Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The Grand Bargain?

Call me a naive idealistic political fantasist, but put Ehud Olmert, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad and George W Bush together in a room, let each one make a significant compromise (return to pre 1967 borders, renouncing nuclear ambitions, end terrorist funding and threats of punitive sanctions, etc), sign on the dotted line (in blood if need be) and voila we have an enduring Middle East peace. Tony Blair and Hassan Nasrallah by the way, would be waiting outside desperate to get in on the deal, but Mahmoud Abbas and Nouri Maliki would be anxiously holding their breath for the right result.

Now this would be grandest of Grand Bargains, fairly inconceivable given how deep mistrust is and how fragile any sort of agreement is in the region. But the tectonic plates under the Middle East might just be heading in this direction. Not in one stride, but resembling a pyramid structure of lesser bargains upon which grander and grander bargains build up.

Despite the early jostling for position, the momentum seems to be heading for rapprochement with Syria and Iran, most likely after the publication of the Iraq Survey Group's findings. Attempts to split Syria and Iran will probably work, resulting in a lesser “Bargain” with al-Assad. The trade off being limited culpability for the Hariri assassination and cessation of Hamas support; for military co-operation in western Iraq and removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list. Iran will be harder, given the levels of animosity built up since 1979, and the regular rhetoric spurted out by Ahmadinejad, Bush and Olmert/Netanhayu. But with Syria in from the cold, a deal could provide momentum.

Tony Blair, in his speech to the Lord Mayor's banquet, disagreed that this was the starting point: "On the contrary, we should start with Israel/Palestine. That is the core." True it is the core, and has been so for nearly 60 years, but Israel whether under Olmert, Netanhayu or anyone else would not be prepared to make the necessary concessions without the removal of serious regional threats like Iran. That is why the Iran-US Grand bargain is the key.

Sadly the Iraq conflict and Iran's nuclear ambitions has pushed the Palestine question down the priority list, Israel an insecure paranoid state at best of times has no reason to compromise, with Hizbullah, Iran, etc, firing out the threats.

As for Iraq itself, I am not entirely convinced that Iran and Syria can make a significant difference. Neither can control Al-Qaeda (despite recent reports) and Shia militias are rife with rivalry rather than being one contiguous movement. Even if the Grand Bargain is achieved it might not guarantee results on Iran's side at least. And is it actually with the right countries, Saudi Arabia has an immense border with Iraq and is the source of the majority of Islamic radicals.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2453802,00.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93F34036-5AB5-46BD-8D8F-1A6F0EF17628.htm

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Interesting view, but technically non of us really know what is happening behind closed doors, having said that, the US recently moved in a new fleet of ships into the Middle East and this fleet is specialiased into hunting and destroying submarines, the only country to have submarines in that area is Iran............either this will escalate or Iran will see that their hand has been called.