A new episode in this season of the American-Iranian “series” ended in recent days in the Omani capital, Muscat. Both sides struck a note that it was a “positive” start amid a torrent of speculation and divergent projections.
Some await an imminent military showdown spurred by Israel. That remains a possibility, given the bond shared by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the latter’s desire to spread chaos and accelerate fragmentation across the Middle East.
Others do not rule out a new deal between two capitals that have made a habit of reducing political solutions to such agreements. The Iranian-American nuclear agreement, we should remember, was concluded after a deal had been struck (also in Muscat) following secret negotiations conducted between 2013 and 2015 under President Barack Obama.
True, much has changed since then. Most consequently, Washington withdrew from this agreement after Trump assumed the presidency for the first time. He has taken an even harder line toward Tehran in his second term.
The regional scene has also changed on the Israeli side. Netanyahu has embraced the principle that “offense is the best form of defense” and the best way to fight corruption charges.
Israel’s wars would not have been so easy were it not for a series of factors, first among them the unconditional support of the US
Eyad Abu Shakra
According to some Israeli critics, Netanyahu silenced the Israeli public and even rode the wave of its radicalization through a series of expansionist wars in the Occupied Territories, Lebanon and Syria. These wars reached a “point of no return” in Gaza … before moving on toward second and third wars in the West Bank and Lebanon, and perhaps Syria.
These wars would not have been so easy were it not for a series of factors, first among them the unconditional support of Washington. This support, as we see, takes multiple forms: from brandishing accusations of antisemitism to the full logistical backing of the Israeli war machine’s plans. All this proceeds from the premise that the interests of the Israeli right (not merely Israel as a state) are deeply rooted in Washington’s principles, philosophy, religious culture and strategic interests.
Second, the growing influence of racist and fascist right-wing movements in Europe and elsewhere. This influence is visible at the heart of institutions of power and media in the US and Western Europe, even amid the solidarity of millions of people with the victims of the genocide in Gaza.
Third, there has been a decline of Arab solidarity amid Western hostility to Arabs and Muslims, especially the children of immigrants. It is now obvious that there is no effective, unified Arab strategy for confronting the mounting regional crises. Moreover, Israeli hegemony in the Middle East has been disorienting the Arab world’s priorities and hindering the emergence of the approaches required to address the consequences, both material and potential, of this hegemony.
Fourth, the influence of Israel’s expansionist right’s supporters has become increasingly apparent, notably in the spheres of communication technology, cybernetics and artificial intelligence. This factor, in my view, will be a major threat over the coming months, not to mention years. Wars being waged to harvest, store and exploit data have become a reality. It seems that the principal player in this war is Israel, whether directly or through American billionaires, their giant corporations and their influential businesses and networks.
Sensible figures in the Iranian top brass know Washington well. They know the pragmatic Western mindset
Eyad Abu Shakra
Washington, backed by Tel Aviv, is launching another round of blackmail against this background.
Meanwhile, we seem to be spectators with neither cards to play nor calculations to make.
The Arab region, especially the Gulf, has suffered greatly over the past three decades. Since 2003, the Iranian leadership has been empowered by global tolerance, as the world encouraged it to overreach and pursue greater ambitions.
However, sensible figures in the Iranian top brass know Washington well. They know the pragmatic Western mindset. It is not driven by sentiment or illusions of friendship. We also see Iran cunningly using political “taqiyya” and keenly avoiding red lines, even amid bombastic slogans and liberationist one-upmanship.
This approach, which became visible after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been shaping the political scene as Israeli leaders seek to micromanage the American clash with Tehran. It may not be in Washington’s interest, at present, to partition Iran. This may also reflect the sentiments of segments of the Arab public, including many of Iran’s adversaries, because the price of containing an Iranian collapse could be exorbitant.
But for Netanyahu and his regional project, war — even if it leads to partition and chaos — could serve as a model and a means for imposing submission across the Arab world.
BY: Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
