Is the region heading for war or peace? Despite all parties being convinced that there is no military solution to regional conflicts, they continue to exchange threats. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has recently threatened the Syrian President that he would lose both the war and his post, if he declared war on Israel. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moaallem retorted that if Israel declared war on Syria or Lebanon, war would extend to the Israeli towns. At the same time, the Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak avowed that his country wanted to negotiate peace with Syria, while Syrian officials are willing to resume the Turkish sponsored negotiations. More importantly is that both Syria and the US are willing to resume diplomatic relations. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath, who visited Gaza and top men of the rival group Hamas, declared that they would sign a reconciliation agreement in Cairo. Khaled Mashaal, the Supremo of Hamas, asked Cairo to resume its reconciliatory efforts that were blocked by his faction. The Israeli strategists are divided on Hamas. Some saw that if Israel welcomed the reconciliation, the Palestinian President would be in a position to allow him to make more concessions. Others believed that maintaining the status quo would allow Hamas to fire some ineffective rockets, giving Israel reason to respond aggressively and to block the peace process. In the Gulf, the Americans will build a wall of Patriot missiles in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Emirates. The Iranian Chief of Staff has downplayed the importance of this wall and his country has test-fired new long-range rockets. At the same time, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad approved the Western proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia and France. The West welcomed his oral approval, but is waiting for it to be translated into an official proposal to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel still threatens Iran and the Persian state just responds with retaliatory threats. Analysing the above data and starting with Israel, one should answer some questions. The first is about the Israeli strategic ideology on its safety. From 1973 until now, safety as a strategic concept has been eroded in the Israeli strategy. In 1973, the Egyptians planed and fought a successful war that opened the way to Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. Israel withdrew from South Lebanon after it could not withstand the cost of the occupation. During the war, between Israel and Lebanon that ended without a decisive victory for both parties, Israel was exposed to Hizbollah rockets that reached Haifa, Israel's second largest city. Before declaring another war, Israeli strategists and generals should either solve the safety problem or abandon safety as a strategic concept, which is a bad choice for Israel affecting its ability to attract new immigrants. Israel cannot risk attacking Iran without the approval and participation of the US forces. On the other hand, there is a slight probability that the US might attack Iran; the participation of Israel would ruin its plans in the region. Another strategic safety conflict after Israeli leaders wanting the Palestinians to recognise them as a Jewish state is the possibility of Israeli Arabs to take part in any future intefada (uprising), opening the door to a one-state solution. When clashes between Israeli Arabs and extremists Jews erupted in Haifa, Israeli President Shimon Perez was extremely annoyed and exerted maximum efforts to contain them. Iran plays the game by swinging between the poles of confrontation and resolution without fully reaching either of them. It had masterminded wars by proxy through the Houthis in Yemen. The show of power that Iran presents is a propaganda for its people in order to absorb the opposition and economic problems. The Iranians knew that if they fired a rocket against Israel, they would give an excuse for the US and the West to demolish their nuclear reactors and army. The country acts as a paper tiger to terrorise the Gulf states, which meets some Western interests to boost arms sales. It also meets Israeli interests, so as not to open the Israeli nuclear file now or even after peace. However, if Iran attacked any Gulf state, most probably another international alliance will be formed, as happened during the Kuwait Liberation War and it would mark the end of the Iranian regime. The West wants it as a paper tiger and the Iranians try to benefit from that. The Iranian officials have never mentioned their intention to fight alongside Syrians, Lebanese or Palestinians. Spiritual support, riots and some TV talk shows are their only tools to participate in military conflicts against Israel. However, they may spend millions on proxy wars that support their regional ambitions, letting others being killed and facing the destruction of the others' infrastructures. When the Syrian Foreign Minister threatened Israel, he referred to his country and to Lebanon where Hizbollah is present. He did not mention Gaza, where may be the front of the next Israeli aggression. Syria has not fired a bullet against Israel since 1973. It let Israel occupy Lebanon while the Syrian army was present there. Hizbollah always denied responsibility for the few rockets that were fired at Israel during the war on Gaza. The Syrian's ally Russia did not supply the Syrian army with recent air defence equipment. The warplanes that bombed the Syrian buildings claimed by Israel to house a secret nuclear reactor came from the north through Turkish air space. The Syrian air defence did not respond to the attack. Relations between Russia and Israel are developing to the extent that Israel exerted pressure on Russia not to modernise the Syrian army by selling Israeli unmanned spy planes. The American missile shield in the Gulf is not directed against Iran. The US has enough forces to destroy Iran using its military bases and navy in retaliation for firing Iranian rockets. In fact, this wall is the Southern wing of anti-missile missiles against Russian strategic ballistic rockets. It also serves in consolidating forces against the increasing Chinese military presence in South Asia. They simply use the region in their negotiation with Russia about disarmament and to build up pressure on China. The conclusion is that all parties know that they will go to negotiations and that they show power before sitting around the negotiating table. The region may witness some limited wars by proxy as long as parties cannot see an end to the tunnel in a serious and productive peace process. However, the global strategy of the US stipulated that the region should be stable. Unfortunately, the Americans exert pressure on the wrong partner. This policy will ruin their global strategy and they may lose the game. The success of US global strategy passes through Jerusalem. They should join others to save the East Jerusalem by exerting pressure on West Jerusalem. The year 2010 is their deadline to start seriously. [email protected] Hany is an Egyptian writer, who regularly contributes to the Mail.
