New York- When the UN Security Council burdened Libya with open-ended sanctions on charges of adopting terrorism as a policy and carrying out the Lockerbie bombing, a handful of Libyans began working diligently within Libya and with powerful countries – most prominently Britain and the United States – to buy the continuity of the regime with the blessing of Western countries, by way of a comprehensive deal that included compensations for the families of the victims of the Pan American flight that exploded over Lockerbie, as well as complete cooperation in the issue of terrorism, in addition to Libya abandoning any nuclear ambitions and dismantling any facilities. However, such a deal did not include recognizing any role for Libya in the Lockerbie bombing, having always asserted the innocence of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who had been convicted for the terrorist attack which had led to the death of 270 people. This was a commercial and political deal beneficial for the regime in Libya, as countries began to seek the favors of Colonel Muammar Al-Qaddafi without asking questions about the nature of the regime. Most importantly, Libya managed to strike a deal that lifted sanctions imposed by the Security Council, a feat which had seemed almost impossible. This is exactly the opposite of what Iraq did under toppled former President Saddam Hussein, as he refused to take advantage of the initiative's momentum and kept Iraq hostage to an arrogant regime which had adopted a “drop-by-drop” policy, thus squandering the opportunity of deals that might have saved Iraq from the harshest, most comprehensive and largest system of sanctions ever imposed by the Security Council on any country. The fundamental difference between Iraq and Libya under sanctions is not limited to the personality of Saddam Hussein, who had a sense of absolute ownership of the country different from that of Muammar Qaddafi. The difference is that Libya today has “graduated” from the charges of terrorism, after having handed over all the information that it had about the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and now speaks in a literary language in which it boasts, to a certain extent, of terrorism of a different kind – that of striking terror into the hearts of Western leaders through issues of trade or oil. Iraq on the other hand has been used as a battlefield for the war on terror and to topple Saddam Hussein under the pretext of possession of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, it is the Iraqi people who pay the price of the wars of terror through it and upon it on a daily basis, and who are still subjected to the sanctions of the de facto situation by virtue of Chapter VII or the UN Charter. Today, Iran is weaving a policy that anticipates and addresses sanctions, one concerned with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in a different manner from that of the Iraqi and Libyan models. Indeed, the regime in Tehran has benefited from the cases of Libya and Iraq, and it is determined to compromise and bargain – violently or lightly – according to the requirements of the need to maintain the current regime in the seat of power. This calls for a great deal of attention and caution on the part of countries in the region, particularly those neighboring Iraq, as well as in Palestine and Lebanon, and also with Iran's Syrian ally, because Tehran will play its cards with its usual skill. This requires that the West, and particularly the Barack Obama Administration and US public opinion, carefully examine the interpenetration of events in the Middle East and read the links between sanctions, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction on the pages of future deals, bargains and wars. To begin with, the anger expressed by the families of the victims of the Pan American flight is appropriate, as the release of Megrahi on grounds of compassion by a decision of Scottish Justice Secretary, as well as the way he was received in Tripoli, has revived this horrible terrorist crime regardless of the compensation deal. Libyan authorities and the Qaddafi family could have struck trade deals with Britain or Scotland or anybody, and worked for the release of Megrahi out of belief in his innocence, yet without making his welcome an occasion to celebrate, either to strengthen their leadership or to reinforce their stance claiming Libya's innocence in the Lockerbie bombing. Indeed, the families of the victims do not deserve revenge from “innocence”. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi was convicted before justice with Libya's cooperation. Perhaps he is a scapegoat and perhaps he is a terrorist who does not deserve the compassion he has received as he approaches death as a result of cancer. However, what is still being discussed over Lockerbie are scenarios that had originally pointed to Iran, which had been linked to revenge for an Iranian civil aircraft that had been purposely targeted and shot down by US missiles. In fact, there are scenarios that speak of an Iranian-Libyan-Syrian partnership, with the participation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Central Command (PFLP-GC) headed by Ahmed Jibril, in executing this operation. The facts of the Lockerbie bombing may later be revealed, in term of who committed this terrorist act, of who struck deals of silence and covered up the truth of what happened, and of who suggested a shrewd policy for Libya, one that has led to a model of cooperation with international justice to preserve the ruling regime, then to the release of the convict from prison. Once again, perhaps the case of Megrahi really is one of “coincidence” or of a scapegoat, and perhaps he really is innocent as he claims. Perhaps one day he will reveal what he knows and the reasons that led him to withdraw the appeal, and perhaps he will help in exposing the facts. He probably never will, as the interests of silence sometimes overcome the benefits of disclosure, and the story of Libya is not exclusively a local product. The West, in this story, is a full partner in the deals of ambivalence, and there is no need for wars of false values for any of the players. Yet equally important in the issue of Lockerbie is the unknown – be it Syrian or Iranian. Here lies the danger of feigning to serve justice, and that of superficially waging the battles of “terrorism” – those that are real as well as those that are forged. Iraq has fallen victim to the war on terror brought by former US President George W. Bush when he decided to invade Iraq in retribution for the September 11 terrorist attack, and the terrorists have heeded Bush's call. What terrorism has done to Iraq has also come with local and sectarian contribution as well as the contribution of Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran as well as the Gulf states. Syria exported terrorism to Iraq when it left its borders wide open to volunteers for taking revenge against the United States, with whom they waged the war of terror. Iran exported terrorism to Iraq when it sent its militias to ravage Iraq for the sake of Iran's interests. And many of those who have joined Al-Qaeda and similar groups have come from Gulf states and from Jordan to play their part in the war of terror in Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has accused some of Iraq's neighbors of being behind the latest bombings that struck Baghdad and other cities, killing more that a hundred people, targeting state ministries including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Maliki government in turn is accused of negligence at the security level, and Maliki himself has met with criticism even from Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. There are also noteworthy clashes between Defense Minister Abdul Qadir Al-Obeidi and Interior Minister Jawad Al-Bolani. Furthermore, former head of Iraqi intelligence General Mohammad Al-Shahwani, who resigned his post, is waging a media campaign against Maliki, accusing him of allowing the national intelligence institution to be undermined, and allowing Iranian spies to work freely and breach the security institution undisturbed. At the same time, a Shiite “coalition” has been formed without Maliki and the Dawa Party, as preparation begins for the elections scheduled to be held next January. This development has led to questions around whether it will lead to deepening sectarianism in Iraq or whether it will drive Maliki to forge alliances with the Sunnis and perhaps the Kurds, which would strengthen the centers of political secularism and weaken Iranian influence in Iraq. Despite the weak security situation, the next elections will take place and will most probably bring new faces into the Iraqi Parliament as well as noticeable change on Iraq's political map. Indeed, the Iraqi people want security and peace of mind, and will thus most likely vote for change. Iraqi leaders such as Ayatollah Sistani are encouraging people to vote for their country, not for their sect. Maliki himself perfectly understands that the change in political dynamics requires either for him to be a new Maliki or for Iraq to have a new Prime Minister, as one expert on the issue of Iraq said. All of this, alongside the Iraqi electoral experience, places the regime in Iran in a state of concern. Indeed, the regime realizes that there are those in Iraq who seek to curb Iranian influence, and that there are those in Iran who emulate the Iraqi experience in the field of democracy and are rising up on the Iranian scene against the regime. Here arises the question that is most important: will the current situation lead to increasing Iranian interference in Iraq or to taking risks in order to strengthen influence to the point of risking influence itself? Or is the Iranian regime aware of the meaning or more instability in Iraq, and of its consequences and repercussions on Iran, especially when faced with the US's determination to leave Iraq on the date agreed upon in 2011? The Islamic Republic of Iran may have two opinions about Iraq, similar to its divisions in the internal struggle. Yet what will lead to restraining Iran and the impulse to ravage Iraq as a means of containing and dominating it is the fear of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the spread of Iraq's instability and division across its borders to the point of doing away with the regime, especially that the Iranian regime has concerns at the domestic level, following the way it dealt with the Iranian elections, and fears at the foreign level due to the nuclear issue and the West's determination to strengthen sanctions against it, for nuclear reasons as well as reasons related to the accusation of using terrorism in different regions, including Iraq and Lebanon. The Iranian regime will escalate with skill, wisdom and careful calculation during the next phase, but it will most probably not dare to take the ultimate risk, and this is an opportunity for all those concerned to benefit each in their own interest. Iraq would benefit from adopting a strategy of self-reliance, primarily at the level of security, and from deciding that the sword pointed towards it from its Iranian as well as Syrian neighbors can be double-edged if the Iraqis truly take the decision of independence, self-respect and building the state. Indeed, Iraq is not exposed as is Iran to the whip of sanctions, accusations of producing and exporting terrorism, and suspicions of seeking after the possession of nuclear weapons, and hence Iran is in a worse situation at the international level. At the domestic level, Iraq's tragedies have reached the end of the road, while Iran's disputes are at the dawn of internal tragedy. Also when compared to Syria, Iraq is not the object of conciliation that Damascus is today for the likes of France, some Europeans and Arabs, as well as some Americans, yet Iraq remains today at the forefront of US and international investments for its recovery and to lead it towards a better future. Indeed, it has fought its battles and the world has fought its battles in it. Today it is able to clear a path for itself away from terrorism, sanctions and illicit weapons. If it wanted, Iraq would be able to lay down limits for its neighbors, so that they may cease their attempts to turn it into a colony or an arena of influence, but it has to want it. Indeed, at the end of the day, Iran remains in the eye of the storm, and for some it remains accused of adopting terrorism politically, including within Iraq and in the Lockerbie case. Syria also is under observation and being put to the test not just towards Iraq, as is Iran, but also towards issues which some consider to be intervention that qualifies as implication in attacks and in a series of political assassinations in Lebanon. And as long as the gates of justice have not been shut, neither Syria nor Iran can relax in the warm embrace of security and peace of mind, because time holds surprises, and not all surprises are of the kind of Megrahi's.
