The US and Iran could conceivably join forces but that will have to wait until a new administration takes over, writes Rasha Saad Being a major player in the Middle East, Iran was the focus of pundits this week. In the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Patrick Seale focussed on strained US- Iranian relations and perceived there to be welcome signs of a coming thaw in America's hostile and ice- bound relations with Tehran. In his article "Is a Washington-Tehran 'grand bargain' possible?" Seale argues that for the first time in many years such a possibility is being actively debated and envisaged by American policy-makers and influential think-tanks. According to Seale, Washington sources report that leading politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties are beginning to explore the possibility of a radical shift in American policy towards the Islamic Republic once a new administration takes office in January 2009. The reason for such a change of heart, according to Seale, are many, including the failure of Bush's "global war on terror", "which is widely credited with having increased rather than diminished the terrorist threat to the United States and its allies." Accordingly, Seale advises the US to recognise the Islamic Republic and establish diplomatic relations with it; acknowledge Iran's role in the region; terminate Iran's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism; lift unilateral sanctions; and commit not to use force to change Iran's form of government, but on the contrary agree to begin an ongoing strategic dialogue with Tehran. In return, Seale adds, Iran would need to provide a definitive resolution of US concerns about Iran's possible pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical or biological. Iran would need to ratify and implement the IAEA's Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and unannounced inspections. It would need to help in transforming Hizbullah into a purely political and social movement. It would need to work for a stable political order in Iraq. And it would need to declare that it was not opposed to a negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. "Such a blueprint for a new relationship between the US and Iran would require great courage and vision on both sides. It is a task for the next American president. If implemented, it would transform America's image in the world and make an immense contribution to resolving conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan and, above all, that between Israel and its Arab neighbours, which is the most poisonous and long-running conflict of them all," Seale concludes. However, Hassan Haydar, also in Al-Hayat, believes that, as the next Arab summit nears, "the basic task for the Arabs remains finding a way to shut off Iranian influence within the Arab region, whether or not this enjoys unanimous backing." Haydar sees there is no coincidence in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetorical escalation and reiteration of the "imminent collapse and disappearance of Israel" and assuring the Palestinians and the Arabs that they would soon wake up to find that their national enemy had disappeared from the face of the earth, as the date of the Arab summit in Damascus approaches. Haydar believes that even though these statements by Ahmadinejad easily find critics in the world's capitals as "anti-Semitic" or "irrational", there is more at play here. "These statements are not just a provocation of Israel or the West, but above all are a provocation of the Arabs themselves because they cast doubt on the strategic choice the Arabs have adopted and affirmed at more than one summit: peace in exchange for the 1967 occupied territories." According to Haydar, the goal of this doubt-casting campaign is to justify and strengthen the Iranian penetration into an Arab arena headed towards peace, through the use of Tehran's allies Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria. Haydar explains that perhaps an evaluation of the political and negotiation moves that should be taken to confront Israel, and the suitability of the timing of these moves, will differ from one Arab country to another. "However, these countries, including Syria itself, are all committed to the principle of peace after they reached the conclusion that the option of military confrontation, which they used over the decades, left only tragedy and destruction in its wake. Due to the regional and international balances of power, this option also failed to jeopardise the existence of Israel or even to regain occupied Arab territory." Haydar thus warns the Arabs of Iran's desire to impose itself as a regional superpower and to expand its influence under the pretext of the ongoing state of war and hostility. In the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abdel-Bari Atwan pointed to Iran as a very possible party that will take part in avenging the Israeli assassination last week of Imad Mughniyah, Hizbullah's most significant military chief of staff. According to Atwan, the assassination of Mughniyah "will lead to a change in long established political equations that might change the face of the whole Middle East." Atwan quotes Hizbullah's leader Sayed Hassan Nasrallah who declared an open war to avenge the assassination of Mughniyah and who holds Israel responsible for the consequences of the assassination, saying that, "this man [Nasrallah] does not lie and does not exaggerate and has enormous power to take tough decisions. He [Nasrallah] is the only leader who dared to hit Israel with 4,000 missiles and is the only leader whose troops were able to hold up for 34 days without calling for Arab or Islamic assistance or calling for the convening of the UN Security Council." Added to Iran, Atwan believes that among the main parties that will avenge the assassination will be Hizbullah "who lost a key leader" and Syria whose national security has been breached. On a lighter issue, Hussein Shobokshi in Asharq Al-Awsat focussed on the winning of the Egyptian national team of the Africa Cup of Nations tournament that ended recently in Ghana. Shobokshi wrote, "today, football has become a comprehensive economic and social industry." He explained that it has become a mirror that reflects the cultures of nations and their sincerity in taking part in international competitions. Therefore, there is no difference between football and other elements of production. "It has actually become, without doubt, a method of development for nations, mentally and physically, to join the international battle and advance oneself. Yet the moment of happiness that Arabs witnessed recently remains a moment of happiness that came after a long wait." Tariq Al-Homayed agrees. In "More than just football!", also in Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Homayed, though acknowledging that the Egyptian team deserves "praise and commemoration on every level", questions the reason behind the tremendous joy that reigned over the Arab public as a result of Egypt's victory. Al-Homayed provides an answer, that with all the daily tragedies taking place in nearly all countries of the Middle East, the Arabs were pushed to go in search, by candlelight if they must, for a moment of joy, to experience happiness even if it were for a few fleeting seconds, from Tripoli to Manama and from the Sultanate of Oman to Saudi Arabia regardless of whether the celebration of the team, victory and coach were on behalf of Egypt. "People in the Arab world are looking for happiness -- even if it is in Ghana. This is the message, an expression of their wish to quell the frustration," Al-Homayed concluded.
