Iran was quick to deny any involvement in what has come to be known as the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, through the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and also President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tehran saw in the charges made against it an attempt to further isolate it, citing the lack of evidence in those charges. But denying involvement is natural, regardless of the particulars of the plot. The American accusations against Tehran cannot be considered to be just yet another chapter of an old-new list of accusations. They differ in nature from previous frictions between the two sides. The series of bloody frictions is well-known, from the bombings in Lebanon to those in Iraq, some carried out directly and others by proxy. However, all these operations were characteristically professional and left no direct traces, unlike those that we find in the last attempt that was thwarted. The most sinister aspect of the new frictions is that they are now taking place on U.S. soil itself. But moving the battle to U.S. soil has an exorbitant price. Al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks are still fresh. This menacing danger was evident in the comments made by members of Congress who were quick to criticize the policy of engagement pursued by Barack Obama with Tehran, and which prevented him from extending support to the "Green Revolution" that the Iranian authorities succeeded in suppressing. The charges made by the U.S. were received with skepticism or questioning in some circles. The fiasco of the Iraq war encourages this kind of questions. However, the fact that those charges were announced by the U.S. Attorney General and that Obama confirmed that his country has incontrovertible evidence, have both given a great deal of credibility to them. It is hard to imagine Obama personally involved in baseless accusations, while subjecting the rest of his standing and chances for risk of this kind. The charges then acquired more credibility when the Saudi mission to the United Nations asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to brief the Security Council on the 'heinous conspiracy' that 'represents a violation of international laws and UN resolutions, and all international conventions and norms". Saudi Arabia pursues a non-aggressive and non-offensive form of diplomacy. One may say that it is even excessively prudent. Thus, Saudi Arabia is not quick to go public with its disputes. Instead, it often leaves it to time to cool down hot issues, even if they are as hot as embers. As such, Saudi diplomacy does not endorse a certain charge or narrative, unless it is fully convinced by its authenticity, and only after all other avenues have been exhausted. There are other past incidents on Saudi soil itself that bear witness to Riyadh's predisposition to steering clear of confrontations, even when Saudi Arabia has enough evidence to make [official] accusations. If Saudi Arabia now chooses to utilize its Arab and Islamic weight, as well as economic mass, to respond to the targeting of its ambassador, Iran would find itself facing a dramatically greater isolation. We are still in the early stages of this. If the facts of the ‘Washington Plot' are confirmed, this will surely contribute to stepping up pressure on Iran in the nuclear issue, and prompt a revisit of allegations of Iran harboring some elements from al-Qaeda and of its responsibility of some of what is happening in Afghanistan, after Iraq. This will be added to Iran's collision with the GCC over Bahrain and with a fraction of the Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese because of its meddling, as well as the Arab Spring and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Ten month ago, the Axis of Mumana'a [defiance] was in a better shape. Iran was awaiting the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to continue its reaping of the spoils. Today, Iran is facing the issue of the ‘Washington conspiracy'. Syria is sliding towards further international isolation as a result of the concerns raised by the practices of its security services against the protesters. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is heading towards more a belligerent collision with half of the Lebanese people, because of its insistence on abolishing the STL, established in the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The Middle East is a mine of surprises. The battle for Syria is intensifying, and this is an omen of more difficult days in the region ahead. Journalists often fall in the trap of speculation. Is any party reckless enough to resort to war? Will we wake up to a military vessel burning in the waters of the Gulf, or to a loud explosion in an American or Israeli embassy? Will we see missiles being launched and warplanes charging? Will the strong ones become suicidal, if they feel that their defeat is imminent? We are in the midst of a dangerous game, from Washington, to Tehran, Beirut and Damascus.
