How
Will Netanyahu’s Victory Affect Iran Deal And Palestinian Future?
Saeed Naqvi
Just when the United States thought it
would mop its brow, having tried hard to tame the West Asian rodeo, the Israeli
horse has kicked up dirt. Americans, like everyone else, were waiting for
Benjamin Netanyahu to lose the March 17 elections, before proceeding with their
script of a nuclear deal with Iran towards some conclusion in the coming weeks.
Does the Netanyahu fourth term throw a
monkey-wrench in the works John Kerry has been pursuing with such dedication?
His primary strategic goal is to sign a
nuclear deal with Iran. Since a military option was just not feasible, keeping
Iran out of regional balance of power was impractical for the US. Without Iran
in the regional solar system, the US would have to be ready for intervention to
keep the regional equilibrium. This doesn’t serve a useful American purpose
anymore.
Riyadh, Cairo, Ankara are regional power
centers Jerusalem was comfortable with. In this galaxy, Jerusalem, and to a
lesser extent Riyadh, had relied even on a recently reluctant Washington.
Jerusalem was a special case. It was more equal than others.
With new legitimacy about to be
conferred on Iran, Tehran will automatically become an important power for regional
balance.
This amounts to a relative decline in
Israel’s regional status and Israel will resist it until Israeli lobbies around
the world including the US see the writing on the wall. Unfortunately for
Israel, Netanyahu has manufactured victory on such an uncivilized platform – no
state for Palestinians, and racist venom for Israeli Arabs – that the international
community would have difficulty engaging with him. Ofcourse, he will turn, but
then he will be a proven turncoat.
Even the Saudis who in recent years made
common cause with Israel against Iran, will have difficulty resuming with an
Israel so configured.
The new balance of power the US has
finally persuaded itself to create in the region is attended by a paradox.
Riyadh, Cairo, Ankara, Israel – no one wants the status quo to be altered. And
get the situation on the ground is slowly eroding the status quo.
In shaping the new balance of power,
Washington does come across on occasion as playing a double game. Take
Washington’s reluctance in launching air strikes against the ISIS when it had
just begun to menace the region. Barrack Obama let the cat out of the bag.
Airstrikes against the ISIS at that stage, he said, would take the pressure off
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in Baghdad who had lost US confidence. Maliki
had to leave. To that extent the Americans played the ISIS hand in helping
shape a local situation.
Likewise, during the siege of Kobane US
power helped Kurds, not the Turkish hegemon. So pressure here, tinkering there all,
to avoid anyone becoming too powerful.
An abridged version of recent history
can begin with the mess left behind by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, given total
charge of the Syrian operations by the late Saudi King. The most macabre
cruelty was perpetrated on world TV by forces financed from outside and
supported by the West. Hillary Clinton, the then Secretary of State and a
possible Democratic Presidential candidate, demanded with an imperious wave of the
hand. “get out of the way, Assad.” Years later, John Kerry sees no future for
Syria without Bashar al Assad being part of the solution. But isn’t this what
Iran and Russia have been saying from the day a gameplan was designed to break
the Iran, Syria, Hezbullah, Hamas chain by, first, bringing about regime change
in Damascus?
After four years of exertion, there is
no regime change. Someone has eaten crow but the world didn’t see it. Meanwhile,
the ISIS continued to menace all and sundry including the Saudis whose General,
incharge of the Northern Border with Iraq became a recent casualty.
The Sunni-Sunni tussle intensified when
the ISIS virtually took over Tikrit, once Saddam Hussain’s stronghold. Iranian
Foreign Minister Javad Zarif flew to Baghdad to sign an agreement which removes
visa requirements for Iranian citizens (troops). Flushed with reinforcements
Iranian troops broke the back of the ISIS in Tikrit. Obviously, the regime in
Baghdad is beholden to Iran. Likewise, the Houthis and Shia Zadidis of Yemen
have trusted Iranians as overseers. Can Iran be kept out of a regional balance
now?
This exponential growth of Iranian
influence is anathema to Israel, Cairo, Ankara and Riyadh but they have to lump
it because the alternative is for the US to remain directly engaged in
Arab-Arab squabbles much to the neglect of more urgent business in the Pacific
where China and a Sino-Russia axis are sources of anxiety. An unexpected source
of comfort to all those supporting a two state solution in Israel is
Netanyahu’s last minute denial of a Palestinian state. Nothing will help the
Palestinian cause more.
# # # #
No comments:
Post a Comment