The discourse of Arab leaders about Iran is noteworthy at this stage of Iranian-International relations, which at times seem to be headed towards diplomatic and economic confrontation, and perhaps later a military one, and at other times seem ready to strike deals and tacit agreements in various fields. Noteworthy as well is Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's talk of an “unannounced agreement between US and Iranian stances over the necessity of strengthening and developing Iraq's current situation, not changing it”, describing US and Iranian stances towards Iraq as “unified”. Also worthy of attention is what Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said about “a US-Iranian concern with quelling Iraqi fears” in the crisis with Syria, and about the attempt of both to “convince Iraq not to push for” the establishment of an international tribunal to try those implicated in the terrorist attack which targeted Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki had demanded its establishment after accusing Syria of harboring terrorists. Aboul Gheit's words are noteworthy because he said that “the US and Iran do not want Iraq to put forth its vision before the UN, nor Syrian-Iraqi relations to become more complicated as a result of such demands”, this despite the fact that Maliki sent a letter to the Presidency of the Security Council (which was the US during the month of September) requesting an investigation into the terrorist attack that struck the state institution, and the establishment of an international tribunal for this purpose. Arousing even more curiosity and questions were the words of Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, who said that he saw neither interference nor a role for either Iran or Syria in Lebanon, nor any interest in obstructing the formation of the Lebanese government cabinet, which the Prime Minister designate has been busy working on for nearly 90 days, only to be repeatedly thwarted by the pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian opposition. Even more surprising is the fact that the Iraqi President, while content with saying “no comment” over whether Syria played a role in attempts to destabilize Iraq, clearly asserted that “Iran is not training and arming [militias] in Iraq now”, although the US military leadership says otherwise, and is opposing his Prime Minister who has formally requested an investigation and a tribunal, regardless of whether the terrorist attacks in Iraq have come to it from Iran, Syria or any other neighboring country. Moreover, the words of Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al Khalifa are in turn noteworthy, not just in terms of the new tone towards Iran calling for understanding (rather than confrontation, as it had last year), but also in terms of the fear he expressed about the Arabs paying the price, not just in the case of a military confrontation with Iran, but also in the case of agreement deals with it. Not any less interesting were the words of Omani Foreign Minister and current President of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Yousef Bin Alawi Bin Abdullah, who held the George W. bush Administration responsible for what he considered to be the mistake of issuing the unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution calling for Iran to merely “freeze” uranium enrichment. Indeed, the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are speaking the language of implementing Security Council resolutions and offering Iran all the incentives that would make it want to respond positively, including the offer to “suspend” sanctions in exchange for “suspending” uranium enrichment until an agreement is reached, while Oman's Foreign Minister considers that the likely solution lies in returning Iran's nuclear file exclusively to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and taking the issue out of the Security Council by retracting previous resolutions. All of this is taking place in a climate of international, regional and Arab concern of another kind. Indeed, the Arabs, with their numerous stances and differences, are divided in fears as they are in stances. Yet what they have in common is the fear of the Arabs becoming trapped not only between the options of sanctions or a military strike, but also becoming trapped between agreements and deals. Alertness here would be well placed, yet excessive enthusiasm to please and to cover for Iran is not necessarily the best investment. Indeed, the opportunity is available now for the Arabs to contribute, demand and help without escalation or prostration. What Arab leaders said while they were present in New York last week, in their discussions with the author of this article, contains messages to Iran and to the United States that can be summed up in: reach an understanding and the best of understandings, but please make sure that your deals are not at our expense. Some wanted to say: we are here; others sought to say: the price of wars in the Middle East is usually paid by an Arab country, so agree at any cost because the price of wars is high and no longer possible. Many Arab countries will have an essential role to play in the policy of strengthening sanctions against Iran, if the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany agree to it or if the United States, Britain and France are forced to resort to a system of sanctions outside of the UN Security Council in case Russia and China refuse to join. The United Arab Emirates is most prominent among the countries needed by the Security Council or by the American-British-French trio within the framework of strengthening sanctions, considering the nature of Iranian openness to the UAE and the depth of Iran's financial interests there. Yet the sanctions, the nature of which was revealed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in his speech before the Security Council, are financial, and also regard the energy sector. This means that the UAE, even if most prominent, is not the only country required to take measures. Maritime siege may be one of the options, and it might be preferred over that of the military strike, if it is applied in the form of smart sanctions, knowing that a full-fledged siege is equivalent to a declaration of war. However, the ideas that are being put forth fall within a category requiring the contribution of Iran's neighbors. The Iraqi President made it clear in his interview with Al-Hayat that Iraq would neither comply to nor obey the invitation to participate in strengthening sanctions against Iran. Many neighboring countries are being evasive and elusive because they fear vengeance and retribution from Iran. Yet there are those in the Obama Administration who are informing Arab countries that there is an important relationship between Arab insistence on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that would lead to stopping de facto settlement-building and to negotiating over the issues of Jerusalem, the borders, the refugees and security, and between Israel's willingness to stop pushing for a military strike against Iran. Such a relationship, according to the reasoning of leaders in the US Administration, lies in strengthening the grip of pressures on Iran with a serious Arab contribution in order to prevent a military strike against it and to allow the US Administration to exert pressures on Israel so that it may respond positively by sincerely moving towards peace negotiations. Then there is the Russian aspect of the Iranian issue, one which Barack Obama made sure to take into account when he announced abandoning the deployment of the missile shield system in Europe, which his predecessor George W. Bush had previously clung to. Such an initiative aims essentially at repairing and re-launching an American-Russian partnership with trust and cooperation in several fields, from Afghanistan to Iran through the joint war against Islamic violent extremism – or terrorism – in Central Asia, where extremism is spreading and threatening to lead to losing the battle against terrorism. Iran is important in the ongoing battle in this respect in Afghanistan at Iran's borders. Yet neither the US Administration nor the Russian Government wants to rely solely on Iran, especially if Tehran thinks that the trade-off will come in the form of implicitly approving its possession of the ability for nuclear armament. The role played by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Russian-American-Muslim partnership to reduce violent extremism is of the utmost importance, considering the influence held by Saudi Arabia in Pakistan and in the five republics of Central Asia. It is a role that can be relied upon, from an American and Russian point of view, knowing that Russia regards the issue as highly important because such violent extremism is spreading in its own backyard. Russia tried to convince Iran to cooperate fully with the demands of the 5+1 ahead of the Geneva meeting, and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov advised his counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki during their meetings in New York to “cooperate fully” and “present evidence” that prove the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. According to sources privy to the atmosphere of the meeting, Iran's stance lacked the required consent and “they are making it difficult for us to help them”, in the words of these sources. Indeed, the Iranian government is wagering on its worldly wisdom and on its skill at the art of negotiating and buying time, but it fears that bilateral Russian-American interests will at the end of the day overpower Russia's interests with Iran. Iran's leadership is afraid of sanctions that would touch upon energy and finance, not only because this would have a direct impact on Iran's economy and on the tense internal situation, but also because such sanctions would bind hands and undermine the possibilities of foreign funding in these times of financial crises, as in Lebanon. This would mean reduced influence and perhaps a loss of control and the inability to fund militias or civilian organizations that rely on Iran's treasury. The Iranians are afraid of isolation and seclusion, and they are also afraid of a military strike against their nuclear facilities. For all those reasons, Arab countries and Arab leaderships should interpret the Iranian climate accurately and in depth. There is no need to be excessive in pleasing, humoring or sweet-talking Iran with statements asserting that it plays no role nor interferes in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. Indeed, absolving Iran of being held accountable comes at the expense of the peoples and the future of the countries whose leaders claim that they are safe from Iranian interference, while Iran interferes and undermines efforts to form a government or build an independent state, because it wants the likes of Iraq and Lebanon to be trapped in the corner of its influence, for its own interests and for the sake of its regional ambitions. This most certainly does not mean that a military strike should be encouraged, but rather the opposite. Indeed, preventing a military strike against Iran requires Arab countries to help Iran by convincing it that its interest requires abandoning its regional plans and not just its nuclear plans, if they really are military. There is room for trade-offs with Arab participation, such as Iran ceasing to interfere in Palestine, abandoning its plans against the Palestinian Authority and choosing negotiations for peace, ceasing to interfere in Lebanon through Hezbollah and ceasing to assume that it has a backyard in Lebanon in which it can maneuver against Israel and the United States for ends that serve it at the expense of the sovereignty of the Lebanese state. The opportunity is available for Arab countries to say to Iran: we are here and are able to help in many ways, provided that Iran abandons its ambitions of regional hegemony and be content with its size within its borders. Even Syria, Iran's friend and ally, is observing what is happening to it with fear and concern, and is taking steps to be prepared for what may come. It is seeking a place for itself in the developing US-Iranian relationship and sees neither an obstacle nor anything wrong in this. It is worried, despite its excessive show of confidence to conceal fear. Indeed, the Iranian issue has reached an important crossroad, and everyone is getting ready.
