Iran and the future of the Islamic Awakening

Iran paper urges for opening dialogue with various Arab political groups.

BBC Monitoring International Reports | December 29, 2012 | Copyright

Text of commentary by Seyyed Mohammad Eslami headlined: "Iran and the future of the Islamic Awakening" by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 20 December.

--------------------------------------------------------

It was translated by BBC Monitoring

You can find the main text in persian at BORDERLESS

--------------------------------------------------------

These days we have entered the third year since the start of Islamic awakening in the region. During the two eventful years that we have put behind, many pairs of eyes have been focused on North Africa and the Middle East. Now that we enter the third year of this tempest, it seems that we must once again review the tools of foreign policy in this respect.

The countries of Islamic awakening in the transition period

The first issue in confronting the events and developments of Islamic awakening countries is to pay attention to the characteristics of the "transition period." In other words, the only thing that will be "fixed" with regard to these countries is "constant change." Therefore, it is better for us in Iran to be neither happy over a sympathetic breeze nor to be scared of an opposing wind. Pragmatism, the ability to show quick and calculated reactions, flexibility, and patience until results are achieved, are the requirements of Iran's foreign policy in dealing with the stormy sea of Islamic awakening.

Islamic awakening and the issue of knowledge

Many of us in Iran did not expect such events to happen in the region, and for conditions to come about so that there would be no reports of Hosni Mubarak's loyalty to Israel and Qadhafi's camels and tents. We did not expect a time when Syria would be involved in Al-Qa'ida's unending violence and for certain countries' geographical borders to be exposed to reviews. In any case, the past is past. Today, we must achieve an accurate and quick knowledge of determining characteristics in each of these countries. However, knowledge and efforts to establish relationships with influential "individuals" in these countries must not prevent us from establishing a relationship with various "groups." Being occupied with groups that have been formed during the transition period must not make us overlook "newly emerged figures" that may change the rules of the game. Forming ties with newly established parties, members of parliaments, judges, academic figures, influential businessman, and ... [as published] must be realized more than ever before, taking into account the requirements of every country. This is particularly applicable in view of the fact that today's losers in the elections of the transition period, may one day turn into the winners of the period of stability in these countries. In addition, although Islamist groups are undoubtedly the priority of Iran's foreign policy, knowledge and connection with groups that do not fit into this circle, have as much importance.

Let us respect the reality and independent identity of groups

Among the most important issues in interaction with individuals, groups, and countries that are assuming fresh identities, is respect for their independent identity. We must therefore accept that in view of the special circumstances they find themselves in, they have the right to make remarks that may not necessarily be in coordination with all aspects of Iran's foreign policy. In certain cases, we must even allow these groups to act on decisions, the wrongness of which they may come to realize in the future. It must be emphasized that in many cases they may share our views but may be limited by circumstances whereby they are unable or consider it inexpedient to reveal these issues. An examination of the intelligent behavior shown by the revolution's leader [Khamene'i] in interacting with Hamas and various Egyptian groups, can be useful in this respect.

Economy; behind the scenes of political developments

All the revolutionary groups that came to power through Islamic awakening are facing a test and a challenge of "efficiency." Western countries and the United States are now putting these tools to good use to influence the political and social trends in these countries; a trend that will become more extensive and deeper in the future. Today, the effects of the West's undue economic influence on developments in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, and Syria is evident in every single one of these countries. Therefore, we must also activate the unofficial tools of foreign policy in this respect in Iran. The private sector, which has an open hand and is free from the official restrictions that exist for the foreign policy apparatus, can play a serious role in developing Iran's ties with these countries. The idea of providing "services and training" in return for "goods", attracting Muslim tourists, and other such examples, can also help the organization of these countries after terrible revolutions and can also provide a way for Iran to counteract the West's policy of banking sanctions against Iran.

Expansion of ways of two-sided communication with the communities of Islamic awakening countries

One of the reasons for the "domino like" chain of revolutions in the region's countries, is their common language, culture, and problems. The expansion of international people based organizations, and improvements to the quality and quantity of Arab and English-speaking international media will help us eliminate the intermediary role played by Western media between the Iranian society and the Islamic awakening communities.

Looking to the future with regard to the options of joining the train of Islamic awakening

We are now in a position where we can predict future events, albeit inaccurately. Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, and Sudan are countries that may join this train in the third year of Islamic awakening. Therefore, any kind of investment or policymaking on our part in these countries must be carried out by taking into account the positive or negative consequences of probable changes in these countries.

Source: Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 20 Dec 12

i 1/2 BBC Monitoring

"Why Did America Support the Opposition's New Coalition?

BBC Monitoring International Reports | December 14, 2012

Text of commentary by Seyyed Mohammad Eslami headlined: "Why Did America Support the Opposition's New Coalition?" published by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 13 December

Yesterday, Barack Obama, the US president personally announced that he has finally officially recognized the opposition coalition. But the acceptance of this new coalition by the United States took more than a month; a coalition that was formed in Doha by force and at the insistence of the Americans and even the arrangement of this coalition has been carried out according to the United States' taste.

US fear of Islamists in Syria

The "National Coalition for Syrian Revolution" was formed in Prague against the "Opposition National Council" some time after the unpredictable opinions expressed by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. After almost one year of communication with this council, the Americans reached the conclusion that they cannot provide the future that would be desired by Washington. The national council's weakness was lack of sufficient influence over the domestic opposition in Syria and the armed groups in particular. But in the final days of the life of this council, the United States gradually revealed that there is another reason concealed behind this decision. Their criticism of the national council was that it was too much under the influence of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Since the beginning of this crisis until the present day, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has never issued an official statement or communique under its official title or at least such statements have never appeared in the media. But this group's history shows that the foundation stone for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is armed activity; groups that hold jihadist and in certain cases even anti-Zionist beliefs. By appointing a Christian leader, the Syrian National Council tried to deny that it was under the influence of the Syrian Brotherhood but this had no result. Consequently, in its very first step, the United States completely limited the Syrian National Council, which for them was synonymous with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and over the last few days, by creating a new military council, they have marginalized the Syrian Free Army and general Riad Al-Asaad.

Efforts by the opposition coalition for adaptation to Western values

Ahmad Maaz Al-Khatib, the head of the Doha coalition, is referred to as the former group Imam of the Umavi Mosque in Damascus. However, there are two other influential individuals within the leadership structure of this coalition, who have been paid less attention. Riad Saif, Mr Al-Khatib's first deputy, is a former member of the Syrian parliament and one of the country's liberals. Mrs Suhair Atassi, his second deputy, is one of the figures active in the field of women's rights in the Middle East. These two individuals, in addition to others who are in the opposition coalition organization, constitute guarantees that the Syrian government opposition has given to its Western allies to prove their commitment to pro-Western values and policies. Yesterday, only hours after Obama's interview with ABC, and during the summit in Marakesh, Ahmad Maaz, the head of the coalition emphasized his commitment to "diversity" and at the same time condemned "excommunicating" actions. In other words, Maaz announced his adherence to his political allies and Western beliefs and his exoneration from armed extremist groups that are also opposed to the United States.

If a comparison is carried out between Egypt's current conditions and the US scenario for the transfer of power in Syria, it would appear that the Americans do not wish to be stung in the same place twice. The Syrian Brotherhood's outlook is Salafi and although the Americans may have benefited in the short term from trusting them in the past, in the long-term, they have had to endure heavy costs. Therefore, from now on, we must wait for the new opposition coalition in Syria to squander more and more of their beliefs in order to attract Western support. The new US plan faces an important obstacle and that is the armed Salafi opposition, who are against the new coalition and the main arena of conflict against the Syrian government is currently under their control.

Source: Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 13 Dec 12

i 1/2 BBC Monitoring

Has the new US plan for Syria been initiated

The election in the United States has come to an end and the Americans have promised that once the election race is finished, they will return to the scene of the Syrian crisis. The United States' regional and international supporters criticize this country's lack of a specific strategy regarding the Syrian crisis. Less than a week ago, with the publication of a report, David Schenker, an adviser to the Pentagon and one of the experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) reported the start of this phase. Schenker said that Walid Jumblatt has had a meeting with him in Lebanon and has criticized the United States' lack of a specific strategy regarding the Syrian crisis. According to Schenker, now that the US administration has put behind the election race, it will focus its concentration on Syria. The Doha summit is assessed as constituting a start for this phase.

The Syrian government's opposition are numerous and varied and they can be classified from various angles. The political opposition goes one way and the armed opposition another. The Salafis and Islamists have one dream for Syria's future and the seculars and the liberals have another. During 19 months of crisis in Syria, they have been unable to establish a joint path, a single approach, and a unified structure for themselves. This division is also completely evident among their international supporters. Saudi Arabia is providing weapons support for groups that are close to Al-Qa'idah including the Al-Nasra group. Turkey and Qatar have chosen a political/military path and are helping the forces of the Syrian "free army." The Europeans have pinned their hopes on political groups and are supporting the "opposition Transitional National Council" by any means possible. However, the Americans have differences of opinion with others over all the three above-mentioned groups.

The United States, which has been influenced by unsuccessful experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently in Libya, are not prepared to trust Al-Qa'idah and the Salafis. Furthermore, they are not particularly hopeful that Qatar and others will have significant influence on these groups. Consequently, even if Washington is prepared to trust these groups for Bashar al-Assad's overthrow, there is no guarantee that they will pay any attention to US policies in Syria's future. The saga of the attack on the US Consulate in the city of Benghazi in Libya once again proved that giving leeway to Al-Qa'idah and armed Salafis is to nurture an enemy in your own backyard. Washington also has a difference of opinion with the Europeans for a variety of reasons. Several European countries issued cartes blanches for the "Transitional National Council" political group months ago and France has announced that it recognizes this group as the Syrian people's new representative. But the Americans do not consider this group as possessing even the minimum characteristics for the acceptance of the role of opposition leader. Recently, Hillary Clinton announced in Zagreb that she considers this institution to lack the necessary capability and qualification for leading the opposition.

Based on news that has been received from Doha, it appears that the United States has chosen a new path. This is the same thing that Burhan Ghalioun, the former chairman of the Syrian opposition Transitional National Council, considered a "US plan" for Syria, the preliminary action to which would be to discard the opposition Transitional National Council. In their new plan, the United States has put forward another individual called Riyadh Saif. He is a businessman and a former member of the Syrian parliament with liberal beliefs that are close to those of the Americans. According to a plan put forward yesterday by Saif in the Doha summit, a new structure will be formed for the Syrian government's opposition groups, which will no longer be headed by the opposition Transitional National Council. This organization will have a 50 member Council and the opposition Transitional National Council can only have 15 representatives in it. However, the opposition Transitional National Council is opposed to this plan and no news have so far been received from Doha other than the continuation of disputes. But the important point is that when the United States is not prepared to trust Bashar Assad's political opposition, it will not open the way to his armed opposition. The latter have anti-US beliefs and over the past days, Western media, who seem to have suddenly woken up after 19 months of bloodshed, are accusing them of "war crimes." US pressure on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to reduce weapons support for armed groups is further testament to this claim.

Nevertheless, Saif and other individuals that the United States is seeking to put forward, will also be unable to play the role of opposition leader, at least in the short term. Consequently, it seems that in the near future, neither Bashar Assad's opposition will unite, nor will countries opposed to the Syrian regime become aligned. The important question by US think tanks, under today's conditions in Syria, is that even if Bashar Assad withdraws from power, who will take responsibility for providing security in Syria after months of excessive arms dispatch to this country? Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi, the special United Nations (UN) envoy for Syrian affairs, has warned in his latest press conference that Syria can turn into the "new Somalia!"

BBC Monitoring International Reports

 | November 14, 2012 |

Text of commentary by Seyyed Mohammad Eslami headlined: "Has the new US plan for Syria been initiated?" by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 7 November.

Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 07 Nov 12

i 1/2 BBC Monitoring

Why the opposition do not like the 'Eid-related ceasefire

Tomorrow is the last day of the Eid-related ceasefire in Syria; the plan that was hoped would be able to create a "break" in the tragedy of blood spilling and killings in Syria. Nevertheless, Western and Arab news agencies are reporting the continuation of conflicts in Syria. The commander of the armed opposition in the city of Aleppo has also told the France News Agency: "From the very beginning, Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi's plan was born dead.' Why did the ceasefire plan not finalize?

Obstacles to the "Eid-related micro-strategy"

Although the news in the last few days have indicated bombings in Damascus and Dayr al-Zawr and the armed opposition have also announced that conflicts have continued, a relative decrease in conflicts cannot be dismissed with certainty nor can it be claimed that no change has occurred in the level of conflicts. However, it can be said that expectations from the plan dubbed the micro-strategy of the UN and the region's countries, within the framework of [Kofi] Annan's six point peace plan, were not met. It seems that the outcome of Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi's plan did not fulfil the interests of the Syrian opposition. One of the issues found with this plan is that there is no specific plan in it for the "day after" the Eid-related ceasefire; although, the complications of the Syrian crisis have also made the preparation of such a plan difficult. This point notwithstanding, the Eid-related micro-strategy would in practice have opened the way for a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

Distance between the Yemeni solution and the Syrian one

An overall approach shows that there are only two possibilities for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. The first possibility is that the crisis ends with a "political agreement"; something similar to what happened in Yemen. This means that in the shadow of a ceasefire, the countries of the region or Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi can create a "transitional government" by using intermediation and patriarchy, and also making hidden and visible deals. But in the current situation, this method will not get anywhere for two reasons. First, the Syrian government's opposition are greatly dispersed. Their various meetings during the past year in Turkey, France, Egypt and Qatar have shown that they have differences within themselves to the same degree that they have with Bashar al-Assad. The armed government opposition does not even have a united command. Therefore, the Syrian government's opposition lack united organization to be able to manage a political agreement. Additionally, in any solution based on a political agreement, the other side consists of the Syrian government. Although the Damascus government has said that it is ready for negotiations, it bases any agreement on the presence of Bashar Al-Assad in the transitional government; a condition that the opposition will not accept. For this reason, the opposition knows that if the ceasefire is supposed to lead to such a solution, they will not benefit from it.

Free elections and the opposition's problem

The other possibility of a political solution is the organization of "free elections." The government's opposition will not earn anything from this method either. They do not have a united and specific candidate; therefore dispersed votes in such elections will lead to nothing but defeat for them. Furthermore, a democratic way of change has certain customs, similar to what we witnessed in Egypt. Parliamentary and presidential elections without the existence of a new constitution, and ensuring the country's security, require individuals who know the methods and conventions of politics well; exactly what the Syrian opposition is lacking! Consequently, the second political solution will also fail to earn anything for the opposition.

The opposition do not like a ceasefire

Consequently, the Syrian government's armed opposition has had no reason to remain committed to a ceasefire. They have chosen the continuation of guerrilla warfare in the hope of weakening the government; a choice the winner of which is not apparent but its losers will undoubtedly be the innocent people of Syria.

A few other problems that have also obstructed the success of the Eid-related ceasefire should also be pointed out here:

A noticeable part of the armed fighters in Syria are armed foreigners; people who have come to Syria with the intention of jihad but holding heretic thoughts and are supported by Al-Qa'ida and some of the region's countries. These individuals also have no reason for accepting or keeping committed to a ceasefire.

Today, everyone knows that a group of European countries and the United States are present in the military and political front facing the Syrian government. These countries have repeatedly shown that in spite of claiming that they support the innocent people of Syria, they have no inclination to end the crisis in this country. The latest example of this is the Security Council's veto of the proposed Russian resolution for the necessity of a ceasefire. Analysts believe that the best situation for the US and the Europeans is the continuation of this crisis in a way that Syria remains a spent and non-influential country as far as regional developments are concerned, and the attention and capabilities of Iran and Hezbollah are focused on and limited to the crisis in Damascus, rather than Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and ... 

Annan to Brahimi; Balkan to Afghanistan

Lakhdar Brahimi taking over as UN special envoy to Syria

A summary of my note in Khorasan Daily Newspapaer in BBC Monitoring quotes from Iranian press 25 Aug 12.
BBC Monitoring International Reports | August 25, 2012 

Khorasan [conservative]: "When are Damascus, Aleppo, Homs,... Tartus and other big and small cities of Syria supposed to calm down?... Will Syrian sky take another colour with the presence of Lakhdar Brahimi?... Contrary to Brahimi, Kofi Annan had the experience of being involved in the Balkan crisis before becoming the [UN] secretary-general in 1997... The most important achievement of Annan's peace plan for Syrian opponent groups was providing them with time to wait for arms dispatched by Qatar and Saudi Arabia without being affected by the attacks of the Syrian army... However, now it is Lakhdar Brahimi's turn and he knows the language of the extremist Islamic groups and Al-Qa'idah's forces, who have been sent from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia and Libya to Syria for jihad, better than Annan... Therefore, regardless of the differences in their experiences, both of them are men of diplomacy who do not have the main key for the representative crisis in Syria." (Commentary by Seyyed Mohammad Eslami headlined: "Annan to Brahimi; Balkan to Afghanistan")

My Note on Egyptian presidential election in BBC Monitoring

Press sees challenges for new Egyptian president

Many newspapers in the Middle East hail Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Mursi's win in the Egyptian presidential election, but concede that he faces daunting challenges while the governing military council retains much of its power.

Egyptian newspapers recognised the huge tasks awaiting the president-elect; while one Algerian newspaper compared Mursi's election to Britain's Queen Elizabeth, "who rules without power".

Some newspapers in Israel saw Mursi's election as a "black day", and speculated that his victory was the result of voters turning their back on the former regime over and above voting for an Islamist candidate.

Faruq Juwaydah in Egypt's Al-Ahram

"We should respect the people's decision and the voter's will... There is no doubt that the president's post at this phase is going to be a huge burden that exceeds human capability."

Editorial in Egypt's Al-Jumhuriyah

"The people will never allow the crimes of the former regime to be repeated in any form because they are looking forward to turning over a new leaf where they can learn from their past mistakes."

Sarhan Sulayman in Egypt's Al-Wafd

"Dr Mohammed Mursi's victory is a bright light for all Egyptians who had had their smiles taken away from them since the start of the revolution... We are now bearing the first fruits of the revolution and it is the election of Mohammed Mursi as the president of Egypt."

Editorial in Palestinian paper Al-Quds

"We hope that under its new leadership, Egypt will support the Palestinian people's just struggle for freedom and independence."

Kamal al-Sha'ir in Hamas-run Filastin

"The Islamic caliphate is returning again in a different dress… With this, Egypt will be the first Arab country to be ruled by a president with a radical Islamist background."

Muhammad Abu Mazin in Jordan's Al-Ghad

Many Egyptians celebrated Mr Mursi's victory on the streets of Cairo

"Who would have ever believed that leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood who spent most of their time in prisons and detention centres because of illusionary charges would one day come to rule Egypt not through a coup or tanks but through the ballot box?"

Editorial in Saudi Arabia's Al-Watan

"Democracy is a bumpy road and Mursi does not have a magic wand to get the Egyptians out of their current crises, as Egypt above all is in need of political and security stability and needs to builds its economy from scratch again."

Zuhayr Majid in Oman's Al-Watan

"Tomorrow is a new day for the Egyptians, but Dr Mursi is facing a flood of issues that may all need miracles in a time of no miracles."

Editorial in Algeria's Al-Fadjr

"The man has come to power like the Queen of England who rules without power. Mursi has the chair, but a shadow government is ruling Egypt and Mursi is going to give them the legal cover."

Editorial in Qatar's Al-Rayah

"The very important task facing the president-elect is for him to immediately seek to restore the nation's unity, to unite the ranks of all Egyptians and to begin a comprehensive reconciliation process."

Abd-al-Bari Atwan in London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi

"The Israelis are definitely shaking from this victory because from now on they will never find a subservient president who would kneel, lick their feet, yield to all their demands and support their wars just as it used to be in the past."

Tariq al-Hamid in London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat

"Whoever is enthusiastic and imagines that they are watching a movie at the cinema with a happy ending is mistaken.... we are today facing a reality that I think some people thought would never happened, but it did happen and its consequences will be very grave."

• Seyyed Mohammad Eslami in Iran's conservative Khorasan

• "This victory does not mean the end of the job, the end of Egypt's revolution, or the end of the Muslim Brotherhood. The upcoming weeks will show whether the Military Council is playing a master game in the country."

Smadar Peri in Israel's Yediot Aharonot

"As far as we are concerned, when the presidential palace in Cairo is painted with the Islamist colour for the first time it is a bad, black day."

Zvi Barel in Israel's Ha'aretz

"The movement's victory symbolizes the goal of those behind the revolution, many of them secular liberals, to rid themselves of Hosni Mubarak's oppressive regime. Voting for Muslim Brotherhood candidates is a way of voting against the old regime."

Continue reading the main story

in the name of god

in the name of god

these are some of my notes about other countries

Iraq and National Identity Test

Right from the start of the dispute involving Tariq al-Hashimi (Iraq`s first vice president), many analysts regarded his fleeing Iraq as the best way to put an end to that crisis. Had the prediction about the flight of the first Sunni Iraqi vice president come to pass, it would have meant that in practice he had admitted the allegations regarding his participation in and management of terrorist activities. In that case, perhaps nobody would have dared to support him any more. However, Tariq al-Hashimi chose a different course of action and took asylum in Kurdistan.

As the result of many exclusive interviews, he aligned the global media with him, and both overtly and covertly he tried to involve international powers in Iraq`s domestic issues. His request for the presence of international observers and the involvement of the Arab League (in Iraq) was his first message to those whom he addressed without mentioning their names. However, the start of Tariq al-Hashimi`s dispute only one day after the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, and the continuation of that dispute has forced Iraq to face the challenge of its “national identity” much sooner that could have been expected. Article One of the Constitution

After having been freed from Saddam`s dictatorial regime, the Iraqis were faced with the question as to which strategy they had to choose in order to keep their ethnic and religious rainbow alliance together. The Iraqi Kurds had already thought about that issue, and they had at least implemented it as far as they were concerned. The proposed solution was to establish a federal system.

The Kurds who call their government the “Government of the Kurdish Region” (eqlim), earlier on in the year 1369 (year beginning 21 March 1990), by making use of Saddam`s conflict with Kuwait in the first Persian Gulf War, they had managed to set up a federal (autonomous) government. Therefore, after Saddam`s death, the wheel of fortune turned in such a way for the Iraqi people that in Article One of their Constitution they called their country an Iraqi Republic, which is an independent and sovereign state and which has a “parliamentary, democratic and federal republican government.”

Now, as a result of the new crisis in Iraq, many people, including Tariq al-Hashimi, claim that Iraq is on the verge of disintegration, of religious wars, and of its partition into three countries. Only a few days ago, John McCain, a senior American Republican senator and a member of the (Senate) armed services committee, told CNN: “It is very clear to me that a process of disintegration has started in Iraq, which will ultimately result in the partition of that country into three states. We should have kept some of our forces there.”

Yes! One of the first analyses in Iraq after the emergence of the crisis was that many observers said that the Iraqis would not be able to run their country without the Americans and that it was a mistake to withdraw American forces from Iraq. Turkish Prime Minister Even (Recep Tayyip) Erdogan, who had just left his sick bed, openly spoke of his opposition to (President Barack) Obama`s decision to withdraw the American forces from Iraq. He said: “Both in my face-to-face meetings and by telephone contact I stressed to Barack Obama and (Vice President) Joe Biden that the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq was not a good move and that those forces should have remained in Iraq until the establishment of democracy in that country.” Nevertheless, should we accept that our neighboring country that has long borders with our country will be divided into three countries, the Kurdish area, the Shi`i area, and the Sunni area? The Balance of “the Triangle of Power” in Iraq

The Iraqi political geography, which is the result of that country`s ethnic geography, is such a triangle that any unity between two legs of that triangle would settle the issue for the third leg. The balance of power in Iraq is made up of 20 percent Kurds, 60 percent Shi`is, and 38 percent Sunnis (some of whom are of course Kurds).

In the first glance, we must accept that the continuation of the political conflict in that country would leave no option but the disintegration of that country. After various proposed solutions, such as holding early elections, forming a majority government, and above all the inability of political groups to hold a national conference that would result in national reconciliation, the future prospects look dim. However, would the formation of three countries safeguard the ethnic interests of each side? Will the wishes of some countries in the region to bring about the collapse of a united government in Iraq be realized?

Some time ago, Iraqi officials claimed that Tariq al-Hashimi had written a letter to King Abdullah (of Saudi Arabia) and had promised him that he would not reveal the hidden secrets between them. However, a more important factor than Saudi Arabia`s interference in the dispute regarding Tariq al-Hashimi is the reference in those reports to the plan by al-Hashimi and by Saudi Arabia to partition Iraq. It is not farfetched to believe that (Saudi) Arabia and some other countries in the region are trying to partition Iraq and to break up what they call “the Shi`a crescent stretching from Iran to Lebanon.” An Iraq in which the Shi`is are influential in its regional policies is not desirable to the Arabs. In this connection, after Iraq refused to cooperate with the Arab League to put pressure on Syria, Qatar`s foreign minister said that Iraqi officials should clearly set out their foreign policy doctrine.

However, before the neighboring countries can be effective in Iraq, it is the Iraqi people who will decide their fate. We should remember that although the Kurds, the Shi`is and the Sunnis constitute the main groups in Iraq, nevertheless, each of those groups has different subgroups among them that will influence the decisions that are taken. In the first instance, it should be pointed out that, contrary to their expectations, the Sunnis would not benefit from the partition of Iraq. Nearly all the Iraqi resources (presumably oil deposits) are in the Kurdish and Shi`i-inhabited areas. Therefore, the Sunni Arab countries have nothing to offer the Iraqis that in the long term they can impose a small Sunni country in the Iraqi deserts on the Iraqi Sunnis.

On the other hand, recently all the Sunni (parliamentary) deputies ofSalahuddin Province left the Al-Iraqiyya list (Party). Their departure from that list means that they are not prepared to join the Al-Iraqiyya in continuing its ongoing war against the central government. At the same time, yesterday Kurdish Press News Agency, quoting Tactical Report website, reported that Mas`ud Barzani, the president of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, has asked Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq`s vice president, to go to (Saudi) Arabia or to the United Arab Emirates. If that report is correct, it would mean that Kurdish officials are not prepared to continue paying a price for al-Hashimi.

During the past few days, the relations between the Kurdish autonomous region and the central government have greatly deteriorated. The situation has become so critical that the deputy interior minister of Kurdistan had angrily stated that although Kurdistan is part of Iraq, nevertheless, “we are not (Prime Minister) Nuri al-Maliki`s policemen.” In the course of the dispute regarding al-Hashimi, Jalal Talabani (the Iraqi president) has repeatedly supported his vice president. Although he spoke of (the possibility of) his trial in Kurdistan, nevertheless, he stressed that al-Hashimi was still his vice president. From such remarks one can conclude that before regarding himself as the president of Iraq, Talabani still regards himself as “the leader of the National Union of Kurdistan” and that together with Mas`ud Barzani, the president of the Democratic Party of Iraq`s Kurdish Region, he has decided to give refuge to al-Hashimi.

Therefore, we should not forget Jalal Talabani`s historic remarks when he said: “Let us imagine that we declare our independence. Iraq, Iran, Syria, andTurkey would not need to fight with us. How can we live if those countries only decide to close their borders to our traffic?” If the Iraqi president still believes in what he said before, which logically he should adhere to those views, he believes that the independence of Kurdistan would be “impossible.” There are other issues that support this argument. Some time ago, a senior Kurdish official, who did not want his name to be revealed, told Reuters: “Let me say it bluntly that the Kurds are not prepared to sacrifice their strategic interests and their allies for the sake of al-Hashimi.”

Therefore, while one should admit that Iraq is faced with a serious test and should move from ethnic and religious beliefs toward a “national definition of its identity,” it seems that despite the difficult and tense relations between them, the ethnic interests of the Iraqis would be best-served by a united identity. Therefore, returning to that country`s constitution is the only option for all those who believe in a united and powerful Iraq. Trying To Find an Answer to Tariq al-Hashimi`s Puzzle

The only point here is to try to find an answer to Tariq al-Hashimi`s puzzle. The mistake of Nuri al-Maliki, the central government, and the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council, or anyone who is following Tariq al-Hashimi`s file was that they started to subject Tariq al-Hashimi to a judicial process at a time when his fall was interpreted as the fall of the Sunni minority, and when he was still regarded as the only high-ranking representative of the Sunnis by the media and the people.

It is believed that despite the populist noises and the harsh and extreme statements of politicians, in Iraq political issues are always decided in secret and behind closed doors as the result of compromises and bargains by various political players. Therefore, if the State of Law Coalition, led by Nuri al-Maliki, can separate the Sunni groups one by one from the Al-Iraqiyya Party, which he seems to be doing, or if gradually he can find another person who would be regarded as the accepted representative of the Iraqi Sunnis, Tariq al-Hashimi would become a spent force. It is also rumored that Arabia is trying to remove him from the scene so that once again some of the secrets of the Middle Eastwould be buried with him forever.