Iranian Trusteeship with Israel's Blessings
11 November 2016
By Eyad Abu Shakra
In July last year, I wrote an article entitled ''How Will Our Region Look Come
November 2016?'' on this page. Of course what I meant then was the end of
Barack Obama's second term in the White House. In that article I pointed to
how Washington made ISIS a pivotal justification to speed up the signing of
JCPOA, which would become Obama's 'grand' achievement and the hallmark of his
regional project.
A year ago there were several worrying signs, and unfortunately the worst of
which were proven to be true in every 'hot spot' in the Middle East. Indeed,
despite Washington's self-congratulations on being able to ''downgrade'' ISIS
in Syria and Iraq, the demographic genocide being perpetrated against Sunni
Arabs in the two countries remains the most salient and solid fact.
In Iraq, following the substantial change in the demography of the capital
Baghdad, and troubles and uprooting suffered by the (Sunni) Anbar Province
during the last few years partly at the hands of Iranian-led sectarian
militias, the same fate awaits Nineveh Province, and more specifically its
(Sunni Arab) capital Mosul.
In the meantime, it is no more appropriate to question what is going on in
Syria. It is either too stupid or too cynical to deny the 'common plan' Russia
and Iran are striving to achieve on the ground, and turning a blind eye to
Washington tacit approval. Actually, as we witness benign accusations being
exchanged by Moscow and Washington about a non-existent 'cease fire', most
well informed sources claim that the only disagreement between them regards
how to rehabilitate the Al-Assad regime in the 'new' Syria within the new map
of the region.
At the moment we have these facts:
1- Russia and Iran, with America's approval, have all but completed the
demographic change in the city of Homs and Greater Damascus as Al-Assad has
admitted.
2- Arrangements are approaching completion in northern and southern Syria
after 'containing' the Turkish – Kurdish tensions as a result of taming
Ankara's ambitions in the north, while in the south the whole picture would
not overlook Israel's say, especially in the Quneitra Province. As Turkey's
interests and worries regarding ethnic minorities seems to have been taken
care of in the north, Israel would surely like to exploit the sectarian issue
in the south, which is most likely acceptable to Washington, Moscow, Tehran
and … Damascus!
3- 'The War on ISIS' which has become synonymous with the uprooting and forced
exodus of millions of Sunni Arabs in both Syria and Iraq may then become
limited in eastern Syria where the – initially artificial – borders with Iraq
barely exist anymore.
4- Iran would then become a 'trustee' to the already 'occupied' Lebanon. This
would take place either directly through appointing a 'puppet-president'
functioning under the 'guidance' of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan
Nasrallah, or indirectly through the rehabilitated former Damascus 'tools',
which, along with Iran, still enjoy enough tentacles and influence to prevent
the election of a Lebanese president for more than two years. Here too, just
like the southern Syria 'scenario', this 'trusteeship' can only be established
with Israel's blessings; and many believe this is assured given the fact that
the 'loud' Al-Assad regime remains a safe and trusted neighbour since the
autumn of 1973, and that Israel has only punished it with 'reminders' and
'alerts'.
Away from the Levant, in Yemen, the Yemenis have now discovered that what is
being said against the background of international discussions and
negotiations is one thing, and what really takes place is something else. With
the cases of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in mind, it looks as if what we are going
through these days may well have been the 'classified' sections of the JCPOA.
In fact, what gives credence to this thinking is Washington's reiterations
while applying the final touches on the JCPOA that the negotiations with Iran
were limited to the nuclear issue; which means Washington did not require that
Iran ended its political and military adventures within several Arab
countries, and curtails its regional and global ambitions, as a pre-condition
for the nuclear agreement and its admission into the 'nuclear club'.
What is taking place in the Middle East is more than a heavy price being paid
for an American retreat or a Russian revenge by a leader who has inherited
grandiose dreams and the mentality of a 'police state' from the former Soviet
era.
It has also gone beyond a confrontation between an Iranian regime 'exporting'
its internal problems under the banner of religion and settling 1400 years old
scores, a Turkish leadership intent on turning the clock back (to Ottoman
times), and an Israeli political elite that rejects peace and hides behind
Biblical 'fundamentalists' as it crushes Palestinian aspirations.
What could be deduced from the insistence of some quarters on inventing
justifications for hatred and animosities is that there is an inclination to
create new realignments in the Middle East in the form of 'mandates' over a
partitioned Arab world. In this sense, with due respect to press freedom, one
cannot but feel surprise by the article written by Iran's foreign minister
Mohammad Javaf Zarif in the New York Times, a newspaper whose rich archive
surely contains reports of all kinds of terrorist acts incited, planned and
carried out by the same regime that Mr Zarif is serving.
The NYT knows about the nature of the Mullahs' regime in Tehran since 1979
more than the average American citizen Mr Zarif was attempting to bluff. It
definitely knows who was behind the 'Hostage Taking' in the US Tehran embassy,
the mass executions ordered by Sadegh Khalkhali's 'revolutionary court', the
Beirut US Marines Base suicide attack as well as foreign hostage taking in
Lebanon, the continuing support of the Sunni 'Islamic Jihad' movement in Gaza
(which also has an office in Damascus), the smuggling of Al-Qaeda militants
into Iraq from Syria, the bombings inside Saudi Arabia itself, and finally,
the nation that continues to provide refuge to extremist leaders and
encourages, through its own extremism, a no less dangerous counter extremism.
All these facts are no doubt well known to the NYT; however, it seems that
truth doesn't really matter if a dual Iranian – Israeli 'trusteeship' is
underway, and needs to be justified by making religious extremism exclusively
Sunni, exactly as Barack Obama has done in order to rehabilitate Bashar Al-Assad!
Eyad Abu Shakra is the managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. He has been with
the newspaper since 1978.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments