The missiles crisis and today's New York conference to review the nuclear non-proliferation treaty constituted the last link between all the crises in the Middle East and marked the beginning of the new regional order. It is a tripartite link which was tightly tied by Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran, each for its own reason. The United States conveyed this link when it considered the stalemate affecting the resolution of the Palestinian cause as being a danger threatening its national interests in the “Greater” Middle East, from Afghanistan to the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Israel for its part consecrated the priority of the Iranian nuclear dossier and its annexes as an existential threat that should come ahead of any other issue, and before the negotiations with the Palestinian authority. As for Iran, it has posted its missiles on the outskirts of the Hebrew state to protect its nuclear program and extract an efficient and influential regional role. It has also raised the flag of the Palestinian cause, thus increasing the support of the Islamic street for its ambitions in the region, all of this while portraying its military programs, both the nuclear and the rocket ones, as being a deterrence force in the face of its regional and international adversaries. Today, the United Nations will start reviewing the international treaty banning the spread of nuclear weapons and this will mark yet another occasion for the American administration to put the last touches on the international nuclear policy and proceed with its international mobilization in the face of the Iranian nuclear program. Moreover, this reviewing will start in parallel to the “missiles crisis” and the escalation of the Israeli threats to Syria and Lebanon. Although the latter threats are an old tune, what is new this time is the high American tone. Indeed, the crisis accompanied the nuclear summit held in Washington a few weeks ago, but also the hindered preparations for the launching of indirect talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians and continued until the eve of the current meetings in New York and Cairo. Ever since it reassessed its nuclear doctrine, the administration of President Obama did not miss one opportunity to raise the issue of the nuclear dossier and its annexes in the region. However, while it feels there is time to handle this issue through diplomatic means, its ally Israel seems to be restless and is acting as if the clock was ticking, knowing that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has been repeating for years that his party's arsenal of rockets has been rebuilt and waving more than once the slogan of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” It is as though the region is living amid a Cold War based on mutual deterrence, one which has so far preserved the calm on the border of the Hebrew state. A lot was said about the timing of the eruption of the missiles crisis and the reasons behind the exchange of this “bombardment” of threats. What is certain however is that the immediate goal of this entire “commotion” is to facilitate the mission of US envoy George Mitchell, pave the way before the launching of the indirect negotiations and quiet down the opposing “commotion” of Syria, Iran and their allies. The goal was achieved and the Arab follow-up committee approved the negotiations once again. When necessary, Israel and America will be ready to activate the missiles issue, and maybe even demand the implementation of the stipulations of the international resolutions regarding the arms of Hezbollah, namely resolution 1701. There is no doubt that the obstacles, complications and dangers which encountered and are still encountering the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, have encouraged and are still encouraging Iran and Syria to ignore the American demands. Moreover, there is a prevailing belief in both countries that the administration of President George Bush Jr. lost the war on Iraq on the eve of its launching when it declared its hostility toward Tehran and Damascus, to the point where some imagined that following the fall of Baghdad, it will be the turn of the two capitals! Furthermore, the decay which affected the Arab situation due to the war on terrorism and the repercussions of the New York and Washington attacks, encouraged the Islamic republic to expand in a way which was impossible following the breaking out of the “Islamic Revolution.” Therefore, the exit of “Saddam's Iraq” from the equation, opened a wide door allowing its arrival to the Mediterranean shore without any obstacles and facilitating the transfer of the missiles arsenal to Hezbollah. But what about Israel's nuclear and non-nuclear arsenal? Benjamin Netanyahu was absent from the nuclear summit held in Washington a few weeks back to avoid getting involved in the turmoil surrounding this dossier, to avoid seeing it placed on the same level as the Iranian one and spare its Western allies from the talk about “double standards.” The summit proceeded anyway. Nonetheless, today's conference in New York enjoys a different status and Iran along with other Arab delegations are expected to address the Israeli position toward the treaty, knowing that in 1995 Egypt led the Arab position rejecting the extension of the treaty banning the spread of nuclear weapons if Israel were to refuse to join it. However, it recanted its position under American and European pressures, and in order to prevent the tackling of this issue again, Russia - and not America - preempted the situation with a joint paper! The paper, which was supported by Europe, called on all the Arab countries to commit to the treaties providing for the elimination of biological and chemical weapons and the prevention of nuclear experiments, as well as to the other treaties related to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in the region before even looking at the Israeli nuclear dossier. Just like that, instead of Israel's nuclear and non-nuclear arsenal becoming the object of a reviewing, it became above questioning, while Iran's nuclear dossier and Syria's missiles to Hezbollah continued to be scrutinized due to the war threat they posed on the region - as it was stated by Clinton. The link that was established by Russia and America between the Israeli nuclear dossier, the peaceful settlement in the region and the sanctions on Tehran have started to draw up the facets of the new world order in the Middle East, under the headline that the superpowers will not allow Iran and Syria to establish a balance of terror with the Hebrew State. This is a clear message sent to the two poles of the “alliance of rejectionism.” As for the second message, it is addressed to Netanyahu's government, saying that there is an international understanding over the non-display of any leniency toward any threat targeting Israel's security. They thus called on Israel not to think about striking Iran's facilities or one of its arms in the region, because such a war could result in massive damages affecting most of the superpowers and the neighboring countries. Indeed, America will not be pleased to see simultaneous confrontations in several countries jeopardizing the lives of its soldiers and interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and the Gulf, while the industrial states will not accept the closing of the Hormuz Strait which is the vital passageway for around 20% of the world's oil. In that same context, neither will Russia be pleased to see all the traditional and non-traditional armament relations built with the Islamic Republic tampered with, nor will China be pleased with the undermining of its oil and commercial interests with this Republic. Therefore, there must be an international consensus over the sanctioning of Iran and the guaranteeing of Israel's military superiority by Russia and America. These two measures ought to appease the fears of Netanyahu's government for the time being. However, although it is true that the cost of the sanctions will be much lower than the cost of any war that could become a comprehensive one in the Greater Middle East - recognizing that any strike targeting Iran's nuclear program will delay it for a few years but will not stop it - it is also true that the sanctions may not ensure the required results as it was revealed by many past experiences. Nonetheless, the ratification of these sanctions amid a campaign of promises and intimidation against the backdrop of the missiles crisis and the threats of resorting to the military option on a daily basis, could force the Islamic republic to calm down and redraft new positions in regard to its relations with the international community. On the other hand, in addition to these external considerations, Tehran cannot disregard for long the internal considerations and the painful consequences that could be entailed by any sanctions. Indeed, it is not enough for it to brag about confronting the international community without any calculations, about fighting on several fronts and proceeding with the reckless missiles and nuclear production that has surpassed the country's economic abilities. Has the collapse of the Soviet Union not delivered a lesson? The Soviet Union engaged in the armament race without any regard for the economy's and the country's abilities. The Eastern camp thus collapsed and lost its stardom when Ronald Reagan launched his Star War program! Is the Islamic Republic's economic situation and the international isolation that is escalating around it not one of the reasons behind the domestic discontent and the division affecting the members of the same camp and the sons of “Al-Khomeini's revolution?” The expected sanctions on Iran, the Russian-American card and the tight link between all the crises in the region, have all drawn the chart for the new regional order in the Middle East, one without the birth of which, there are missions and complications which will be impossible to overcome. The indirect negotiations which will be resumed between Israel and the Palestinian authority are not heralding good results, the containment of the repercussions of the Iraqi elections does not show signs for the imminent birth of the new government in Baghdad, the “missiles crisis” will not be solved tomorrow, the sanctions on Iran may not entail the desired results and the military option to halt the nuclear program does not seem to be guaranteed. Therefore, following the example of its neighbors Pakistan and India which are engaged in peaceful negotiations after two wars during the last century, the only option that would guarantee the future of the authority of the “Islamic Republic” - despite the opposition of the international community - is dialogue which would not have been possible had it not been for the nuclear deterrence power of the two countries. In the meantime, while awaiting these changes, their repercussions on the future of the region and the end of this long American-Russian war, it would be fine to proceed with the deep Arab sleep.
