The West talks, Iran acts. It’s an obvious hit and run situation in which the West seems confused and Iran seems self-confident. When the ideology is entrenched, the starvation through sanctions becomes a detail. Even the dynamic of Iranian reformists faded away.
The theorists of an internal uprising are confining themselves in short-sighted illusions. Iran has taken the path of internal mobilization away from empty slogans here and there. All the others rallied around the reaction stance, while Iran staunchly and skillfully chose to take action.
There have been constant attempts between actions and reactions to drill holes in a wall that is thought to be impenetrable, while its infrastructure has open channels of negotiations between those who are publicly engaged in a conflict.
The strategic agendas involve perhaps many cross-cutting interests, and there’s no need at all to dwell on the logic of objective alliances, despite the multiple signs of tensions.
Once again, the whole point is that the west talks and Iran acts. This is not at all meant to create tensions, but to adopt an approach that focuses the attention on dealing with tensions through negotiations, based on a clear vision, rather than on serving the interests.
Despite the Iranian escalation, the West — which in this context means the European Union – insists on rescuing the nuclear agreement, since Trump’s US has been until now so confused and incapable, and seems to only care about defending its economic interests.
This European West seems to only want to protect its economic interests and doesn’t care much about Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, their people, and their geopolitical future. Lebanon is a different kettle of fish; it’s voiceless and powerless.
Hence, there’s no point in talking about a European-USA differentiation. The mercantilism of both became obvious; the ugly mercantilism. Common interests aren’t like this; they’re based on a minimum of deontology in the political sphere.
The mask of a realistic or virtual clash has totally slipped.
The clash is not required. However, managing any conflict requires a minimum parity. The parity is absent, and the oil and the promising market have become an obsession. The fragmentation is going on, and so is the observation of the fragmentation. Why should it not if the agendas have the same goals?
This description may be naïve or absurd, especially against the backdrop of increased studies, analyses, and best, worst and most likely scenarios. At the same time, all these studies, analyses, and scenarios have proven to be filling a deadly vacuum awaiting the next settlement.
The West talks, Iran acts. Where do Arabs stand in all this?
The Arab regional order, or its preceding equivalent, is gone and will never return. Arab national security is struggling after being established on fragile grounds. Is it acceptable to accept Arab flabbiness until the point of collapse? There’s an urgent need for an awakening of the active intellectual forces. Can these forces shift from the logic of permanent recipient in order to build a pro-active diplomacy policy?
The West talks, the Arabs are absent, Iran acts.
It’s the triad of irregularity, imbalance, and cross-cutting agendas to the detriment of human beings, the truth and the good management of pluralism. The surplus of any power is limited regardless of its weapons.
Ziad El Sayegh is an expert on public policies and refugee crises.
An-Nahar is not responsible for the comments that users post below. We kindly ask you to keep this space a clean and respectful forum for discussion.