All attention in the region is on Iran again. The new incentive package proposed by the European Union does not seem to have persuaded Tehran.
With George Bush’s days in the White House numbered, some believe the US will attack Iran before the new president takes over next year. Israel appears to be more agitated than normal, openly threatening Iran with an attack of its own. Arab countries are caught again between two bad choices: the US and Iran.
Given the war record of the Bush administration, it would not be a surprise if the US attacked Iran in the next six months. In all likelihood, the attack will target Iran’s nuclear facilities and hence will be limited, not a massive military campaign. Americans hope to stop if not totally destroy Iran’s nuclear program. The recent EU incentive package could be the last bait before the Bush administration tells its European friends that it will attack Iran with or without the Europeans.
Not only the Israeli lobby in Washington, but the State of Israel also joined the official fanfare against Iran. What would Israel do in case of an attack on Iran? If, in response, Iran attacks US targets in Iraq and the Gulf as well as Israel, then Israel’s response would be, in the words of a British diplomat, “irrational,” because Israel considers Iran an “existential threat.” Cornered with such a threat perception, Israel, some say, is likely to launch a major military campaign and consider use of its nuclear weaponry. With the open support of the Bush administration and the silent acquiescence of Arab countries, Israel may want to take on Iran by herself.
But the question remains: Can things really go wild? The balance of power in the region is so delicate these days that having major military capability is a political burden. What brought an end to Ehud Olmert’s political career was the war he started and then lost against Hezbullah. For the first time in decades, the myth of the invincible Israeli Army has been shattered. The Israelis may not have lost much confidence in their military abilities. The Israeli security and defense community took home many lessons from the war with Hezbullah. But what is more significant is the confidence gained by Arab resistance movements and Iran.
The growing Arab uneasiness about Iran’s influence in the region is no secret. Iran’s activities in Iraq, Lebanon and the Gulf are watched closely and with concern. The threat perception toward Iran is not only political; it is also social and religious. The so-called “Shia revival,” to use Vali Nasr’s book title, may lead to the rise of an Arab Shiite political power in the region. Yet if not handled carefully, it may also lead to the further isolation of Arab Shiite communities, as well as Iran. If the Shiite communities in the region are seen as stooges of Tehran, this will inflame not only anti-Iranian but also anti-American sentiments. This may look like a paradox, but the reality is that this “Shia revival” is seen as an American plan.
No country in the region is prepared to open the gates of democracy to ethnic, religious or sectarian minorities. Iraq is a big and painful lesson for all Arab countries with multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian populations. The ethnic-sectarian politics of identity have brought Iraq to the brink of socio-political disintegration. US plans before and after the invasion did nothing but to deepen Iraqi disintegration. Now the Iraqi leadership, from Shiite and Sunni Arabs to Kurds, has the daunting task of finding a secret formula to keep Iraq together. In case of an attack on Iran, the Arab countries will not unite behind Iran. Will they campaign against such an attack and take a position against the Bush administration? That is hard to tell. They may keep silent. But I don’t think the Arab regimes will be able to control the Arab street. Given the failures of US policies in the region, any country or leader that has the guts to challenge America will generate enough excitement to find support in the Arab public opinion. If the Americ