This refers to Saida Fazal's "GCC states and their Iran problem" carried by the newspaper yesterday. The writer has argued, among things, that "Tehran is not going to attack any of these [GCC] countries. But it supports anti-status quo forces, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in occupied Gaza and the larger Palestinian freedom struggle. It also props up the Assad regime, which even though authoritarian- like all Arab states in the Gulf region- has a liberal, progressive outlook on regional affairs, and hence is a thorn in the side of both Gulf kingdoms and Israel. Tehran's increasing influence with popular movements threatens the existing order."
Hers appears to be a strong pro-Iran view, ignoring some grim realities of the region. For example, the US would have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to successfully invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban government without the support of Iran. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and annulment of the centuries-old Sunni order had not been a success story without the active support of Tehran. The Arab Spring that had led to uproot one of the worst dictators of the world received dogged resistance in Damascus where Iran and Hezbollah made it impossible for popular uprising to remove Bashar al-Assad. The arsenal provided by Saudi Arabia to Syrian rebels and increased involvement of al Qaeda in this country some adverse developments that took place much later. Insofar as writer's argument that "[i]t seems the Arab states would be better served by talking with Iran rather than looking to outsiders for help" is concerned, one would like to suggest that Tehran must reach out to these GCC states to ease their concerns without any further loss of time.
Comments
Comments are closed.