Iran’s closure of the Hormuz Strait would play into Israel’s game plan

Palm Beach Gardens

Iran’s threat of closing the Hormuz Strait is a sign of desperation.

The Persian currency (Riyal) has lost 60% of its value over recent months. Unemployment, inflation and local dissent are on the rise. Things might get worse in 2012.  The newly approved Western sanctions, which target Tehran’s Central Bank and oil industries, will take effect in July. The sanctions are aimed at stopping presumed Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.

Iran suffers from the effects of international sanctions and faces domestic dissent. As these pressures mount, the regime responds by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz and restricts the upcoming elections (March 2) to limit the opposition. The March elections will be held in the shadow of the Arab Spring.

Iranians do not support a regime that flirts with danger, isolates the country and restricts freedoms. But  they also resent the US and European sanctions targeting their country.

The people of Iran respect democracy. If conducted freely, the approaching elections would pass a stinging verdict on Iran’s unpopular rulers.  But the current government has developed a strategy of dealing with dissent. The list of running candidates must be vetted to disqualify those who lack “loyalty” to the Islamic Republic.  “Dangerous” newspapers are closed. The two leading reform politicians, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Kharroubi, are under house arrest. Outspoken, questioning journalists are jailed. The internet is monitored closely and might be replaced by a “national” network. To protest government manipulation, the opposition has boycotted the elections. For the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenie, electoral boycott is a “crime”.

The regime is dealing simultaneously with local dissidence and international threats. The US considers closing the Hormuz Strait a “red line,” an act of war. Iran is aware of the serious consequences of its president’s threat to the world. If the Strait is closed, it would not be difficult for the US to mobilize a military coalition to reopen the Gulf waterways for international oil trade. A fifth of the world’s oil consumption passes through the Hormuz.

Israel has been lobbying the US to attack Iran. If Iran executes the Hormuz threat, it would be unintentionally offering Israel a “gift”: eliminating the need for its enemy to justify starting a regional conflict. The Zionist state would welcome The Islamic Republic self induced defeat. Netanyahu would realize gains in a cost-free war. No wonder, the Prime Minister admitted that:

“For the first time, I see Iran wobble” (NY times, Ethan Bronner, Israel Says Sanctions Hurt Iran, January, 13).

As the March elections near, is the regime creating a war scenario to drum up support of the people?   A Paris-based former Iranian MP, Ahmad Salamatian, explains that:

By threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is trying to benefit from a military and security atmosphere in the region to suppress any discontent at home before the elections. In no other time in its history, the Islamic regime has relied this much on its military and security forces for its survival. (Saeed Kamali Dehghan, The Guardian, Iran on Edge Over Upcoming Elections, January 8, 2012)

Does Iran have a latent objective in raising the Strait closure now? Should Israel, or the US, launch an air strike on Iran preemptively, Iran may want the world to think about the consequences of such a closure on the world economy.

Along with local and international pressures, changing Arab politics are worrisome for Iran. Facing a growing uprising, the Syrian regime, Iran’s closest ally, may be unraveling. If Assad’s rule collapses, Iran’s position in the region will take a serious blow, and its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict will decline. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states feel less intimidated than before by a firmly sanctioned Iran. Moreover, Hezbollah and Hamas, two of Iran’s proxy “resistance” forces, are currently subdued as a result of the Iranian-Syrian predicament.

To many Iran seems to be the sole villain in the Hormuz crisis. But the Islamic Republic feels isolated and vulnerable.  The record partially justifies Iran’s sentiments of the need for defense of deterence. Netanyahu and his supporters, in Israel and the US, have carried a global public opinion campaign inflating the risk of Iran’s nuclear developments and ignored the provocative reality of Israel’s atomic weapons.  Adding to a clear external aggression against Iran, Mossad’s serial assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. For its part, the US was responsible for toppling the democratically elected Mossadaq government, installing the pro-Western Shah regime in 1953 and helping Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war. It has so far used a tough and condescending policy with Tehran. Sounding tough on Iran is Obama’s way of displaying presidential toughness to his critics in an election year.

In summary, Iran, Israel and the US are equally responsible for bringing the Middle East to the brink of war, a decade after the disastrous assault on Iraq’s presumed “weapons of mass destruction.”

 

Foreign intervention in Syria would compromise popular uprising

Left alone, Syrians hopefully would continue the uprising to reach their goals. The revolutionaries in this strategic Arab country need to unite internally, and seek international moral support, not military assistance.
The current presence of the Arab League in Syria is of little value. This regional body has minimum credibility and capacity to manage conflict. Only Syrians can and should reform Syria. Through the process of reform, a new state will be built.
Concerned about Syria, a Washington-based reader recently wrote to me, saying that the Syria debate will trend toward whether the U.S. should contribute to, or lead the charge for establishment of some sort of a safe zone, similar to the one we provided to the Kurds in Iraq in the 1990s. Foreign intervention would drive the country into a full-fledged civil war, give President Bashar Assad's regime the excuse to continue the crackdown on dissent, alienate the undecided and invite destructive groups to fuel turmoil.
Avoiding external military aid is not easy. A revolt that started peacefully has been met with disproportional violence from the regime. The rebels continue to suffer in terms of life and property. Regrettably, Assad's oppression has driven the external wing of the opposition to seek help from the West, in particular Washington. But whose support in Washington are the rebels seeking?
Contacts are deepening between the international side of the Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Council (SNC), and agents of the neoconservatives who pushed the U.S. to invade Iraq. On Dec. 20, the SNC appealed to the international community to create "safe zones for civilians" and for "prompt intervention to stop the massacre." A day later, the Foreign Policy Initiative sent an open letter to President Obama that called for "crippling sanctions" on Syria and support for the military capacity of the opposition.
The Foreign Policy Initiative, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are lobbying for an aggressive U.S. role in Syria, in the name of freedom and protection of the dissidents. All three institutions have right-wing leanings and a hidden agenda: ensuring the passivity of a future Syrian regime on matters regarding Israel.
Targeting Iran is also part of the agenda. The neocons have been vigorously rationalizing a U.S.-Israel coordinated attack on Iran. These same advocates of "goodwill" are justifying the use of force to establish a no-fly zone in Syria.
So far, the Obama administration has not changed its policy of staying out of Syria. There is no appetite for new military missions. But things could change as the political vacuum in Syria widens and election pressure on President Obama mounts.
Marwa Daoudi is a visiting scholar at Woodrow Wilson's School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. She cautioned against international intervention in Syria, her native country. She wants liberation through community-based resistance.
Ms. Daoudi explains her people's mind-set: "It is safe to say that the majority of the Syrian population has been appalled by the 'solutions' implemented in Iraq and Libya. American troops have finally withdrawn from Iraq, leaving several hundred thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties in their trail, a million refugees and a country in shambles and civil war. Libya is in turmoil, and the spoils of war remain a source of conflict between internal and external powers."
Ms. Daoudi expresses the aspirations of the Syrians who wish to achieve radical reform without exposing the country to external manipulation. She also ties the transformational quality of the revolution to the discipline of nonviolent resistance. Sobering lessons from Iraq should not be forgotten in dealing with Syria.
Note of publisher Palm Beach Post : Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, a winter resident of Palm Beach Gardens, has written for The Christian Science Monitor and the Arab-American News Services.