ust when the US thought it would mop its brow, having tried hard to tame
the West Asian rodeo, the Israeli horse has kicked up dirt. Americans,
like everyone else, were waiting for Benjamin Netanyahu to lose the
March 17 elections, before proceeding with their script of a nuclear
deal with Iran towards some conclusion in the coming weeks.
Does the Netanyahu fourth term throw a monkey-wrench in the works John Kerry has been pursuing with such dedication?
His
primary strategic goal is to sign a nuclear deal with Iran. Since a
military option was just not feasible, keeping Iran out of regional
balance of power was impractical for the US. Without Iran in the
regional solar system, the US would have to be ready for intervention to
keep the regional equilibrium. This doesn't serve a useful American
purpose any more.
Riyadh, Cairo, Ankara are regional power
centers Jerusalem was comfortable with. In this galaxy, Jerusalem, and
to a lesser extent Riyadh, had relied even on a recently reluctant
Washington. Jerusalem was a special case. It was more equal than others.
With new legitimacy about to be conferred on Iran, Tehran will automatically become an important power for regional balance.
This
amounts to a relative decline in Israel's regional status and Israel
will resist it until Israeli lobbies around the world including the US
see the writing on the wall. Unfortunately for Israel, Netanyahu has
manufactured victory on such an uncivilized platform - no state for
Palestinians, and racist venom for Israeli Arabs - that the
international community would have difficulty engaging with him. Of
course, he will turn, but then he will be a proven turncoat.
Even
the Saudis, who in recent years made common cause with Israel against
Iran, will have difficulty resuming with an Israel so configured.
The
new balance of power the US has finally persuaded itself to create in
the region is attended by a paradox. Riyadh, Cairo, Ankara, Israel - no
one wants the status quo to be altered. And get the situation on the
ground is slowly eroding the status quo.
In shaping the new
balance of power, Washington does come across on occasion as playing a
double game. Take Washington's reluctance in launching air strikes
against the ISIS when it had just begun to menace the region. Barrack
Obama let the cat out of the bag. Airstrikes against the ISIS at that
stage, he said, would take the pressure off Prime Minister Nouri al
Maliki in Baghdad who had lost US confidence. Maliki had to leave. To
that extent the Americans played the ISIS hand in helping shape a local
situation.
Likewise, during the siege of Kobane, US power helped
Kurds, not the Turkish hegemon. So pressure here, tinkering there all,
to avoid anyone becoming too powerful.
An abridged version of
recent history can begin with the mess left behind by Prince Bandar bin
Sultan, given total charge of the Syrian operations by the late Saudi
King. The most macabre cruelty was perpetrated on world TV by forces
financed from outside and supported by the West. Hillary Clinton, the
then Secretary of State and a possible Democratic Presidential
candidate, demanded with an imperious wave of the hand. "Get out of the
way, Assad!" Years later, John Kerry sees no future for Syria without
Bashar al Assad being part of the solution. But isn't this what Iran and
Russia have been saying from the day a gameplan was designed to break
the Iran, Syria, Hezbullah, Hamas chain by, first, bringing about regime
change in Damascus?
After four years of exertion, there is no
regime change. Someone has eaten crow but the world didn't see it.
Meanwhile, the ISIS continued to menace all and sundry including the
Saudis whose General, incharge of the Northern Border with Iraq, became a
recent casualty.
The Sunni-Sunni tussle intensified when the
ISIS virtually took over Tikrit, once Saddam Hussain's stronghold.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif flew to Baghdad to sign an
agreement which removes visa requirements for Iranian citizens (troops).
Flushed with reinforcements, Iranian troops broke the back of the ISIS
in Tikrit. Obviously, the regime in Baghdad is beholden to Iran.
Likewise, the Houthis and Shia Zadidis of Yemen have trusted Iranians as
overseers. Can Iran be kept out of a regional balance now?
This
exponential growth of Iranian influence is anathema to Israel, Cairo,
Ankara and Riyadh but they have to lump it because the alternative is
for the US to remain directly engaged in Arab-Arab squabbles much to the
neglect of more urgent business in the Pacific where China and a
Sino-Russia axis are sources of anxiety. An unexpected source of comfort
to all those supporting a two state solution in Israel is Netanyahu's
last minute denial of a Palestinian state. Nothing will help the
Palestinian cause more.
(Saeed Naqvi is a commentator on
political and diplomatic affairs. The views expressed are personal. He
can be reached on [email protected])
