While it appears that a relative thaw has occurred in US-Iran relations, the future of Gulf region strategic alignments is uncertain, writes Dina Ezzat Are Iran and the US moving towards mutual accommodation? This seemed to be the main question that participants in a Manama-hosted Gulf security conference took away with them after three days of intense discussion. Organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, this year's Manama Dialogue, which opened Friday, included official delegations from the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain), Yemen, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Pakistan, India, Australia and Singapore. Iran's Foreign Ministry delegation boycotted this year's meeting at the last minute. Representatives of key regional and international think tanks -- including from Iran -- were present. Regional frameworks for Gulf security, transitional threats, economic and energy policy, and inter- community relations and sectarian politics, were all on the agenda. The key sessions were those that focussed on Iraq, Iran, the US and their relations. The effective keynote was the statement of participating US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Despite reissuing warnings concerning Iran's alleged plans to control the Gulf region, Gates's speech seemed to corroborate the opinion of some analysts that a change of US tact on Iran has occurred. Some participants speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly qualified the statement as almost a formal declaration on the part of the US that while it will continue to mount political and economic pressure on Tehran, military action is not imminent. Coming against the backdrop of a recent US intelligence report that all but cleared Iran of pursuing a secret military nuclear programme, Gates's statement appeared directed not only to Iranian ears, but also Gulf and Middle East players. On Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the US intelligence report was "positive". Ahmadinejad urged Washington to take further steps to end years of dispute with Iran. "We evaluate this [report] as a positive step, and a step forward, and if they take one or two more steps the situation will be totally different... the road will be paved for resolving regional and international issues," he said. The Iranian president called on the US and other world powers to reconsider imposing further sanctions on Tehran. He added that further sanctions would be without legal basis. "Now is the time for them to change their behaviour," he stated. Iraq is arguably the main reason for the shift in US position, given the growing feeling in the US administration that Iran is key to stability in the country. While Manama Dialogue participants disagreed on what constitute security and political threats to the Gulf region, all seemed to agree that a long-term solution to Iraq is pivotal to wider regional stability. "I will be frank. I do not think the GCC is doing enough in Iraq. I think we need to do more and to be involved more in the Iraqi issue," Qatari Foreign Minister Hamad Bin Jassim Al-Thani said in his address to the Manama conference. "The problem sometimes is that the GCC finds what is being done in Iraq is not what we are expecting. We cannot get what we need, but actually we should encourage our friends, especially the US, that we can work with them together and find a kind of compromise in our ideas, let us say, in how we want Iraq to be," Bin Jassim added. Echoing albeit unacknowledged sentiment growing in the US administration, Bin Jassim was careful to stress the need for security cooperation with Iran, "a very important country in the region". Earlier this month, Qatar invited Iran's president to participate in the regular GCC summit held in Doha. During his participation, the Iranian head of state called for closer GCC security cooperation, away from the strictures of US hegemony. Both the US and Iraq agreed, before going to Manama, that Washington and Tehran should resume their dialogue on Iraq and other matters after the Christmas/New Year holiday period. As for GCC involvement in Iraq, judging by statements made in Manama, it would be restricted to economic matters. According to some analysts, Iranian-US dialogue on Iraq might not be strictly confined to developments in Iraq. It could expand to include developments in Lebanon and relative to Syria, given Iran's influence over Hizbullah and the Damascus-based Hamas. For some Arab diplomats, the "green light that was accorded by Tehran to Hamas" to go to Saudi Arabia in search of a new round of Palestinian national reconciliation talks is "a positive sign" that Tehran is not just seeking to appease the Americans "but also to please the most influential GCC capital: Riyadh." Saudi consent is crucial to any future enhancement of Iranian-GCC relations. One aspect of possible future enhancement of interest to Tehran is the GCC plan to pursue peaceful nuclear energy programmes. In this the seal of Riyadh would be essential and may be gained were Iran to get its ruling Shia in Iraq to act in a way more accommodating to Sunnis in Iraq. The containment of security/political crisis in Iraq, mainly through reducing Sunni-Shia tensions, diplomats say, would get the US to heed a demand made during the Manama Dialogue this year and last year: to make its military presence in the Gulf less visible and more efficient. A reduction of the US forces in the Gulf -- without overlooking firm security demands by some Arab Gulf countries, especially Kuwait -- could only please Iran. On Tuesday, Mouaffak Al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security advisor, dismissed talk about plans to offer the US permanent military bases in Iraq. Yet according to American, Iranian and Arab sources, a streamlined US policy on Iraq is unlikely before the end of the current US administration. Moreover, the intentions of Israel towards Iran, and the ability of the US to curb any aggressive Israeli plans, are as crucial as they are unclear. On Friday, as the Manama Dialogue was being inaugurated, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told a conference of NATO ministers in Brussels that she had no doubt that Iran continues to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. According to Livni, Iran is "a dangerous regime based on an extreme religious ideology, speaking clearly about its vision of wiping a state [Israel] off the map, denying the Holocaust, and working with radical elements in order to undermine other regimes in the region -- all while financing terrorist organisations and simultaneously trying to develop nuclear weapons." Israeli drum beating aside, in Cairo there was a sigh of relief at the apparent reduction of US antagonism against Iran. Despite its participation in the political/security dialogue mechanism set up over a year ago under the title "6+2+1" (inclusive of Jordan, the US and the GCC states), Egypt has not been particularly comfortable about the idea of US -- or for that matter Israeli -- military action against Iran. Egypt appears now to be in a "wait and see" position regarding the apparent US shift in position and its consequences on Gulf security arrangements and Egyptian strategic interests. On Tuesday, Egypt sent a diplomatic delegation to Tehran to reciprocate a visit paid by an Iranian Foreign Ministry delegation less than three months ago. The visit of the Egyptian delegation, headed by Assistant Foreign Minister Hussein Derar, is not the first in the history of close to three decades of severed diplomatic ties. However, coming against the backdrop of the recent visit of the Iranian minister of trade to Egypt, and in view of developments on the Iranian-US and Iranian-GCC fronts, Derar's visit might be a signal of Egypt's future posture. Egyptian diplomatic sources close to the delegation, however, say it is exaggerated to expect this visit to produce a breakthrough that could allow for the restoration of full diplomatic ties between Cairo and Tehran.
