The regional situation is oscillating between two extremes at present. One extreme is the negotiations to treat the major crises that have been raging for a decade now, from Afghanistan to Iraq, passing through Palestine, and ending with Lebanon and Syria. There is also the extreme of continued clashing and escalating confrontations; at the minimum these are wars by proxy, or wars that stand out as an alternative to total confrontation, as a result of the failed negotiation opportunities. These opportunities arose when the Obama administration opened up to Iran and Syria, distancing itself from the former US policy of total identification with Israeli policies vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue. This policy has produced disasters, wars and American fiascos; some of those close to Obama must have concluded that indulging Israel's racist obstinacy has led them to where they are today. Without being deluded into thinking that the White House has decided to actually distance itself from its ally Israel, we should note the following fact: the sense of harm that has resulted from a complete identification with Israel has prompted the Americans to search for a formula that would halt Israel's rush toward wars, which take its chief ally along for the ride. The AIPAC conference in Washington saw a campaign by American Jewish activists, who demonstrated and called on the Jewish state's leaders to "liberate Gaza" and halt their atrocities against the Palestinian people. This is not a mere detail, or a passing incident. Perhaps this symbolizes that the change in the approach to the region's crisis in Washington rests on a change in the orientation of American society, and even in the Jewish lobby in the US. This has prompted Israel's current extremist leaders to be pro-active, by asking its supporters in Congress to intervene with Obama, so that he does not pressure Israel much in the peace process with the Palestinians. The extremist ruling group in Israel is most worried by Washington's tasking two people who are closest to the Jewish state, Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, with asking Israel, at the AIPAC conference, to halt settlements and accept a two-state solution… and inform it that it and the Palestinians are facing the "moment of truth." The US-Israeli debate can be summarized by the formula that America and Europe are striving hard to convince Israel of: in order to combat the Iranian nuclear threat, Israel must help close the "Palestinian file" and make serious progress in the Arab-Israeli peace process. If Israel faces a real moment of truth, it will take a decision on either issue that will be most dangerous for it; it is trying to solve the second issue to free itself up for the first one. Meanwhile, the White House is facing its own "moment of truth," with regard to the degree that it can push Israel in the direction of a two-state solution. However, the irony lies in the following: just as we should not be too deluded by the US stance, the current oscillation in the region, between the extremes of negotiation and confrontation, assumes that no one should be deluded into thinking that the course of defiance and confrontation is what governs the policies of regional players, especially the Syrian-Iranian axis. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expects that "the international order has reached its end," as he said a few days ago in Damascus, negotiations are taking place, whether for a short or long period of time, between Washington and Tehran, and between Tehran and the White House. This has required sending US Defense Secretary Bill Gates to reassure Egypt and Saudi Arabia that dialogue with Iran will not be at the expense of Washington's Arab friends. Likewise, Tehran and Damascus need, from time to time, to reassure each other about the extent that each is willing to go in negotiating with Washington, and about the coordination between the two negotiation tracks. This was one of the tasks of the recent Syrian-Iranian summit, in addition to arranging the "bargaining chips" of confrontation, which at the same time are a device of negotiation. In any event, when the oscillation between the extremes of negotiation and confrontation continues to linger, it creates understandings between the concerned countries and opens up negotiating tracks and agreements about a portion of the topics on the table, such as an agreement on the steps to be taken in Afghanistan (between Iran and the US), and the progress in seeing a Syrian-Israeli peace (for Damascus). Between these two extremes, there is no interest for the small players in escalation, as if they were still in a state of "alternative wars." The commemoration of the one year anniversary of 7 May in Lebanon took place this week, and there is no interest for Hezbollah in adopting, now, the rhetoric of accusing rivals of treason, as it did in the run-up to last year's conflict. Al-Hayat 08-05-2009
