Pundits are analysing the growing signs that Iran will be the target of a military strike, writes Rasha Saad For Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed it is a conclusion that many have drawn -- war against Iran is inevitable. In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat Al-Rashed wrote that for the first time since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, we are witnessing a near unanimous position against Tehran on an international scale. America, Britain, France and Russia are against. "The White House is no longer the indicator with which to gauge the position towards Iran because what is being said in Moscow, Paris and Berlin has become quite similar [to that of Washington]." Providing more explanation, Al-Rashed wrote that the Russian press has hopped onto the anti- Iran bandwagon after accusing Tehran of adding fuel to the fire and heading in the direction of war. Moreover, Al-Rashed argues, the unexpected surprise that preceded this new position and which also caused Iran some confusion was the outcome of the French elections. The Iranians rejoiced when Jacques Chirac left office and prayed for the victory of Nicholas Sarkozy because of his strength and independence. Chirac, who has long been accused of hostility towards Iran and subordination to Washington, left the French presidential palace, making way for Sarkozy to adopt a more stringent policy towards the US. Meanwhile, Al-Rashed continues, Gordon Brown was appointed the new prime minister of the United Kingdom in June, and his lack of progress or developments [in the Iranian situation] has ended up as hostility towards Iran. The German position advocated a firmer approach in dealing with Iran. "The conviction that a war will erupt leads to war, since both parties prepare for it in every way," Al-Rashed concluded. Mustafa Zein, in the London-based daily Al-Hayat, also believes that the US administration has overcome the trust crisis and that the world has forgotten its lies to justify the war on Iraq and overlooked the misfortunes of the Iraqis after the occupation. "The media outlets were able to attribute what is going on to the terrorism of Al-Qaeda and Iran and to exonerate regular and mercenary armies." For Zein, as for many Arab pundits, signs of an approaching strike on Iran were further confirmed by the statements of the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who said last week that tensions had escalated in Iran to a point that could lead to war. Even after France toned down these statements Zein believes that Kouchner's retracted statements and offer to be a mediator between Tehran and Washington only corroborated the readiness of the White House to wage a new war, and that France was plotting for, or is involved in, the preparations for this new venture. "Kouchner may have gone through this scenario and thus leaped to call for war with an energy envied by the neo-conservatives, expressing his readiness to play a role in collecting evidence and submitting it to the 'international community'. This is exactly what Blair did when paving the way for the war on Iraq." However, Amir Taheri gave a different interpretation to Kouchner's statements. In an article in Asharq Al-Awsat, Taheri wrote, "to be sure, Kouchner, always a man of peace, did not present war as the only option. In fact, he went out of his way to insist that every effort should be made to resolve the crisis through peaceful means." According to Taheri, Kouchner set the cat among the pigeons by announcing that the Western democracies had to prepare for war to stop the Islamic republic in Tehran from developing a nuclear arsenal. What was refreshing in Kouchner's remarks, Taheri argues, was the fact that he was ready to draw a line in the sand, something that most of his Western colleagues have refused to do. In doing so, Kouchner was, in fact, acting in accordance with his boss, President Sarkozy's culture of " franc-parler " (plain speaking). One of the promises Sarkozy made during the French presidential election campaign last spring was that, were he to win, he would "tell it as it is". "It was, therefore, no surprise that, commenting on the Iranian nuclear crisis last month, President Sarkozy minced no words. Steering clear of diplomatic double-talk, he told the world that the choice was either to let the Islamic republic develop a nuclear bomb or bomb it before it can do so," wrote Taheri. Taheri concluded that what Kouchner said this week was based on considered French policy rather than his well-known sentiments towards the Khomeinist system in Iran. In the Lebanese An-Nahar newspaper Sarkis Naoum wrote that Lebanese sources close to Iran vehemently deny the existence of fear in the Islamic republic against the possibility of a strike from the US or Israel. According to these sources Iran can confront these threats with its own "advanced military means." These sources, however, do not deny the existence of heightened concern over the fact that there exists tension with neighbouring Arab countries. "The volatile situation in the Middle East necessitates that wise Arab and Iranian minds come together and overcome any differences." Naoum also wrote that according to these sources the Iranians are ready for a dialogue and rapprochement of interests with the US but are in need of assurances in return. "The Iranian regime needs assurances from Washington itself and also from the international community that has to do with several issues such as assurances of the existence of the Iranian regime itself, the Iranian role in the Middle East and the mutual efforts to eliminate the dangers of terrorism," Naoum concluded.
