The American reaction to Iran’s retaliatory launching of drones and missiles against Israel was predictable and unhelpful. More sanctions against Iran, and more weapons for Israel, while calling for de-escalation, was at best contradictory, and at worst, could exacerbate existing tensions. Comments from the Israeli and Arab press, political decision-makers, and “analysts” in the United States and the West were more disturbing.
Some Arabs celebrated Iran’s display of force and deterrence. The Israelis praised the effectiveness of the defensive arsenal that thwarted Iran’s attack, which was well expected. A similar tone of congratulations was expressed by Western “hawks”, from the “right” and “left”, at first, and then they underestimated the Iranian attack, while indicating that the only effective response was massive retaliation by Israel to “neutralize” Iran. A limited response will only encourage Iran to attack again. Such ideas are short-sighted and downright dangerous.
The truth, despite the desire of some, is that neither Israel nor Iran will be defeated. The costs of such a foolish mission would devastate the entire region. Its arsenals and its allies – at the global and regional levels – can wreak havoc on countless lives and cause economic devastation in the countries of the Arab Levant and the Arabian Gulf. The greater Middle East needs peace and stability, not more conflict. More weapons and hostile attitudes will not help.
If we have learned anything from history, it is that the region’s opponents will not be defeated. Conflict either encourages them, or transforms the root causes of their conflicts into new, more ferocious forms. After decades of misguided American and Western policies, the region faces several separate but interconnected conflicts rooted in each country’s circumstances but driven by the same set of external actors: Iran and its allies, or the US/Israel axis and its allies. America’s insistence on a path of unquestioned support for Israel, and a refusal to challenge Israel or engage constructively with Iran, has led to where we are today: genocide in Gaza, Israel and Hezbollah on the brink of war, and Syria still reeling from After the aftermath of the civil war, Iran is involved in multiple conflicts, including in Libya and Sudan. In response to the United States’ lack of policy coherence, its weak position in global affairs, the rise of China and the China-Russia axis, and persistent regional threats, many Arab governments have been forced to act alone to protect their interests by pursuing regional peace and stability.
They are developing their own relations with Iran, working with China and Russia, while continuing their relations with the United States, and making overtures toward Israel. Now, in light of the devastating war in Gaza and the dangers of conflict between Israel and Iran, instead of finding a constructive way forward, the United States has returned to the failed policies of the past. When the Obama administration was using sanctions and its diplomatic capital to negotiate a nuclear arms deal with Iran, I was advocating a different path. Why don’t we deal with Iranian interference in the region by working with the same members of the P5+1 group in the United Nations in order to create a regional security framework similar to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which prevailed and worked to stabilize Europe, east and west, during the Cold War? .
The Iraq Study Group first proposed this idea in 2006, when it called for the formation of an international support group that brings together Iraq’s neighbors with the five permanent members of the Security Council to address the regional repercussions resulting from the Iraq war. (The Iraq Study Group is a ten-person, bipartisan commission appointed on March 15, 2006, by the United States Congress, to assess the situation in Iraq and the US-led Iraq War and make policy recommendations.) We should now Examining this idea, which was ignored at the time, there are critical issues affecting regional stability and world peace: ending the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and continued Iranian regional interference, the need for political and economic reforms, a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, security guarantees and a non-aggression pact, And enhance the benefits of regional investment and trade. As at the Madrid Peace Conference, the Middle East’s version of the OSCE will bring together Arab states, Iran, Turkey, and Israel under the auspices of Security Council members. Some countries will need to push for participation, making concessions and offering incentives. Unlike the Madrid Conference, the pressure should not end when the parties meet, but should continue until agreements are reached. US policymakers say such an idea would not work, pointing out which country or country will not participate. The same has been said about Madrid. Such a response encourages laziness and a lack of imagination. This is also foolish and dangerous, because the alternative is the path to permanent war.
*President of the Arab American Institute – Washington
#framework #peace #stability #Middle #East
