All that can be said and some of what should never be said have already been said, in commenting on the forty-eight hours that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spent in Lebanon. However, my opinion is different from what I have read or heard so far. Ahmadinejad has exceeded his expiration date, and I fear that, should it continue, his demagoguery will end up bringing about a significant clash with Syria. While I have always supported Iran against Israel, and subsequently supported an Iranian bid to acquire a nuclear weapon as long as Israel possesses one, I must say that in case a dispute erupts with Syria, and should Iran not alter or change its policies, I will side with Syria (as I have sided with the UAE on the subject of the three islands). Consider the following background: Ahmadinejad's demagoguery was justified to counter the aggressiveness of the administration of George W. Bush. Although things have since changed, the Iranian policies are yet to change to keep pace with developments in the international scene since Barack Obama took office in the White House. Until that moment, the declared American policy was “regime change” in Syria and Iran following the invasion of Iraq. However, the ensuing resistance and terrorism in Iraq have shattered the dreams of an American empire and the plotting of the Israel gang. The United States have lost the war in Iraq and have lost the war twice in Afghanistan…so far, and the Obama administration is not seeking to change any regimes. If we take this month alone as an example of Ahmadinejad's failure, we find that the Iranian riyal fell by 13 percent, while international banks are restricting financial transactions with Iran, and the United States is pressuring Russia and China to suspend their military cooperation with Iran. Merchants in Tehran are striking in protest against a plan to increase taxes, and the government wants to end subsidies on electricity, fuel and food, or assign them to government agencies so that the people would rely more and more on the government. Iran is a large oil producer, and yet, it has a gasoline crisis. Faced with this deteriorating situation, the Iranian president is escaping towards the Palestinian cause and Lebanon. However, the real picture is such that Ahmadinejad needs the Palestinian cause and Lebanon, but not vice versa. Every assistance that the Palestinians or Lebanon (namely Hezbollah) receive from Iran, is doubly offset in terms of antagonizing the outside world against them. Where does Syria stand in all this? It does not suit Syria at all to have Iran compete with it over influence in Lebanon, especially as the main base that supports both countries in Lebanon is one and the same. Following the Iranian president's speech in Bint Jbeil, Israel and its mouthpieces abroad, along with the Likudnik evil gang, began alleging that Lebanon has become an Iranian ‘protectorate', and that Iran is now on the borders of Israel, something that weakens the political cards that Syria holds. And although the visit of President Bashar al-Assad to Saudi Arabia and his clear accord with King Abdullah have indeed provided some protection to the situation in Lebanon, this will not last forever. If Iran's meddlesomeness was limited to Lebanon, I probably would not have said that it will shake the Syrian-Iranian axis. However, the Iranians have started gradually inheriting American hegemony over Iraq, and are dictating policies for its fragile government. This does not suit Syria at all, and I find this issue to be much more important that Iranian “showmanship” in South Lebanon. The plain aspect of the dispute between Syria and Iran in Iraq is the issue of forming a new cabinet. This issue goes far beyond the fact that Iran (along with the United States) wants Nuri al-Maliki to remain in his post as prime minister while Syria doesn't, or that the leaders of the Iraqi Shiite parties are “flocking” to Qum to receive instructions there, or even reside there in the case of Muqtada al-Sadr. I can see a horror scenario that would begin in the aftermath of complete American military withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011, where Iran controls the Iraqi government through the Shiite majority there, and where the Sunnis and Kurds resist the Iranian role, leading to a civil war and the practical, if not official, partitioning of Iraq, to a Shiite south, a Sunni-majority center, and a Kurdish north. Such a situation would harm the interests of all other Gulf States, from small Arab countries in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, to Turkey in the north. But most of all, it would harm Syria where the regime is secular and is built on balances that include all religious communities in the country. Hence, it would not suit this regime to have in its back, an Iranian-Iraqi Shiite extension that pursues an old-new demagogic policy. The regime in Damascus calculates a lot, and must no doubt have taken this scenario into account, even if Syrian interests require the regime not to declare any position at the moment. Since the Iranian threat does not involve Syria alone, but also near and far away nations, it is the duty of states being threatened to help Syria rein in the excesses of Iranian policies, because it is also being targeted. I say this while still in favor of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon to confront Israel. Nevertheless, I do not support the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in working for sectarian dominance in Iraq, or in exploiting the Palestinian cause or the situation in Lebanon to escape from domestic and foreign crises that the Iranian government itself is directly responsible for, to the extent that it has no friends left but the Supreme Leader. But the latter may reassess the situation at any time, and change his position vis-à-vis the Iranian president. [email protected]
