GCC-Iran and Al-Jazeera Watch, continued

The GCC-Iran rapprochement appears to proceed apace, despite US efforts to tighten sanctions.  Yesterday Mahmoud Ahmedenejad had a well-publicized phone chat with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah about regional developments, and also found the time for his first-ever phone conversation with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.   UK based Palestinian scholar Khaled al-Hroub wrote an interesting piece the other day in the UAE's al-Ittihad outlying the good strategic rationale for the emergence of a "Gulf-Iranian security order."  In a piece which ran in both al-Ittihad and the Saudi al-Sharq al-Awsat, the Kuwaiti Saad bin Tufla al-Ajami wrote proudly a few days ago about his country's decision to send its Foreign Minister to Tehran after Bush's visit, to demonstrate that Kuwait and the Gulf will pursue their interests, which might not be American interests.  Just some more data points in support of the argument that the Gulf and other Arabs do not seem to be where the US is, or would like them to be, on the Iran question these days.   

Meanwhile, al-Jazeera's coverage over the last couple of weeks lends little support to the thesis that it has been neutered into a pro-American station.  During Bush's visit to Iran the Gulf [typo corrected; though wouldn't a trip to Iran have been something?], it sent a team to Tehran and aired an interview with Iran's Foreign Minister and a somewhat spectacular interview with Ahmedenejad.  That accords well with the "new GCC line on Iran" thesis, not so much with the "pro-Americanization" thesis.  And while I haven't been able to watch much Arab TV the last couple of days, at least some Arab media watchers are saying that its coverage of the current Gaza crisis has been the most thorough and effective, covering it heavily even as most Arab TV stations acted as if nothing unusual were happening.  That's what one would expect from al-Jazeera, but not from the alleged "new al-Jazeera."   Neither of these is decisive proof of anything, but they are suggestive.

Comments

[Nick A.]

I'm curious: could our recent Gulf of Tonkin-type incident in the Straits of Hormuz have anything to do with this phenomenon? I don't know what happened, but unless I'm mistaken we made an awful lot of fuss over it and then declared, essentially, that it was just a misunderstanding. You and many other commenters are much more informed than I am, but could it have been in part an attempt to scare our Arab allies and slow their rapprochement with Iran?

[Gregory Gause]

I would just caution against taking the tack too far. The Gulf states have to live with Iran and they know that. They are worried about US policy -- both about being too aggressive against Iran but also about leaving Iraq "too early" and leaving them to confront an Iran that has made Iraq a client state. This is structural -- weak states always worry that their protectors will drag them into conflicts and worry that their protectors will abandon them and/or do deals over their heads.

Thus, they are in favor BOTH of containing Iran and of engaging it. It is a sophisticated strategy (sophisticated is another word for "sometimes contradictory"). But it should not be read as some kind of openness to real security cooperation with Iran or as evidence that the Saudis and the smaller Gulf states do not view Iran with trepidation.

[aardvark]

Greg - I agree with that.. but the flip side, which I think matters, is that the US is going to have a really tough time putting on tighter sanctions (or launching a military strike, for that matter) with the Gulfies taking this tack.

[Gregory Gause]

No question. Agree 100%. I think a military strike is MUCH less likely after the NIE last month. Before the NIE, I thought there was at least a 50% chance of some kind of US strike on Iran before the end of 2008. Now, I think the chances are much below 50%.

[Nick A]

Agreed. To my knowledge, nobody assers that Iran can "flip" Saudi Arabia the way some optimists (Dennis Ross) were saying we could "flip" Syria a year ago or so. But there does seem to be a detente, which might work against our interests (sanctions, generally keeping Iran diplomatically isolated, etc.).

[delmarva]

An angle of this that's not mentioned so often is that the smaller Gulf states (esp. Qatar) are not overflowing with love for the Saudis, and are probably ok with Iran balancing the al-Sa'ud, so long as it doesn't get out of control. The smaller Gulf states, especially the UAE and Bahrain, also do a lot more business with Iran and have many more Iranian nationals living in their territory.

[Martin Kramer]

For once, I am in agreement with Lynch. See my Memo from Gulfistan. Of course, it knocks another pole out of the tent of the Annapolis "process," which was justified as the necessary finishing touch to the grand anti-Iran alliance. Another new Middle East down the tubes.

[Suburban Sultan]

One rule in Middle East diplomacy, right? You go where the crude is.

[William deB. Mills]

Very useful set of citations; would be great to have them in a Western language.

Ahmadinejad's interview was summarized by al-Jazeera in English--

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/54C9D595-2A99-421D-9D9E-13CB14097B88.htm--

and is discussed by al-Jazeera commentators in this video (in English)--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAxr16XqapE.

He apparently avoided threats and spoke confidently about Iranian security vis-à-vis Israel. He also apparently condemned Israelis as terrorists, called for stability in Iraq, harmony in the Mideast, and resistance in Lebanon.

Does anyone know where to get a full transcript in translation?

[Jason Hillman]

Al-Watan reported that Denijad plans on going to visit Iraq within the next few months, as far as I know the Western media has not reported this.

http://www.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=592842&pageId=36

[chris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAxr16XqapE. - didnt load :S