Monday, Aug 03, 2009

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states find themselves, once again, in a bind over what others do, opine and carry out. The regional flashpoints from Iran to Iraq can change the region's fundamentals.

I remember when the former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fuelled Arab fury and anger by her insensitive remarks during Israel's onslaught against Lebanon and Hezbollah in July 2006.

At that time she said that the region has to be patient because this is "the birth pangs of the new Middle East!". Her statement sank even further the US credibility and standing in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Rice's successor, Hillary Clinton, recently, raised a lot of eyebrows in the region and beyond when she suggested, of all places in Thailand, before a town house meeting, on the need to extend a defence umbrella to US allies in the Gulf.

She stated: "We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the US extends a defence umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate, as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon."

Such remarks in addition to being vague contradicts the policies of the Obama administration on mending fences with Iran.

Clinton's comment needs more extrapolation to find whether she meant the extended nuclear umbrella is akin to the one the US has provided to Japan and South Korea.

It does appear that Clinton seems to advocate such a strategy. For, during her presidential campaign last year she said the US "should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel."

Clinton's offer represents a major shift in the US strategic approach in the region. Two years ago the US proposed $20 billion (Dh73.46 billion) arms deals for the GCC states over the next few years, and upgraded the status of Kuwait and Bahrain to "major non-Nato ally" status.

Of course, such a proposal caught the GCC by surprise and they have not commented on it. Meanwhile, the 'security umbrella' proposal upset the Israelis because it meant, in a way, the US has resigned itself to a nuclear Iran.

The Obama administration sent senior officials to allay the Israeli fears and reassured Tel Aviv about the US policy vis-a-vis Iran. It also reiterated that no military operation would be conducted against Iran as long as it keeps its offer of negotiation open.

Probably the offer of a nuclear umbrella took the GCC states by surprise because if it comes to fruition, it means they will have to align themselves with the US against Iran, something they do not want to do.

Of course, Iran reacted angrily and threatened, if it was attacked, to bomb Israel's nuclear facilities and other strategic targets in the region, including American bases and closing down of the Strait of Hormuz.

In a recent article, Jim Hoagland summed up the fallout of Clinton's offer: "These words are ill-considered not because they are wrong or wrongheaded. The problem is that they state an obvious truth in obvious language."

Hoagland made a salient conclusion and raised an important question, whether Clinton was talking on behalf of the Obama administration or it was her own thinking?

"President Obama has yet to bless the thought. He in fact avoided endorsing it during that campaign debate with Clinton. So in its front-page account, the Times was quick to quote a 'senior White House official' putting aside that new display of harmony - as having said that the secretary of state was speaking for herself".

Clinton had a chance to go into the details of the proposal when she was the guest on NBC TV's Meet the Press talk show, but she refused to be pinned down by stating in a threatening tone "that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon" and reiterated Washington's commitment "to protect Israel from any threat posed by Tehran".

In answering a question, whether she had been referring to a nuclear umbrella, Clinton said: "We are not talking in specifics, because that would come later if at all. My view is you hope for the best, but plan for the worst... Clearly, we have a long, durable relationship with Israel. We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected."

It goes without saying the US's solid commitment to the security and well being of Israel.

The US-Iran policy has to be more coherent beyond rhetoric, especially in reference to Iran's nuclear programme. The US has to factor in other players, besides Israel vis-a-vis Iran, and think of our well being too.

If the Obama administration starts to cave in under Israeli pressure, then it will not only derail the US-Middle East peace drive for the two-state solution, but also have a destabilising effect on other flashpoints.

Obama has to form a coherent policy towards Iran and spell out the end game of his administration's proposal of the 'security umbrella'. He has to take decisive actions if he is to deliver a change we believe in.

By Abdullah Al Shayji, Special to Gulf News

Gulf News 2009. All rights reserved.