Thursday, August 03, 2006

News Update 03/08/06: Syria, Iran, or none?

The medias have been speculating on who will be included in the final negotiations regarding the current conflict. The US-Israeli insistence that the Hezbollah is but one of the elements of the unified “axis of terror”, combined with the inability to destroy militarily the Hezbollah lead to the conclusion that the final negotiations will have to engage other members of this axis: “There can be no peace without engagement by Israel and her allies with the states that antagonise them: Syria and Iran” writes the Guardian.
Earlier during the crisis, Syria seemed to be the most likely partner for negotiations. A report in the New-York Times quoted US officials recognizing Syria’s central role in any plan. The pre-requisite for such a role was “to peel Syria away from its alliance of convenience with Iran”, a task left to the Saudi and Egyptian regimes. This perspective was adopted by Haaretz newspaper, which called upon President Asad to take advantage of this window of opportunity and to become “an active partner in peace in the Middle East”.
But as the crisis deepened, attention shifted to Iran as the main powerbroker and the more likely negotiation partner. France’s foreign minister’s recognition of Iran’s “stabilizing role in the region” and the subsequent meeting with its Iranian homologue pointed to a possible inclusion of Iran in the final negotiation. This change in direction was backed by Henry Kissinger, in the Washington Post, for whom a diplomatic overture toward Iran is necessary. Similarly, calls for inclusion of Iran were voiced in the Israeli press.
But the inclusion of Iran in these negotiations cannot be separated from the issue of Iran nuclear program and its emerging role as regional superpower. As both of these dossiers are problematic in themselves, Iran might prove to be a costly choice for a negotiation partner. This leaves the option of restricting the negotiation to the Lebanese partners, an option that lacks any credibility as the modern history of Lebanon illustrates.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the publihers of this bolg, was your family by any chance members of Hitlers SS, or was there views too tolerant for them?

August 04, 2006 1:22 pm  
Blogger Michelle said...

It seems to me there are two reasons why anyone would post such a message:
a. you might be trying hard to provoke the publishers of this blog. If so, let us assure you that we would be more than happy to engage in productive, helpful, useful or slightly more intelligent remarks that result in debate. But your comment comes across as extremely unintelligible. Should you wish to insist on your stance, you might help us more by explaining how exactly is this blog reminiscent of Hitler’s SS? Because thus far, it just seems to expose your historical illiteracy and embarassing ignorance. At best it shows a worrisome amount of pettiness, especially that you make the false connection to our families and ancestors!!!

b. The other possibility is that you are just an unintelligent person. In this case, I personally do excuse you, since I suppose there is nothing to be done considering that it is not your fault you are stupid, despite the irritation you might cause other readers.

August 04, 2006 3:04 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home