Pundits warned about the Arab League's proposal to expand the membership of the organisation to include non-Arab neighbours. As much as the term "neighbouring countries" is vague, the term primarily refers to Iran and Turkey. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa proposed the idea in the recent Arab summit held in Sirte, Libya. But in 'Moussa's recommendations', Hussein Shobokshi wrote that "inviting a heavyweight country to join such an extremely fatigued organisation is at the very least a cause for concern." In the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat Shobokshi wrote that inter-Arab relations already are tense. He cited relations between Syria and Lebanon, Kuwait and Iraq, Algeria and Morocco, and Egypt and Sudan. "Without exception, relations are tense, and the league, despite its stature and all its notable members, has failed to solve any of these problems. Now it is considering whether to introduce 'neighbouring heavyweights' to this already volatile arena." Shobokshi suggested that the Arab League focuses on other priorities to work on "before being preoccupied with other issues." Of the priorities, according to Shobokshi, is the internal restructuring of the league. If the two issues -- internal restructuring and inviting new members -- are mixed up "the result will be disappointing and fruitless." "The problem with the Arab League is that it has not taken the demands of Arab citizens seriously into consideration, to make them part of its policies and its basic structure. This should be the top priority of the organisation, rather than inviting neighbours," Shobokshi contends. Equally apprehensive was Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashid who wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat that he was not particularly keen on the idea of establishing a league of states of neighbouring Arab countries, saying he believed the current proposal was wrong and harmful to Arab security. "I can't understand why the Arabs are in such a hurry to incorporate Turkey and Iran into the Arab League, as if it was an emergency matter," Al-Rashid wrote. Al-Rashid warned that "this project will open the door for the Iranian wolf to step into the farm of the Arab lambs." Al-Rashid was, however, less apprehensive of Turkey because, as he wrote, so far it has shown no explicit ambitions, and plays a positive role. Al-Rashid wrote that it is possible to cooperate with Ankara on all levels on a bilateral basis and that no member of the Arab League would object to cooperating with Turkey "on bilateral and collective levels, in all fields ranging from importing agricultural products to seeking military cooperation." However, Al-Rashid notes, many would turn down an offer where "the Turkish cat would be sold alongside the Iranian camel. The relationship with Iran is still one of fear, caution and even rejection." In the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Mustafa Zein wondered what the countries neighbouring Iraq want of Baghdad and of its new politicians. What does the US want of those politicians who came to power with its military and political assistance? And where do the interests of those countries meet, and where do they part ways? According to Zein, "these questions and many others are imposed by what has become of Iraq." In 'Democratic Models, Zein wrote that whatever the answer to these questions the most important question was excluded: what do Iraqis want of their government, "a government forged by foreign consensus, by one country forcing its will on another, or by one coalition overpowering the other." Zein laments that in this context "the Iraqis are merely groups of people who have no will." "They [Iraqis] play their part during elections and then return to their homes and to their misery, to watch a game they have nothing to do with. Their democracy stops at the threshold of choosing this or that leader, so that he may lead them to what others in the neighbourhood or beyond the seas want." Zein wrote that foreign forces, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and the US, are now in consensus, without coordination, over calming things down. Zein said he was confident that the Iraqi government will be formed in the end, but it will fail to be independent because "every country that contributed to its formation will want a share in it." Also in Al-Hayat, Raghida Dergham focussed on US President Barack Obama's strategy to face Iran. Referring to mid-term Congressional elections, Dergham wrote that President Obama "will have to return to foreign policy issues, particularly those of the Middle East, as soon as the elections end, after which the Democratic Party is expected to lose its majority in the Senate or in Congress." Dergham wrote that some of the issues that await Obama require strong resolve, such as the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and the issue of Lebanon, while other issues require explaining or reconsidering, such as his policies towards Iraq and Sudan, and perhaps Afghanistan as well. The results of the elections, however, may prove useful in teaching Obama lessons in governance, Dergham maintains. Pointing to Iran, Dergham wrote that "the Islamic Republic of Iran is manoeuvring and engaging in dialogue at the same time." Dergham explains that Iran chose Afghanistan as the gateway to dialogue, knowing the need of the US for it to be there, while insisting on its stances on the nuclear issue as on the issues of regional hegemony, particularly in Iraq and Lebanon. What the Obama administration should formulate in terms of strategy towards Iran, Dergham advises, is a strategy of complementary issues, not a tactic that separates issues, like that of isolating ambitions of regional hegemony from talk of reaching an understanding over Afghanistan. "The administration should pay heed to this successful Iranian manoeuvre, as it should stop falling into Iran's clutches, whether in Iraq or in Lebanon," Dergham maintains.
