Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU): Students' Unions can not be banned
Contrary to Neocon narrative, GCC remains divided over its relations with Iran, says Saurabh Kumar Shahi
The Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba, is in the eye of a storm for the observations he made vis-a-vis Iran. Comments carried by major news outlets of the world suggested that al-Otaiba confessed to a tacit support for an American military adventure on Iranian nuclear targets.
'I think it's a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion, there will be consequences, there will be backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what. If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran', my answer is still the same: We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE,' al-Otaiba was reported to have said.
The comment has renewed the focus on the attitude of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries towards the Iranian nuclear issue. Looking at the direction of debate in Washington, there are fair chances that al-Otaiba's comments will be used by neoconservative reporters and lobbyists to push their case. Essentially, his comments will be considered as sort of endorsement to the AIPAC's grossly misguided line: that Iran is a potential threat to all US allies, not just Israel and that the region's Arab autocracies and monarchies are deeply apprehensive of the 'potential threat' of Iran rather than the Palestinian issue. It will essentially mean that AIPAC will be able to convince the administration that containing Iran is a good proposition not only for Israel but for America's Arab allies as well.
Under the circumstances, it is essential to counter such line of thought that seems to be deliberately misrepresenting that attitude of GCC vis-a-vis US-Iranian confrontation. The line taken by Neocons are too simplistic and suggest that they consider GCC to be a monolith. The reality is pretty different. In fact, attitudes of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia, the constituents of GCC, with regards to Iranian issue is singularly complex and, more often then none, conflicting too. Talking to TSI, Jasim Husain Ali, A Bahraini analyst of GCC affairs said, 'The actions of Saudi Arabia and the UAE toward Iran threaten further divisions within the GCC, thereby further undermining prospects for attaining genuine regional integration. For their parts, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait seem determined to maintain normal neighbourly ties with Iran. Also, Bahrain is said to be close to signing a deal allowing for the import of Iranian gas for its industries.'
So, it is pretty evident that the narrative is not that linear as AIPAC and Neocons would like us to believe. Also, it is very surprising that although UAE and Saudi Arabia have a list of differences over the role of GCC, they appear pretty joint-at-the-hip on one issue'making antagonistic gestures towards Iran. Therefore, it is much more than a coincidence that within weeks, The Times, in one of its report alleged covert Saudi assistance to Israel for a prospective military strike against Iran. Just a week later, the UAE seems to have spearheaded the campaign against Iranian business interests under the guise of implementing UNSC Resolution 1929.
While Saudi's Wahhabi influenced monarchy's motive is well documented, it's UAE that is acting hawkish lately. Very shortly, these nations will find themselves at crossroads. Because if they insist on maintaining the US status quo, whereas many emerging regional powers are resisting, these monarchies might get slighted by the rising eastern alliances of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Turkey. And if they do otherwise, the Neocons in Washington may well seek other means to make them fall in line' for example regime change by covert means.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri and Arindam chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
IIPM BBA MBA Institute: Student Notice Board
Contrary to Neocon narrative, GCC remains divided over its relations with Iran, says Saurabh Kumar Shahi
The Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba, is in the eye of a storm for the observations he made vis-a-vis Iran. Comments carried by major news outlets of the world suggested that al-Otaiba confessed to a tacit support for an American military adventure on Iranian nuclear targets.
'I think it's a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion, there will be consequences, there will be backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what. If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran', my answer is still the same: We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE,' al-Otaiba was reported to have said.
The comment has renewed the focus on the attitude of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries towards the Iranian nuclear issue. Looking at the direction of debate in Washington, there are fair chances that al-Otaiba's comments will be used by neoconservative reporters and lobbyists to push their case. Essentially, his comments will be considered as sort of endorsement to the AIPAC's grossly misguided line: that Iran is a potential threat to all US allies, not just Israel and that the region's Arab autocracies and monarchies are deeply apprehensive of the 'potential threat' of Iran rather than the Palestinian issue. It will essentially mean that AIPAC will be able to convince the administration that containing Iran is a good proposition not only for Israel but for America's Arab allies as well.
Under the circumstances, it is essential to counter such line of thought that seems to be deliberately misrepresenting that attitude of GCC vis-a-vis US-Iranian confrontation. The line taken by Neocons are too simplistic and suggest that they consider GCC to be a monolith. The reality is pretty different. In fact, attitudes of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia, the constituents of GCC, with regards to Iranian issue is singularly complex and, more often then none, conflicting too. Talking to TSI, Jasim Husain Ali, A Bahraini analyst of GCC affairs said, 'The actions of Saudi Arabia and the UAE toward Iran threaten further divisions within the GCC, thereby further undermining prospects for attaining genuine regional integration. For their parts, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait seem determined to maintain normal neighbourly ties with Iran. Also, Bahrain is said to be close to signing a deal allowing for the import of Iranian gas for its industries.'
So, it is pretty evident that the narrative is not that linear as AIPAC and Neocons would like us to believe. Also, it is very surprising that although UAE and Saudi Arabia have a list of differences over the role of GCC, they appear pretty joint-at-the-hip on one issue'making antagonistic gestures towards Iran. Therefore, it is much more than a coincidence that within weeks, The Times, in one of its report alleged covert Saudi assistance to Israel for a prospective military strike against Iran. Just a week later, the UAE seems to have spearheaded the campaign against Iranian business interests under the guise of implementing UNSC Resolution 1929.
While Saudi's Wahhabi influenced monarchy's motive is well documented, it's UAE that is acting hawkish lately. Very shortly, these nations will find themselves at crossroads. Because if they insist on maintaining the US status quo, whereas many emerging regional powers are resisting, these monarchies might get slighted by the rising eastern alliances of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Turkey. And if they do otherwise, the Neocons in Washington may well seek other means to make them fall in line' for example regime change by covert means.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri and Arindam chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
IIPM BBA MBA Institute: Student Notice Board
No comments:
Post a Comment