Suddenly; the diplomatic season seems to have broken out all over the Middle East. The main players perhaps have seen the looming catastrophe that hovers over this region, and decided to pull back from the brink. The most important meeting is the one this weekend between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. Other significant gatherings include the March 10 meeting in Baghdad of regional states and world powers who will explore how to restore security and sovereignty in Iraq; the trip of an American assistant secretary of state to Syria to discuss humanitarian issues related to Iraqi refugee flows; last month’s meetings of Palestinian and Israeli leaders with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and the Hamas-Fatah leaders’ meeting and agreement in Mecca under Saudi auspices. This movement reflects a growing realization that everybody will lose if things continue on their present trajectory in the Middle East. The danger signs are embodied in two continuing violent trends that plague the region: the steady expansion and popularity of militias, resistance organizations, other powerful armed political groups, and terrorists, that are beyond the control of governments and often challenge these; and, the steady build-up of American-led armed forces in the region, combined with diplomatic pressure, aimed against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and others who oppose the American, British, and Israeli-led alignment that includes several Arab governments. This trend culminated in last summer’s Israel-Hezbollah war, a worsening security situation in Iraq, and the continuing pressures against Iran and Syria. Both sides in this regional face-off continue to prove their strength in public opinion and their determination to face down and, if necessary, militarily fight the other side. The big losers are incumbent Arab regimes, who are squeezed between the indigenous militancy of their own people and the aggressive militarism of their foreign allies. Lost, too, is the wellbeing of ordinary citizens throughout the Arab world and Iran, who do not wish to see themselves collapse into the incoherence and suffering of open war that are the natural consequence of intemperate policies. The leaders of both camps have shown a stubborn streak that has turned this region into a large armed camp – a battlefield and militia proving ground. The brinksmanship that all sides have engaged in has finally brought us all to the brink – and what we see is not pretty. The frightening potential is exemplified by talk of the catastrophic regional and global consequences of a US attack against Iran; and of the spillover of Iraq’s troubles into the region in the form of refugees, radicalism, political tensions, and new militias, resistance groups and terrorists. So, now everyone is meeting, driven often by Saudi Arabian mediation, but also by two other important forces that remain imprecise: increasing concern by ordinary Arabs that they do not want their world to be destroyed simply to satisfy the political hormones of leaders in Damascus and Tehran and their friends in Hezbollah and Hamas; and, global public opinion that is increasingly worried about the negative consequences of aggressive American- and Israeli-led policies in the Middle East. None of the meetings that have taken or will take place these days is crucial in itself. All of them collectively, however, reflect a common perception that brinksmanship and bravado are useful short-term tactics, but not good long-term strategy. This weekend’s meetings in Saudi Arabia will be important if they lead to other sessions with the real powers in Tehran linked to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad is the advance party, not the real negotiator. Similarly, the Baghdad meeting next weekend will prove fruitful if it paves the way for four critical elements that Iraq needs: a more emphatic Anglo-American commitment to leave Iraq and allow it to regain its sovereignty through a legitimate government; political accord among Iraqis on constitutional power-sharing; collective efforts by all concerned neighbors to help end the insurgency, resistance, and sectarian strife inside Iraq; and, a resolution of tensions with Iran, Syria and others thorough diplomacy anchored in international law, rather than in Israeli-American-inspired regime change. The mere act of meeting and engaging one’s foes is not a guarantor of success. Let’s hope the main players in the region have the courage and humility to enter into genuine negotiations that require giving and taking in order to achieve a win-win situation, rather than merely transferring their gladiator games from one arena to another. Rami G. Khouriwrites a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
Enough gladiator games, the Middle East must talk
