Egyptian-Iranian diplomatic tension is being vented in the press. Dina Ezzat reports This week was marked by yet another discordant note in Egyptian-Iranian relations. Specifically, confusion reigned over press statements suggesting, and later denying, an alleged Iranian involvement in the assassination of Ambassador , Egypt's former head of the diplomatic mission in Baghdad, in the summer of 2005. The story started Sunday morning when the daily Al-Ahram, perceived for better or worse as the echo of state policies, published a front-page story with the startling headline, "Diplomatic sources: Iranian intelligence assassinated El-Sherif to undermine Egypt's role in Iraq". The details of the story were not particularly well-sourced, or for that matter double sourced. It was a revelation that came out of nowhere without evidence. The less than 100-word story seemed to be more of an attempt by the "diplomatic sources" who were quoted to promote the much criticised Egyptian, Jordanian and Gulf support for the new American strategy in Iraq. "The diplomatic sources commented on remarks made in relation to the rationale behind the support extended by Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states who have their reasons to support the new strategy on Iraq," read the Al-Ahram story. "The Egyptian support is well-founded; it is related to Egypt's wish to spare Muslim brethren who are being subjected to ethnic cleansing, especially in Baghdad, at the hands of militias of certain affiliations," the writer of the story added. A regular reader of Al-Ahram would not need to guess that behind the story lay an Egyptian source -- diplomatic or otherwise. Egypt has always underlined that its status as a prominent Sunni state is not behind its criticism of the Shia-Sunni killing in Iraq. However, during many a diplomatic briefing, Egyptian officials, diplomats included, have expressed concern over the support that Iran lends to Shia militias. In statements sometimes even placed on record they also expressed concern about the attacks carried out by Shia militias against Iraqi Sunnis in Baghdad. As such, foreign diplomats based in Cairo argue it was not difficult to ascertain that it was an Egyptian source who made the statements. It was not difficult especially since the story was filed by Al-Ahram 's correspondent who was in Addis Ababa on a short visit to cover the African Union summit. (On page nine, the Al-Ahram correspondent, Mahmoud El-Noubi, filed news of the African summit). For the Iranian diplomatic mission in Cairo the message was very clear. It came only 48 hours after Al-Ahram 's Editor-in- Chief Osama Saraya expressed strong anti-Iranian sentiment in his weekly editorial on Friday. (see The Iranian connection) Moreover, on Saturday, another leading newspaper, Akhbar Al-Yom, ran a front page story predicting an eventual US attack on Iran. "Iranian targets are at the shooting end of US guns in the Gulf", was the headline. However, sources say that no official complaint was made by Tehran to Cairo. For many journalists and correspondents in Cairo, Egypt was escalating the attack on Iran, only a few weeks, some said, after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited the country. For Ambassador Alaa El-Hadidi, the official spokesman of the Foreign Ministry, the Al-Ahram story filed from Addis Ababa was the source of endless phone calls inquiring about the reasons and the evidence behind the Egyptian accusations. El-Hadidi had just one answer: Egypt made no such accusations. Eventually, El-Hadidi issued a press release to affirm exactly that. "In reference to the story carried this [Sunday] morning by Al-Ahram, it is invalid," the statement read. The statement's wording, according to El-Hadidi, aimed to clarify the fact that the story front paged by Al-Ahram did not necessarily indicate that the diplomatic source speaking to the correspondent was an Egyptian diplomat as many correspondents concluded. However, the press release gave rise to yet a new wave of phone calls. Correspondents asked the obvious question: Is Egypt saying that Iran was or was not involved? For El-Hadidi, the story could be read differently: Egypt never said that Iran was involved and never said Iran was not involved. A riddle? El-Hadidi has declined to make further comments, especially after he was blamed by some newspapers for the confusion. Informed Egyptian diplomats, however, say that El-Hadidi is only a scapegoat for an issue that goes way beyond his authorities. In fact, they add, the whole story was only a reflection of a much more complicated episode. Egypt has legitimate concerns over Iran's political agenda in Iraq but it is not the intention of Cairo to go into an open political or diplomatic confrontation with Tehran. One informed official told Al-Ahram Weekly, "There was never enough evidence to support the information provided by some security leads of even remote Iranian involvement in the killing of El-Sherif. "It is true that some Iraqi sources conveyed this scepticism to Cairo but the situation was fairly unclear as far as I know," the official added. This is precisely true. The story of El-Sherif unescorted out of his well-secured Baghdad house one evening in June 2005, the kidnap and the announcement of an assassination a few days later, is presented in many different accounts by many different informed sources. "The fact of the matter is that this has been a predominantly intelligence account of which the details are confined to only a few very high intelligence officers in Egypt. So whatever was being said to any newspaper by any diplomat was probably a briefing on the assessments that was made on deep background," one diplomat commented. But this week's incident is not just about the management of news and information. It is essentially, as many observers noted, about the tension that has been marring Egyptian-Iranian relations due to conflicting political views on Iraq and the entire Gulf -- qualified by Iran as the Persian Gulf and by Egypt as the Arab Gulf. Egypt has serious concerns about Iran's plans to expand its political influence, not just as a Shia but also as a Persian state, in Iraq and across the Gulf. This expansion would only harm Egyptian interests since Cairo fears it would harm the Arab identity of this part of Egypt's eastern neighbourhood. Cairo also fears that the expansion of Iran's influence might eventually give rise to tension between Shia and Sunnis in this part of the world. This would mean possible militant conflicts. "Egypt is working very hard to find a peaceful end to the Arab-Israeli conflict," commented one diplomat. "We want to have no wars. The last thing we need is a new source of tension that could eventually bring about military conflict." Throughout recent history, Egyptian-Iranian relations have had their ups and downs. Since the declaration of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, diplomatic relations have been severed. It was Tehran that took the decision in reaction to the decision by former President Anwar El-Sadat to give refuge to the toppled Shah of Iran. Since then there have been several attempts to mend fences between Cairo and Tehran. In 2003 a meeting in Geneva between President Hosni Mubarak and former reformist Iranian President Mohamed Khatami, on the fringe of the World Economic Forum, gave rise to hopes and indeed for diplomatic efforts towards the restoration of full diplomatic relations between the two leading Middle Eastern countries. But those efforts never brought about their objective mainly due to security concerns on the side of Egypt which said it had unanswered questions regarding Iran's support for militant Islamist groups in Egypt and elsewhere across the Arab world. Egypt also said there were unanswered questions about Iran's interest to widen the number of Shia sympathisers in the country. The declared concern was also true: Egypt was not willing to re-establish diplomatic ties as long as the name of Khaled El-Islamboli, the assassin of President Sadat, was held high at one of Tehran's main streets. The ascension of hard-liners to power in Tehran in the summer of 2005 put a hold on the potential to resume diplomatic ties with Cairo which is currently blaming Iranian influence not just for sectarian tension in Iraq but also for what Egypt qualifies as "political miscalculations" by Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Political commentators have often recommended the need for Cairo and Tehran to work on meeting half-way despite their differences. "Iran might have its [political, cultural and sectarian] expansionist intentions but this is no reason for Egypt to abandon the road towards dialogue with such an influential country," said prominent political scientist Hassan Nafaa. A long-time advocate of the pragmatic approach towards Egyptian-Iranian relations, Nafaa argued that the issue of Egyptian-Iranian relations should not be diluted to a news story or press release made here and there. "There have been strategic miscalculations, especially on the side of Egypt, in handling these relations... Egypt missed a great opportunity during the rule of former Iranian presidents Hashimi Rafsanjani and Mohamed Khatami but diplomacy should still be given a chance," he added. Like many other commentators Nafaa blamed "security and intelligence apparatus and bureaucratic mentalities for aborting all attempts to re-establish relations". However, he insisted that it is never too late. Cairo and Tehran could still pursue a diplomatic dialogue, not just to fix the situation in Iraq for the interest of all parties concerned but also to contain the growing tension between Sunni and Shia and of moderate versus radical qualifications that the US is trying to plague the region with. According to Nafaa, if Egypt can have relations with Israel which has killed so many Egyptians in consecutive wars, it can certainly have relations with Iran which is held responsible for the assassination of Sadat and maybe even El-Sherif if the press is to be believed. "This is in the interest of both countries. It is in the interest of regional stability," Nafaa said. It was probably this perception of common interests, despite the many differences, that prompted Iranian Foreign Minister Menshaher Mutaki to request a meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit on the sidelines of their participation in the African summit. For diplomats on both sides, the 40-minute meeting on Monday evening was more than an opportunity to bypass the sensitivities prompted by the media assault on Tehran. Sources say Mutaki affirmed to Abul-Gheit that it was not Tehran's intention to make a diplomatic issue out of a controversial news story. The meeting offered the top diplomats an opportunity to discuss Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and other regional issues in sufficient depth. Egypt received confirmation from Iran that the latter would exert efforts to curb anti-Sunni sentiments and attacks. For its part, Iran received confirmation from Egypt that it would neither promote nor support an American military attack on Iran. At the end, both ministers described the meeting as an opportunity for "a good and candid discussion on issues of common concern". What will come out of the meeting remains to be seen. It depends not only on the assessment of both ministers but on their internal and external influences, especially intelligence and American reflections, that have not favoured a resumption of diplomatic relations between Cairo and Tehran.
