New York-Each of Russia, China and the European countries play roles that are necessary for the Middle East to avoid wars that might break out unintentionally if the atmosphere of scare-mongering and the discourse of escalation and threats were to continue. There is nothing to indicate that war is coming to the region as a result of a planned decision, neither from Israel nor Iran, nor from Iran's partners and allies in Palestine, Iraq or Lebanon. There is however fear of an uncontrolled war that would be caused by enticement or arrogance, revenge or anticipation, directly or by proxy. This is what the international community as a whole should be aware of and take steps to prevent. The United States certainly plays essential roles in the different developments taking place in the Middle East and the Gulf region. Yet it is wrong and dangerous to leave the Barack Obama Administration in the forefront of “failure” with Iran or with Israel because of the obstinacy of both in dealing with this administration. Indeed, the Obama Administration has nearly become besieged from the inside, which could drive it to comply with the calls of Republicans and Neoconservatives for military action against Iran and for blindly embracing everything Israel wants, however costly it may be for the US's national interest and relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. Furthermore, it is in effect besieged from the outside, because of Iran's insistence on returning Obama's outstretched hand as a slap to the face, and because of Israel's resolve to thwart the two-state solution and fabricate anything that would destroy the kind of normal relationship Obama has sought with the Muslim World. This dual siege might lead to Obama leaving the White House after one term in office – a matter which Russia, China and the European should ponder, as they should consider what would follow and what it would mean for the bilateral relations Barack Obama has sought after with these countries as well as for international relations. Yet what is pressing today is the necessity of being aware of the consequences of allowing those who are defiant to dictate the steps that drive to wars that might not be traditional and would most likely come at a high cost for everyone without exceptions. The instruments of preventing a downward spiral towards such a fate are not just American, Arab and European, but also Russian and Chinese par excellence. The time has come to make use of all the available channels and instruments to avoid uncontrolled wars and infernal destructive plans for the region. For starters, and for the sake of assertion and clarification, the drums of war which are being beaten in the region during this period reek of mere scare-mongering and noise, nothing more. An in-depth analysis of what is taking place on the international scene through the relationship of the great powers amongst themselves and their relations with players in the Middle East and the Gulf does not indicate any countdown to wars or to any military confrontations at the present time. The furthest extent at this stage takes the form of sanctions against Iran and pressures towards serious negotiations with a clear reference on Israel. There is an understanding over broad lines in the two issues, that of Iran and that of Israel, and yet there are weaknesses in both. US efforts in both issues seem to be moving in a vicious circle and in a time gap dictated by those two players, in order to procrastinate, exhaust or impose what both of them want as a de facto situation at the end of the day. Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli issue and the efforts being exerted by US Special Envoy George Mitchell, what is spoiling these efforts are not just the incapacitating stances taken by regional players, but also the pace adopted by Mitchell, who is nearly eighty years old. The man spent nine months and has not yet reached a formula for negotiations that would be acceptable to both sides. The creator of the peace process, which started at the Madrid Conference twenty years ago, James Baker, spent nine months on shuttle trips and real pressures which led to recording a precedent in Arab-Israeli relations. Mitchell, on the other hand, seems convinced that negotiations take a long time by nature and does not seem to be in a hurry. The fact of the matter is that he has to think at a quicker pace or else his president will leave the White House defeated and “failed”, with neither peace nor a second term. Regardless of who committed the tactical mistakes and of who played the media card, Barack Obama remains the first US President to have come to the office with the determination of seriously resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and to say at the beginning of his term to the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council – China, Russia, Britain and France – as to the United Nations and the European Union: let us be partners in making peace in the Middle East. In the past, the problem, in Russia's opinion for example, had lied in the insistence of the United States of America to monopolize the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of finding solutions to it. What Barack Obama has done was to abandon such monopoly and call for international partnership. And that is one of the reasons that made the Israeli lobby angry with him and at him. Today Barack Obama's envoy is trying to arrange for proximity talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and he has made sure to inform the Quartet concerned with driving the peace process forward of every detail and occurrence. This Quartet, comprising the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, has not played the roles required of it, and has in fact often stood by watching. The time has come to stop watching and to bear responsibility for belonging to the Quartet with the aim of exerting group effort in making peace. China might want membership in the Quartet, and it might be the one which originally did not want to join and get involved in this issue which is not one of its priorities. As for Europe, Russia and the United Nations, represented by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, they are all today required to stop hiding behind “the US role” to avoid what must be done. Ban Ki-moon hinted, through his Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe, before the Security Council to what can be considered to be the formula that could allow the Palestinian Authority to agree to proximity talks. He supported proximity talks and spoke in the language of the reference for negotiations required at the Palestinian level. Pascoe said: “We continue to stress the importance of doing everything possible to ensure that negotiations lead in a clear time frame to an agreement resolving all final status issues, including Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security, settlements and water”. This is a reference. He also said: “We remain committed to an end to the occupation that began in 1967, an end to the conflict through the creation of an independent Palestinian State living side by side with Israel in peace and security, and comprehensive regional peace, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, previous agreements, the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative”. That is a reference. It is true that these are principles and a reference put forth by the Secretary-General of the United Nations through his representative at the Security Council, but Ban Ki-moon should personally emphasize and repeat it without fear or hesitation. What is required is the boldness to be clear and to declare these issues a reference from the point of view of the United Nations as a member of the Quartet. And this is exactly what Russia and the European Union should do. Perhaps Europe, which is dispersed in much ambivalence when it comes to the Palestinian issue, is unwilling or unable to adopt a collective stance as simple as including the reference of proximity talks. This does not spare it of moral responsibility, and the time has come to demand of Europe that it ceases to hide behind its financial aid to the Palestinian as a justification for its retrogressive stances. Perhaps one of the best ways to achieve this would be for Arab countries that have the financial capability to do so to take the initiative of supporting the Palestinian Authority, international agencies such as the UNRWA and the Palestinian people in a European-style institutional manner. As for Russia, it has always played the game of multiple tracks in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It thus tried to be a partner in sponsoring negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, at a time when it was strengthening the Hamas movement to purposely undermine the PA. Indeed, Moscow has done its regional calculations within the strategy of its central relations with Iran and Syria, and thus with Hezbollah and Hamas, yet without ever relinquishing the centrality of its Israeli relations. Its stances therefore contain some inconsistencies and attempts to be clever which sometimes lead to encouraging defiance and making mistakes. The Iraq war is an American war that took place despite the fact that the international community denied the United States the legitimate authority to wage it which it sought after at the Security Council. Russia and China tried to prevent the war by denying it authority, but they encouraged toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to be arrogant and obstinate, to make wrong calculations and estimations, and to bring war upon Iraq. This happened because the two countries made Saddam Hussein feel that he was above accountability, instead of using the special relation they had with him to drive him to think deeply instead of bringing war upon his country. Perhaps Russia or China did not have in mind to purposely mislead Iraq's leadership, yet what happened was the result of their being mislead anyway, and this is exactly what must be avoided in the issue of Iran, where Russia and China have a special relationship with the Iranian leadership, which they now use at varying degrees to convince and entice them of the track of negotiations and diplomacy, and in order to buy time for everyone. What the Iranian leadership should hear from Russia and China must be clear and resolute in terms of what is required of it at the nuclear and regional levels, and what the limits of its protection from accountability and from the framework of trade-offs are. Indeed, the regime in Iran threatens itself, its people and its neighbors, and pledges to punish the world if anyone tries to topple it. What it is being offered, in effect, is international recognition of it and of its “legitimacy”, in exchange for curtailing its nuclear and regional ambitions. Yet it snubs the offer and wants more. By that it puts itself and its neighborhood at risk, because excessive condescension, threatening, arrogance and obstinacy can lead to wars that happen by mistake or as a result of a mistake. If the Iranian leadership is going to extremes and threatening with wars in order to broker a better deal, one that would ensure the survival of the regime, as well as its domination of Iraq and its influence in Palestine and Lebanon through Hamas and Hezbollah, in addition to silence over its advanced nuclear capabilities, then the time has come for a serious session between the Russian and Chinese leaderships and that of Iran, in order to curb Iran's expectations and calculations, which are based on its interpretation of its Chinese and Russian relations. This is how Russia and China would seriously contribute to helping avoid uncontrolled and destructive wars for the Middle East and the Gulf. Yet this must be coupled with a clear and serious message to the Israeli leadership, warning it against military recklessness with Iran or through Lebanon in clear red lines, and in partnership with the US and Europe, a message that would hold another aspect, signifying that Israel too and not just Iran is seriously likely to have its cover of exemption from accountability removed.
