Iran holds the key… but does it know how to use it?

Alan Philps

• Last Updated: April 23. 2009 10:01PM UAE / April 23. 2009 6:01PM GMT

The worldwide reaction to a speech by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he called Israel a “totally racist regime” seems at first sight to be overblown. The Iranian leader said nothing in Geneva this week that he has not said before. Indeed, his tone was slightly more measured: there were no references to destroying Israel. After a polite reminder from the United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, he dropped from his speech a passage describing the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry as “dubious and ambiguous”.

The venue – a UN conference against racism – was a talking shop of no importance. Mr Ahmadinejad was the sole head of state present, and the media came only to follow up American forecasts that it would turn into an anti-Israeli “hate fest”.

The conference was boycotted by the US and some key allies, while Britain led a walk-out of European Union states during the Iranian leader’s speech. Mr Ahmadinejad is well known for his provocative speeches, and this was no exception. Yet western countries should not seek to close down serious debate – rather than mere name-calling – on whether Israel is a racist state. The former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said in November that discrimination against the Arab minority was “deliberate” and the gap between Arabs and Jews was now “insufferable”. The new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has set a new condition for peace talks with the Palestinians: that they formally recognise Israel as a “Jewish state”.

But the issue in Geneva was clearly more than the 30-year-old debate about Zionism and racism. In fact, the organised snubbing of Mr Ahmadinejad was a key part of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Since taking office Mr Obama has made a series of concessions and overtures – to Iran, Cuba and Russia, and on the issue of nuclear disarmament. None of these has resulted in any notable act of reciprocation. Indeed, Mr Obama’s offer to talk while Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the UN was met with a slap in the face – the conviction of an Iranian-American journalist on trumped up charges of spying. To Mr Obama’s critics, it looks as if the Iranians are pushing to see what other concessions they can wring from the White House. A Washington Post editorial on Wednesday was headlined simply: “Invitation to Appease.”

The Obama camp argues that its policy of friendship and respect has changed the parameters of international relations. The focus in the world is no longer on the arrogant America of George Bush. Now the focus is on the erratic, bombastic president of Iran. This is a style of diplomacy that Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state, calls psychological, where “symbolism and gestures represent substance”.

According to this logic, Mr Ahmadinejad walked into a trap in Geneva. It could even lessen his chances of re-election in June, as more and more Iranians see that he is unfit to lead their country at a time of deep economic crisis and great diplomatic opportunity. This seems optimistic: there may still be plenty of Iranian votes in riling America. What is clear, however, is that the Obama administration wants to reconfigure the Middle East, and Geneva was a small sign of how important Washington views the unseating of Mr Ahmadinejad.

The Obama agenda is almost impossibly challenging: to create a Palestinian state over the next four years, while removing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, and all that while preventing Iraq from tipping back into the abyss. As usual, the Israelis have been quick off the mark to state in which order these tasks should be completed. Mr Netanyahu has made clear he will not move on any core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme is halted and its influence in the region curbed.

Most Arab citizens would reverse that order – insisting that justice for Palestine is the prerequisite for rebuilding the region. But the Israeli view will no doubt mesh with the concerns of Washington’s power brokers. Indeed it is probably not far from the view of most Arab governments, who tend to see Iran as a greater threat to stability than Israel, though they gain no kudos from their people by saying it. With the Palestinians divided between Fatah and Hamas, even the first building block of a united Arab position on peace talks is missing.

So where are the Arabs in all of this? The loudest voices in the Middle East are Israeli and Iranian, while the recipient of Obama’s first blessing was Turkey. Not for the first time, the Arab states are in the second rank as the future of the region is decided.

In fairness, it has to be said that none of the prospects on offer are attractive. A hostile Iran is a problem; an Israeli attack on Iran would be a catastrophe; but the result that Washington hopes for – a powerful Iran enjoying a partnership with the US – would be a setback. How is it, Arab states wonder, that the country that built its foreign policy for 30 years on the slogan “America can’t do a damn thing” now finds itself offered great blandishments?

Thanks to US arms, Iraq has now fallen under significant influence of Tehran. If the Iranians play their hand with restraint and sophistication – admittedly a very big if – they could find themselves enjoying a strategic advance that the former Shah could never have dreamt of.

It is foolish and simplistic to portray Mr Ahmadinejad as the only obstacle to a new Middle East. But the Americans are trying to tell the Iranian leadership and voters that they should consign him to the past. They are still waiting for a sign that anyone in Iran is listening.

aphilps@thenational.ae