In the immediate aftermath of the Israeli
onslaught against Lebanon - instigated by the
Hezbollah kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers early
last month - many blamed the Islamic Republic of
Iran for the chaos. As a result of the broad US
acceptance that Tehran lay behind Hezbollah's
decision to seize the Israeli soldiers,
neo-conservatives in the United States made new
demands for a military confrontation.
However, as increasing numbers of women,
children, and the elderly became casualties of the
Israeli military and evidence arose that Tehran
remained unaware of Hezbollah's intended actions,
the Islamic Republic's political tide began
turning. As a result, two dominant schools of
thought regarding Iran's political prospects
within the international community and on the
world
stage have emerged.
Iran is too dangerous In the
days immediately after Hezbollah seized the two
Israeli soldiers, Tehran suffered international
condemnation for its decades of support of
Hezbollah. In vilifying the Islamic Republic,
analysts argued that the scale and strategic
repercussions of Hezbollah's operations required
Tehran's pre-approval.
The basis of this
theory argues that Hezbollah is not an independent
group but the cat's paw. As such, some go as far
as to argue that "that Iranian-backed radicals
opened another front in a war that, in their
minds, stretches from Gaza to Iraq". At a minimum,
proponents of the theory argue that the Islamic
Republic intended to use the Hezbollah kidnappings
as a tool to bolster Tehran's deterrence image.
Hezbollah's actions were to serve largely
as a warning to the United States and Israel,
whereby both countries would cease verbal assaults
and discard plans for attacking Iranian nuclear
installations because the repercussions against
Israel would be too great. However, Israel used
the opportunity to bolster its own deterrence
image and to send its own message to Tehran -
Israel's military superiority is still intact, is
ready to respond to any threat, and this is a
sample.
Proponents argue that Israel's
disproportionate response has left Hezbollah and
its backers reeling. With Israel asserting its
military superiority, Hezbollah and Iran's
dangerous adventurism are shown to include many
miscalculations and severe repercussions.
As such, Israel proves that not only are
Hezbollah and Iran unwilling partners in peace
negotiations, but that they are costing countries
thousands of civilian lives and billions of
dollars. Thus Israel's response weakens Hezbollah
and its backers who lose prestige, support and
financial resources by sparking the conflict and
by potentially being the target of Israel's
military. As a result, proponents of the theory
argue, Iran is too dangerous, so no compromise,
bargain or negotiation will mollify the regime.
In immediate response to Israel's
destruction of Lebanon, the international
community shunned and blamed Hezbollah, Iran and
Syria. United Nations Secretary General Kofi
Annan, while condemning Israel, declared that
Hezbollah and its supporters had been holding
Lebanon hostage for some time and reiterated his
April call for a peaceful Hezbollah.
In
addition, foreign dignitaries did not attempt to
include Iran in negotiations. Unlike the shuttle
diplomacy of Operation Grapes of Wrath in 1996,
where Syrian president Hafez Assad entered the
international diplomatic stage and US secretary of
state Warren Christopher made several visits to
Damascus, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad
only seemed to be making matters worse for Tehran.
As a result, Iran and not Israel appeared
to the international community as the bigger and
more immediate danger to Middle Eastern stability.
Thus not only did European Union representative
Javier Solana not include Tehran in his early-July
trips, but when Arab foreign ministers held a
meeting to discuss the Lebanon crisis on July 15,
the Arab ministers politely but firmly rejected
Tehran's offer to attend. Buoyed by the Saudis,
Egyptians and Jordanians, the Arab governments did
not include the Islamic Republic in regional
matters because they viewed the Hezbollah
operation as a means to benefit Iran at their
expense. Fears of Persian domination and the
Shi'ite crescent pervaded the Arab monarchies.
Finally, the United States, Israel, Europe
and the Middle East appeared aligned against Iran.
Iran cannot be ignored On the
other side of the coin, some analysts argue that
because Tehran maintains open communications with
Hezbollah, Iran cannot be ignored. While some of
these observers argue that Hezbollah is an agent
of Iran and others argue that Hezbollah serves as
no one's pawn, many agree that Iran can and will
serve a positive role in the Middle East, if given
the chance.
Once the Israeli military
bombed Qana and a UN post, Hezbollah, and with it
Iran, gained the upper hand. Middle Eastern and
international outrage descended on Israel and left
the US, particularly a midair Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, hapless.
With Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah denying Iranian knowledge
of the planned kidnappings, Tehran's stock in the
international community rose further. Israel's
miscalculated response to Hezbollah's
miscalculations gave a virtual permission slip to
pragmatists openly to declare Tehran capable and
necessary to shorten the Lebanon crisis.
Simultaneously, however, many suspect that
the West will have to negotiate with the Islamic
Republic not only on Iran's nuclear file, but on
including Tehran in summits regarding Iraq,
Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon.
The
end result At this juncture, it is not
possible to say whether the Islamic Republic's
political standing will be hurt or not. In the
early days of the war, a premature assessment
concluded that Tehran would suffer. However, as
the conflict changed so, too, has Iran's standing.
Tehran's final standing will be determined on the
outcome and the duration of the conflict. The key
determining factor when the bombing stops will
rest on the standing of Hezbollah within the
Lebanese context and the wider region.
In
preparation for the eventual ceasefire, both
Israel and Hezbollah have begun their public
relations campaigns. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert, a career bureaucrat, must ensure that
Israel is seen as having won a decisive victory
over Hezbollah. In such a military victory, Israel
not only sends a message to Hezbollah but also to
the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria and Iran that
attacks on Israel will be met with overwhelming
force. Yet with its original stated intent being
the destruction or dismantling of Hezbollah,
Israel must also receive the mandate of any
multinational force that substantively moves
toward curtailing Hezbollah.
In turn,
victory for Hezbollah means simply avoiding
defeat. By maintaining the ability to fire
short-range rockets, the greater Islamic world
will perceive Hezbollah as the victors and
defenders of a weak Lebanon. Despite the
relatively little damage caused by such rockets,
Israel's continuous statements regarding the
rockets will actually bolster Hezbollah's claims
of victory. Moreover, Hezbollah will remind the
world that the Middle East's most powerful
fighting force (Israel), supported and equipped by
the world's most powerful military (the United
States), bungled against a guerrilla faction that,
while poorly armed, remained fastidiously
resolute.
In terms of the Islamic
Republic, Tehran will likely neither gain nor lose
on the nuclear issue in the relative short future.
As another war whose aftermath may resolve
nothing, the Europeans and Iranians have already
begun an attempt to open a diplomatic channel that
will be necessary for the eventual political
resolution of this crisis.
As the dust
settles, Iran's nuclear dossier will become a
front-burner issue once again. On this occurrence,
European attitudes may have hardened because of
the presumed perception of Tehran's
irresponsibility regarding the events in the
Levant. However, the extent of the European
perceptions will also depend on the current
diplomatic efforts of Iranian officials.
On the other side, Iran will likely be a
winner in the long term on three points. First,
Iran has gained politically in the broad Muslim
world as the only country standing by the Muslim
and Arab cause in the face of Israeli aggression.
Regardless of what the regimes of Saudi Arabia,
Egypt and Jordan say, the Arab street has and does
support Iran's populist policies. By attacking
Hezbollah, Hamas or Iran, "America's Arab allies"
are merely seen as puppets of US hegemony in the
Middle East. Such an issue is more and more
relevant in the context of today's digital world
politics.
Second, as Iran is one of very
few parties that have contact with Hezbollah, the
crisis conveys that Tehran can be a restraining
and pragmatic power. Thus the international
attention given to the Islamic Republic during the
crisis demonstrates that Iran is a large power to
be reckoned with and not discounted regarding
regional power politics. As a result, the Lebanese
crisis displays the centrality of Iran in the
future political arrangements of the region.
Third, Hezbollah by virtue of its
political victory will play an even more political
role in Lebanon. In turn, Iran gains more leverage
and influence in the regional context. In gaining
more influence in Lebanon, the Islamic Republic
reinforces its centrality in the Middle East's
political agreements.
With the temperature
rising in the Middle East, the United States finds
itself in yet another difficult position that
posits it as complacent in the deaths of Arab
civilians and Muslims. While neo-conservatives
believed the destruction of Lebanon and the death
of civilians would incite the Lebanese to act
against Hezbollah, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora, Speaker Nabih Berri, Saad Hariri (son of
assassinated prime minister Rafik Hariri), General
Michel Aoun, President Emile Lahoud and other
major leaders of Lebanon have predictably rallied
against Israeli actions, despite Hezbollah's
initial steps.
Thus pragmatists argue that
the administration of US President George W Bush
may have no other option but to include Tehran in
negotiations in the Lebanon crisis or be left out
in the cold - a reality that has befallen US
administrations since 1979.
(Copyright
2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
