War, Peace and A Political Touch

But the defeat that the Lebanese handed Hizbullah at the polls on Sunday will only be a minor political setback for the mullahs in Tehran if the United States and its key Arab allies--Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan--do not develop a coherent political strategy throughout the region. And my sense from talking to leaders in all these countries is that they think we're not there yet, even if Obama is trying to move American policy in the right direction.

At the core of their concerns is the Arab-Israeli problem. Washington's Arab allies still see that conflict as the single political issue used most effectively by Tehran against their regimes. A demagogue like Iran's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, far from the scenes of confrontation, can play to popular emotions. Arabs everywhere see Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as a gross and inexplicable injustice, and from a political point of view that puts the signers of peace treaties with Israel, the Egyptians and Jordanians, in a dangerous position. It's also rough for would-be peacemakers and stability seekers like the Saudis. 

"Israel is the key for Iran to enter the Arab world," Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told me when I saw him in Paris last week. "If Iran threatens the Arab world, it is threatening it through problems that arise out of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The same kind of logic carries over to the question of Iran's nuclear program. Politically speaking, no regime in the region, whether democratic, authoritarian or monarchal, can convince its people that it's acceptable for Israel to have undeclared nuclear weapons but not for Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to acquire similar technology. That's why present and aspiring peacemakers want to see Israel as well as Iran under pressure on the issue. "The only way to stop nuclear proliferation," said Saud, "is to say outright, probably through the United Nations Security Council, that development and possession of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East is illegal."

And, finally, that's why the Saudis, the Egyptians and Jordanians are so desperate to have a solid, workable deal with Israel concluded, not just talked about. As they see it, they have made a very good offer: a comprehensive peace with the entire Arab and Muslim world in exchange for an end to Israel's occupation of the lands it took in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and a "right of return" of refugees to the new state of Palestine. Obviously all this would have to be subject to negotiation, but, from a political point of view, that's difficult for Arab leaders to acknowledge publicly. As they see it--and, more important, as their people see it--past "road maps" for "confidence building" have done nothing but give hard-line Israelis more time for settlement building in the occupied West Bank. "Negotiations without an end is not something that the Arabs will accept," said Saud. "They have learned their lesson."

So, no, peace and democracy are not at hand just yet in the Middle East. Iran has lost an electoral battle, nothing more. But if Arab leaders continue to play politics instead of preaching war, then at least there's a chance to start building a more stable and, eventually, a more democratic future for the region.

© 2009