[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]

 

 

Al-Illihad, United Arab Emirates

The Gulf States Reject Bush's Approach to Iran

 

"Kuwait's Foreign Minister, by visiting Iran before Bush ended his historic visit the region, was sending a clear message: We don't agree with your escalation and confrontation with Iran, nor do we agree with your siege and boycott, which is being pursued without international approval. … If Washington's closest ally, Kuwait, responded in this fashion and won't accept the U.S. interpretation of events, then what was it Bush was told in the rest of Gulf capitals he visited?"

 

By Dr. Sa'id bin Tifla al-'Ajami

                                                  

 

Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher

 

January 17, 2008

 

United Arab Emirates - Al-Illihad - Original Article (Arabic)

Kuwait's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Sheikh Mohammad Al-Sabah, by visiting Iran before Bush ended his historic visit the region, was sending a clear message that we are moving in accord with our interests in the Gulf, which may not always coincide with the interests of the United States, and we do not agree with your escalation and confrontation with Iran, nor do we agree with your siege and boycott, which is being pursued without international approval. It's true that the visit was scheduled in advance, but most observers see a link between the meeting and Bush's visit.

 

Positive statements were exchanged by Kuwaitis and Iranians during and after the visit, an agreement on the demarcation of the continental shelf between the two countries was announced and another deal to purchase water and gas from Iran was signed.

 

 

Kuwait's independence and resolve in expressing such a sharp difference with America's policy of escalation makes one wonder: If Washington's closest ally, Kuwait, responded in this fashion and won't accept the U.S. interpretation of events, then what was it Bush was told in the rest of Gulf capitals he visited?

 

As far as Gulf newspapers and mass-media were concerned, Bush’s hardline anti-Iranian calls were very coolly received. Indeed, there is open opposition to lining up in the American trench against Iran. American weapons sales to the Gulf have been interpreted as a way of justifying U.S. policy against Iran. The suspicion is that by escalating the level of intimidation in regard to the Iranian threat, we in the Gulf will buy more weapons, which also cuts into the financial benefits of rising of oil prices. And one cannot forget the spontaneous hostility to anything American, which informs the opinions of most writers and those who run religious schools.

 

However, the important question here is: How does Iran understand this position of the Gulf? How does it interpret and deal with it?

 

There are two Iranian schools of thought on the Gulf's opposition to America's escalation against Iran. One school says that the Gulf is aware of Bush’s weakness and his incapacity to open other warfronts, since he's so busy in Iraq and Afghanistan - but that if the Gulf States were sure of Bush’s ability to confront Iran, they wouldn’t hesitate to support him.

 

Thus, this position reflects the weakness of the Arabs and the failure of Bush to spark a permanent escalation against the Islamic Republic. It is seen as a victory for Allah, given to us by Allah, and proof that we must adhere more strictly to Allah, who said, "If you have victory, it's Allah’s victory, as he fixes your feet firmly on the path."

 

The second Iranian school of thought believes that the Gulf's position is calculated to benefit the Arabs and our Gulf neighbors. And that Iran should show goodwill by offering an opening to long-awaited talks on the islands of the UAE [Persian Gulf islands claimed by both the Emirates and Iran], seeking to ease the complicated Lebanese domestic situation by supporting the Arab initiative to solve the crisis there and urge their “allies” (namely Hezbullah) to deal positively with the Arab initiative, and to participate in creating a less sectarian situation in Iraq. This school of thought sees a need to create a positive situation in the Gulf toward Iran before it's too late.

 

[Editor's Note: The author refers to the Lebanese crisis. The country is in turmoil because the pro-Western majority and Pro-Syrian minority in Parliament cannot come to an agreement on a new President].

 

It is said that the followers of the first school translated their position into harassing the American fleet in the Gulf, by firing rockets at U.N. forces in southern Lebanon and by directing Hamas to escalate the launching of additional rockets at the Israeli city of Sederot in the eve of Bush’s arrival in the region.

 

For Arabs, while the headlines during Bush’s tour were about creating a Palestinian state and making peace between Arabs and Israelis before the end of his term, the response from the extremist Zionist school was similar to that of the first Iranian school - to automatically build additional settlements and escalate the situation in Gaza, culminating in the massacre on the eve of Bush’s departure from the region.

 

This resulted in the killing and wounding of dozens of Palestinians, as if Israel’s response to the American President's efforts to achieve peace was: “Take this, Bush, here is what you get from the hand of your friend!” Bush will return to the area in May; what will be the reaction to his efforts then? 

 

Click Here for Arabic Version