Reports recently published in the Western media that Saudi Arabia has secretly agreed to allow the Israelis to use its airspace to carry out air strikes against Iran was the focus of pundits this week. Saudi Arabia has officially said the reports were false and Tariq Al-Homayed described them as "illogical." Al-Homayed believes Riyadh would never sign an agreement with Israel to this effect. In the London-based, Saudi funded Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Homayed points out that US President Barack Obama's administration refuses to allow Israel to use Iraqi airspace to attack Iranian nuclear sites "so is it reasonable that Saudi Arabia, which has no ties with Israel and who the Israeli foreign minister has accused of being responsible for an international political and media campaign to distort the image of his country, would agree to allow Israel to use its airspace to strike Iran, while Washington -- Israel's greatest ally -- refuses to allow Netanyahu's government to use Iraqi airspace to attack Iran?" Al-Homayed asked. It is true that there is a large number of disputes between Saudi Arabia and Iran; this is no secret, Al-Homayed insists. "But Riyadh does not act recklessly or gamble, for Saudi Arabians are not known for their adventurism or risk-taking in politics and foreign relations. He cites as an example the events that followed the 1996 Khobar Towers bombings when the kingdom refused to publicly implicate Iran. Al-Homayed wrote that after lengthy investigations into the attack, in which a number of US soldiers were killed, "former US president Bill Clinton, a friend of Saudi Arabia, sent a senior US official to try to persuade Riyadh that Iran was responsible for the bombing. Washington wanted Saudi Arabia to announce this publicly because the US administration had said it would respond to those who were behind this [terrorist] operation, whether a state or individuals." However, Al-Homayed continues, the Saudi Arabians did not comply with Washington's request despite the fact that all the information they had obtained independently from their own investigations following this terrorist attack [corroborated this]. Also in Asharq Al-Awsat and in continuation, Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashid said that, "in reality, broadcasting this news was intended to embarrass Saudi Arabia and sabotage the already poor relations between Riyadh and Tehran." Al-Rashed wrote that the most important reason to refute this story is that "it would be completely irrational for Riyadh to ever allow the Israelis to use its airspace or cross its territory to strike Iran because this would mean Saudi Arabia's practical involvement in a direct war with the Iranians. And Saudi Arabia cannot become embroiled in a war with Iran." It is more important to identify the actions and behaviour of the countries involved than to analyse the credibility of this information, Al-Rashed argued. "Saudi Arabia is considered the most conservative country in the Middle East and is well-known for avoiding becoming embroiled in military adventures, regardless of the political temptations. The only exception to this was the war to liberate Kuwait which was crucial," Al-Rashed wrote. Al-Rashed insisted that the Saudi Arabians are certainly concerned with Iran's nuclear plans and fear that this is targeting them and the rest of the Gulf states. "However, this suspicion is not enough of a motive to get involved in a destructive war of adventure with a country that is three times the size of Saudi Arabia." According to Al-Rashed, Saddam Hussein was embroiled in a terrible war with Iran for eight years "due to his foolishness". Arab pundits also focussed on Iran a year after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected, causing uproar in the Islamic republic and the eruption of street demonstrations violently crushed by the regime. In the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Ghassan Charbel wrote, "Ahmadinejad blows the first candle of his second term of office and smiles. The regime is not threatened, at least in the near future." In "The year of wasted opportunities", Charbel wrote that "the president's smile does not mean that the picture is rosy". He argues that despite false appearances the year was wasted by the regime on internal and external levels. Charbel said it was true that the Green Movement did not dare take to the streets to avoid a bloodbath. It is also true that a year of strict oppressive practices had bore fruit, and that the authority curbed the protesters. "But this does not cancel out the fact that the regime's aura was affected and that the role of the supreme leader himself became a subject of controversy and conflict for the first time ever." Externally, Charbel continues, the Iranian regime "wasted the extended hand of opportunity that was offered by Barack Obama." He argues that the US president had a genuine interest in achieving a settlement with Iran. "Iran did not grab the opportunity and acted according to the logic of one that wants all or nothing," Charbel wrote. However, also in Al-Hayat, Mustafa Zein wrote that Iran was not wagering on President Obama and his call for openness to enemies and rivals, to guarantee that the country will not face harsh international sanctions. Because, as Zein argues, "Obama as a candidate, and then president, has changed considerably. He has retreated from the policy of openness he put forward at the beginning of his term." Zein points out that in Washington, they now compare Obama's policies to those of George Bush. "However, he is quite different than the recklessness of the cowboy. It is closer to the essence of the policy of wise men among neoconservative ranks, but smarter," Zein concludes.
