The Shah of Iran once revealed that the Late King Hassan al-Thani's state visit to Tehran in 1968, represented the first occasion on which he entered the Iranian capital on board a convertible car. When he was asked about his aversion to what was purely protocol in the course of greeting his hosts, Reza Pahlavi said that this was because he feared for his life. Was he aware that the distance separating him from sensing the sentiment opposed to his tyrannical regime, had made him seek shelter in an armored vehicle? Or had the merciless physical liquidations of his opponents made him see gun nozzles aimed at his head everywhere? This picture has not changed much. Those who ride in convertible cars replaced them with plots made under cover of darkness to assassinate others, on the basis of calculations that aim at stirring sedition. They are unable to understand that the logic of our modern times no longer allows for the perpetration of follies like a new Lockerbie-style attack. The location also has its symbolism as Washington was selected to pull off this kind of treachery. Similarly, putting the name of the Saudi ambassador in Washington on a hit list only means that this operation was meant as a smokescreen as well, so that the blame may fall on other extremist factions. The Americans realized that moving the battle, in this way that defies diplomatic norms and international laws, to Washington D.C., implies that the hidden intention was to start a fire, not the least in order to divert attention away from what is taking place in the Middle East, and achieve a security breakthrough in order to bring back the time of terrorist attacks such as the one that took place one black September. Iran has failed to find itself a place under the sun of international accord that rejects terrorism and encourages moderation, and is now suffering increasingly from isolation, given the defeats that its regional alliances are being dealt. For this reason, Iran may have resorted to this, in order to let the Americans specifically know that its strengths are the same and that they have not been impacted. However, Iran's selection of the Saudi Arabian symbolism as the target, based on miscalculations and bad judgment, has pushed it into a pit of unforgivable sins. When Morocco decided to sever its diplomatic relations with the Mullahs' regime in Tehran, some voices rose to object as they thought that the distance between the two countries could prevent Iranian meddling from extending to Morocco, the most distant country in the western part of the Islamic world. Back then, Rabat responded by rejecting any interference in its domestic affairs. It also expressed its surprise over the Iranian reactions to the Moroccan stances in support of the Kingdom of Bahrain. The Iranian adventure that was thwarted in the cradle has demonstrated that the distance between Tehran and Washington did not constitute a barrier to prevent the terrorization of Al-Riyadh in Washington or the terrorization of Washington by targeting the Saudi embassy. It is the same thing either way, as long as the goal is one and as long as they make no differentiation between the closest point to Iran in the Gulf area, or the furthest point in North Africa, or the even further point: the United States of America. Such developments that cross distances prove that Iran has clear intentions to destabilize many Arab countries. Its hostility towards several moderate Arab countries has grown to become an Iranian policy of its own right. By contrast, no Arab countries have ever been accused of interfering in Iran's domestic affairs. On the contrary, the Arab countries with the highest commitment to international legitimacy have extended their hands towards Iran, to help the latter overcome its delusions of religious and sectarian wars, and the pitfalls of exporting its revolution. Neither Iran nor any other country can possibly exceed their actual regional mass. Similarly, Iran must know that its record of trouble-making, which is not the policy of a balanced country, cannot remain unpunished. Forcing the Arab neighborhood to be constantly cautious and alert in the face of the Iranian hegemony projects does not actually serve Iranian interests. The Arab world has far more vital issues to be concerned about than to be absorbed into tensions that could have been avoided through agreements, good neighborly actions, and respecting the population's desires in selecting their general directions. What Iran is doing is no more than attempts at rubbing salt in the wounds. Perhaps Iran is forgetting that Saudi Arabia was the first country that called for an Islamic summit hosted by Rabat in order to join the forces of the Islamic and Arab worlds to create a strong bloc to defend the nation's vital causes. It is quite ironic that, as this major alliance has formed an important political and economic power valued in the entire world, Tehran is adamant on dealing a deep blow to this strategic direction. What good would it do for Tehran to fly outside the flock of Arab-Islamic accord? Tehran is planting landmines on a road that the Saudi initiatives keep on paving with further wisdom, credibility and composure.
