middle East peace process and personal knowledge of all the major protagonists. So I expected him to say something like this: “The situation is worrying, but there are areas we can make progress in. In particular it is vital to make a new effort on the Israeli-Palestinian problem and to engage Iran and Syria.”
Not a bit of it.
This is what he really said: “In my opinion we are heading into really dark times,” with a momentum towards further wars that he regards as “unstoppable”. He sees the major destabilising force in the region as an expansionist and over-confident Iran, that is bidding for regional dominance. In his opinion the war in Lebanon over the summer was the “first Israel-Iran war in all but name.” He believes that there will be further Iranian-Israeli wars – perhaps next year.
The Iranians and Syrians he believes are very confident at the moment, since they regard the Lebanese war as a major setback for Israel. He is one of those who believes that Hizbollah unleashed the fighting, more or less on the direct orders of Tehran. Under pressure because of their nuclear plans, “the Iranians wanted to show that they could destabilise the region just like that”. The Iranians are also using their nuclear programme to further their regional ambitions. A regional nuclear arms race is already beginning.
My interlocutor has met President Ahmadi-Nejad and describes him as “truly scary”. He adds that he is used to dealing with populist Arab leaders, “but when you talk to them in private, they are usually quite reasonable and rational. Ahmadi-Nejad is not like that.” His impression is that Ahmadi-Nejad is now calling the shots in Iran, and has intimidated the moderates into silence: “They are all scared of him.”
He believes that Iran is currently stirring up trouble in many different areas including Lebanon, the Israeli occupied territories and Iraq. Iraq he believes is becoming the “arena for a regional power struggle”, pitting Sunnis against Shia. The Sunni Arab states see themselves as engaged in an ancient struggle with the Persians for dominance of the region. Syria has become detached from its natural Arab allies and is now firmly in the Iranian camp. But it is also the “weak link” in the Iranian alliance and can expect to come under enormous pressure as a result.
As for the moderate Arab states – the Saudis, the Jordanians and the Egyptians – “they have all told me they expect this to end in war”. They are also much more concerned about Iran than Israel, because “they know that Israel is not really an expansionist power”. Indeed the moderate Arab states would like to form a de facto alliance with Israel to contain Iran – but opinion on the “Arab street” prevents them from doing it.
The next round of the struggle will kick off internally in Lebanon. Indeed it may already be underway as Hizbollah threatens to take to the streets to back up its political demands. My interlocutor is worried that these crises are unfolding at a time when the world is desperately short of experienced leadership – “Blair is going, Chirac is going, Annan is going. The situation is terrifying.”
As far as I can tell, the British seem to share much of this analysis. A “senior official” (that phrase again) says that the analysis I’ve outlined above is “basically right. Iran is looking for every opportunity it can to exert pressure. They are brazenly interfering in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine … They are fuelling military conflicts all over the region and so far they have been able to do this with impunity.” When Tony Blair talks to the Baker study group on Iraq today, the official says “our main message is not going to be you must talk to Iran and Syria. It just isn’t. It’s one of the things that we will recommend, but it’s about fourth on the list”. Higher up that list will be a lot of predictable stuff about building up capacity within Iraq itself and “intensifying the boring old stuff we’re doing already”, he said.
Obviously, those are just two views – albeit from well-placed individuals. All I can say is, I hope they are wrong.
I am an Iranian and I had never seen such a load of tosh in an article, save for the ones appearing extremist Israeli or NeoCon (is there a real difference?) outlets.
Virtually every paragraph repeats another piece of NeoCon propaganda:
- It suggests that Hezbollah started the summer conflict whereas we all know credibly that Tel Aviv and Washington were actively on the lookout to start a war against the Hezbollah and if it weren’t for the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, they would have picked another reason to attack. The refusal of Washington and London to call for a ceasefire is testament to their desire for this particular conflict.
- The article suggests that Ahmadinejad has taken over in Tehran and browbeaten others. Nothing is further from the truth. Constitutionally, the Iranian president is probably less powerful that the British Home Secretary and this particular president’s stock is pretty low internally. He has been slapped down a couple of times by the Supreme Leader and the parliament (Majlis) have shown him who’s in charge by vetoing some of his major ministerial appointments. The probable selection of the former president, Rafsanjani, to the Council of Guardians is another evidence of the ascendancy of the pragmatic faction.
- Iran is not, as suggested by the article, seeking regional hegemony. Indeed, Iran’s aims are more defensive than offensive. For example, having been the subject of an American-supported onslaught by Saddam Hossein, Iran is keen that the next Iraqi government should be a good neighbour and having seen the rise of the Taliban, under the auspices of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus (itself and American affiliate), Iran is also legitimately concerned about what Americans do next in Afghanistan.
Moreover, given the presence of the Israeli military and intelligence personnel in Iraqi Kurdistan, with the obvious purpose of fomenting ethnic unrest and civil war in the Kurdish areas of Iran and Iraq, it is clear that the Tehran authorities need to keep a wary eye in that area too.
Is this so hard to understand?
- The “moderate” Saudis and Jordanians who are so concerned about Iran should look to themselves as the societies who gave rise to Bin Laden and Zarqawi respectively.
-As for your “senior official” from Britain saying that the Iranians are “brazenly interfering in Iraq, Lebanon Palestine”, I would say that the same and more could be said of Britain itself. An Island nation, nearly 3,000 miles away. Why should Britain feel entitled to interfere in the region, but not Iran whose immediate security is at stake?
Enough said?
Posted by: Pacifist | November 21st, 2006 at 2:00 am | Report this commentIran is aggressive because it is unstable. Less than half of its population is Persian, the rest are Azeris (Turks), Arabs and Curds with their own national agendas. The area will not be peaceful till there is a redrawing of borders as it was done in the Balkans. The current civil was in Irak proves that the postcolonial entities are untenable. Leaders will rise to carry out what is claiming to be done. In Israel we only hope that it will be done without us, so we can focus on the Nasdaq.
Posted by: jaim klein | November 30th, 2006 at 11:21 am | Report this comment