Regardless of Arab public opinion, governments in the Arab world remain largely authoritarian, with a demonstrated capacity to go against their public sentiment on critical issues, such as war. To be sure, there are always consequences for ignoring public opinion—and these may be growing—but when push comes to shove, governments have been able to disregard their publics when the stakes are important enough. The question is therefore: how do Arab governments think about the Iran issue, including the prospects of an American or an Israeli attack on Iran?
The first thing to note is that there is no unified Arab government position. Although, with the exception of Syria, most are suspicious of Iran and worry about rising Iranian power and influence, the degree of concern varies, and the sources of concern vary even more. Even in the case of Syria, where Iran is seen for the foreseeable future as a strategic partner, the Syrian government, a secular Arab nationalist government, is not naturally comfortable with the Islamic regime in Tehran. This much is clear (and is the basis of the prevailing conventional wisdom in Washington): most Arab governments would like Iranian power trimmed, with some supporting a potential attack on its nuclear facilities by either Israel or the United States.
But Arab governments' calculations cover a broad spectrum and are based on assessments on several issues: the impact of an attack on their own security (and longevity) particularly in the short to intermediate term; the impact on the regional balance of power, which includes the impact on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict; the impact on domestic politics (and in some places this also means the Sunni-Shiite divide); the impact on broader Arab regional and global influence; and the impact on Iraq's future. The weight of each issue varies across the Arab world, partly as a function of proximity to Iran or to the Arab-Israeli arena, partly as a function of internal demographics, and partly as a function of size and aspirations.
One has to put Iraq aside for the moment, since its politics are still unsettled, and the United States will remain there for the foreseeable future. Iran's small neighbors all have concerns about growing Iranian power in the region and Iran's influence in Iraq itself, and about their ramifications for regional security and for their own domestic politics, especially in places like Bahrain, where the Sunni-Shiite divide could become a bigger issue. Saudi Arabia too has its own worries about Iran, the nature of its government, and its growing power. But no one is as concerned as the United Arab Emirates, which is not only a close neighbor but also claims sovereignty over three islands that Iran controls. Even among these countries with close proximity to Iran, however, there are differences on how to deal with the perceived Iranian threats, including potential nuclear weapons.
Their publics may see the United States as a bigger threat than Iran, but governments of Iran's small Arab neighbors see the United States as protecting them from Iran, particularly after the decline of Iraq. Even Qatar, which has maintained good relations with Iran, at the end of the day is an American ally; it hosts a large American base—not Iranian troops. The differences are all about available options and the prospects of their success. And this is central in calculations of the possible use of force by either Israel or the United States to attack Iran's nuclear program.
If the assessment is that there would be a limited war that does not expand to their countries and disrupt their comfortable lives, and that the war would end by destroying Iran's nuclear weapons potential, weakening Iran's influence, and better yet, lead to regime change in Iran—supporting war would be a no-brainer for most of them. If on the other hand, there is a high risk that the war would not be short, that Iran would still be able to develop a nuclear-weapons capability and also acquire an interest in disrupting their lives (particularly if American forces operate from within their borders), the calculations will be different. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, these states are all small states concentrated on the Gulf, and are particularly exposed to potentially destructive attacks. If, in addition, they have to be concerned that a protracted war between the United States and Iran may lead to American overextension and American public pressure to pull forces from the region, thus leaving them to deal with Iranian wrath on their own, their preference will be to avoid war. Gulf Arab states are not all of the same mind on assessing the consequences of war and, therefore, on supporting that option.
There is a big strategic picture that matters to Arab elites, especially those with a strong Arab identity and in states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where there is an expectation of regional leadership and of an enhanced global role. There is no escaping the current sentiment that overall Arab influence has diminished and that all non-Arab states in the region—Iran, Israel, and Turkey—have grown in power—particularly since the Iraq war. While governments in the region are first and foremost driven by what's good for them, they also face a public, including elites, that places more emphasis on transnational identity, whether Muslim or Arab, than on state identity. This means nuclear power not only has strategic value but also symbolic weight. And Arab governments would have to deal with the sense that Arabs are falling further behind.
Comments
This childish view and self serving assessment is totally without foundation and completely without any connection with the reality of the situation in the Middle East. Iran will not sit still and let us have a limited war so we destroy her nuclear program without any retaliations. What they know is what we have aimed for, which is what happened in 1953 and we want it the same and and they will not allow it to happen this time around at any cost. For them any war will have sevier consequences for the West ( just think what they can do for a long tiome) and we are aware of that or GWB would have already started it. So, this Zionist, neocon article with its attempt for mis-inforomation needs to get with the reality. Iran foght an 8 year with Iraq, a bigger army, better trained, financed and equipped and under the sanctions, but still came out intact. So, who can say how they will fight when their revolution is in danger and their goverment can be forced to topple again?! You think Iran will not fight back?! Are you out of your mind?
Saudi King's congratulation on advent of holy RamadanSaudi King Abdullah on Thursday congratulated the Iranian nation on the advent of the holy fasting month of Ramadan.During his telephone conversation with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Saudi King congratulated the advent of the holy month to the Iranian government and nation.For his part, the Iranian president felicitated the Saudi King on the auspicious occasion and expressed hope that the Saudi people would benefit from the all blessings of this holy month.During the telephone conversation, they called for exaltation of the Muslim nations all over the globe. OIC backs Iran nuclear programSecretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has expressed support for Tehran's nuclear program, lauding Iran's strategic role in the region. Stressing the importance of Iran's position as a regional power, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said that “Iran is a very important and influential country in the Muslim world and has a strategic role in the Organization of the Islamic Conference.” According to IRNA, Ihsanoglu made the remarks on Sunday in a meeting with Iran's new envoy to the organization, Hamidreza Dehqani. During the meeting, Dehqani presented his credentials to the secretary general and emphasized on the OIC's important role in Iran's foreign policy. The OIC had earlier voiced support for the Tehran declaration at the end of its 37th ministerial meeting in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, in May. The foreign ministers of Iran, Turkey, and Brazil signed a declaration in Tehran on May 17, according to which Iran would ship 1200 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey to be exchanged for 120 kilograms of 20 percent enriched nuclear fuel rods to power the Tehran research reactor, which produces radioisotopes for cancer treatment. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is an international organization with a permanent delegation to the United Nations which groups 57 member states, from the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkans, Southeast Asia, South Asia and South America.
US 'NO' to Iran's N-programme illogical, baseless: ExpertsISLAMABAD – Iran should be allowed to continue its peaceful nuclear programme, as it has every right to provide its people with their most basic need i.e. electricity, experts said on Saturday.Speaking at a seminar ‘Iranian Nuclear Programme in Regional Perspective” held at the Iranian embassy, experts including Prof Dr Syed Riffat Hussein, Akram Zaki, Dr Tahir Ahmed Khan and Imtiaz Gul criticised the US policies saying the US and its allies needed not only to accept but also respect Iran’s growing role in the international community. The speakers defended Iran’s nuclear programme and asked the world community to immediately call off sanction against Iran. Akram Zaki, former ambassador stated that the US and its allies also needed to stop their irrepressible tirade of threats against Iran. “Any issue they have over Iran’s nuclear programme should be resolved with sincere democratic efforts. This situation, if not contained with cool head and if miscalculations continue, can easily turn into a crisis with potentially global ramifications for the rule of law under the NPT and for the economic and security interests of all concerned in the region and beyond,” he said adding that the world should not allow itself to be dragged into another conflict on false pretences in this region again.“One often hears that Iran’s real purpose for pursuing nuclear technology is to develop nuclear weapons and that with its huge oil and gas reserves it has no real need for nuclear energy. I must say these claims are politically motivated and are based entirely on hatred and distrust towards the region and its people,” Akram Zaki said while addressing the seminar.Dr Tahir Ahmed Khan said Uranium enrichment for a civilian nuclear programme was Iran’s inalienable right. “It cannot be taken away because of the West’s stereotypical suspension towards Iran.” “Iran has a real need for nuclear power and should be allowed to continue its civilian nuclear programme as there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme,” he said. Dr Tahir said adding that it was important to remember the history of Iran’s nuclear programme and its relation with the West to fully comprehend the enduring “crisis.”Dr Tahir told the participants that Iran’s nuclear history pre-dated the current Islamic government, which is being accused of developing “weapons of mass destruction.” It originated in the mid-1970s when the US-installed dictator Shah unveiled plans to purchase several nuclear reactors from Germany, France and the United States to generate electricity. Shah was placed in power after the CIA Operation Ajax in 1953 destroyed Iran’s democracy and replaced it with a US-friendly dictatorship when their government negotiated for more than 15pc of oil profits. At that time, the United States encouraged Iran to expand its non-oil energy base. In recognition of Iran’s energy needs, US-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement was signed in July 1978 - several months before the Islamic revolution.'Bushehr launch big win for Muslims'A member of the National Assembly of Pakistan praises the inauguration of Iran's long-delayed first nuclear power plant, saying it is "a great triumph." The inauguration of the Bushehr power plant was a great triumph not only for the Iranian nation but for all Muslims across the globe, Fars news agency quoted Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) Secretary of Information Ahsan Iqbal as saying on Wednesday. Despite the US pressure, the Pakistani government carried out its first nuclear tests in 1998, he said, adding Iran is currently doing the same which is a matter of honor for Islamabad. Iqbal further pointed out that the United States and its allies will never damage the goals of the Iranian nation. Iran started loading fuel into the Bushehr plant in the south of the country on August 21. The reactor will be fully fueled by the end of September. The Islamic Republic argues that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful applications, including electricity generation.
If the U.S. and/or Israel intend to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, they had better do a thorough job. By that I mean, not only will they need to thoroughly annihilate Iran's ability to build nuclear weapons, but they will also need to attack and destroy Iran's infrastructure, e.g. all major Revolutionary Guard centers, government command centers, and anything else that will severely weaken the Iranian regime's hold on power. The Revolutionary Guards maintain the mullah's in power, so if their infrastructure is destroyed, they will be less able to control any anti-mullah uprisings that may develop as a result of the military attacks by the U.S. and/or Israel. An attack that targets both nuclear facilities and infrastructure might pose an opportunity for the mullah's opponents to overthrow the regime once and for all. It would not require an Iraqi-type U.S. invasion to bring about regime change. Massive attacks by air and cruise missiles on all nuclear installations and infrastructure/power centers, as well as all military and naval bases of operation may be enough to bring down this abominable regime. In the long term, that is what is required if there is to be a lasting peace in the region. Iran will try to retaliate, but if the U.S. employed massive "shock and awe" attacks on all military and government targets simultaneously, its overwhelmingly superior and more powerful forces should be able to blunt any Iranian counter-attacks, rendering them impotent in a short time.