3 days ago
Araghchi, the bomb and the Iranian train
The US has no interest in resorting to a military solution to resolve the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program. The use of force in the Middle East revives memories of costly experiences. President Donald Trump himself does not believe that a military solution is viable, unless all other options to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear dream run out. Iran, in turn, says it has no such dream. However, despite its repeated denials, the nuclear file continues to return to the spotlight.
The lack of trust between the US and Iran is not unusual. The two countries have traded direct and indirect blows over recent decades, deepening this crisis of trust. The current Iran always views the US, or 'the Great Satan,' as the top danger. It is aware that the US is a major power that is capable of upending balances of power in most parts of the world. Meanwhile, the US views Iran as the main backer of terrorism in the Middle East and Washington has accused it of having a hand in every attempt to destabilize the region.
Trump's return to the White House has inflamed the crisis with Iran. He is connected to two major events in Iran's recent history: Washington's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and the killing of Qassem Soleimani.
Trump has opened the door for negotiations with Iran, but with the constant reminder that it will never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, even if this ultimately means resorting to military force to prevent it from doing so.
The current nuclear crisis with Iran has entered a new phase in the wake of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report, which accused Tehran of speeding up the rate of its uranium enrichment. Trump's repeated statements that Tehran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms have been accompanied by repeated signs from him that an agreement is possible, and soon.
The US has no interest in sliding into a military confrontation with Iran. It also has no interest in Israel taking the reins in such a mission, meaning unpredictable repercussions. In all likelihood, Iran, which has long avoided slipping into a direct confrontation with the US, will continue to walk the same path in avoiding such a costly clash.
The US has no interest in a military confrontation with Iran. It also has no interest in Israel taking the reins in such a mission
Ghassan Charbel
Moreover, Iran is today in no shape to become embroiled in such a test of force. The recent changes in the Middle East have not at all been in Iran's favor and they have denied it some of its most valuable cards. On this note, we have to wonder what Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will feel when his plane approaches Beirut airport. Will he sense that Beirut has changed or that the region has changed, along with Iran's position in it?
He knows that his mission these days is very difficult, if not impossible. The world is calling on Iran to reassure it, while he responds that it should reassure Iran instead.
Araghchi is aware of what has happened to the Iranian train in recent months. Syria has hopped off and there is nothing that would lead anyone to believe that it will jump back on again. What has changed in Syria is not just the name of its president, but an entire reversal in how it treats the Syrian people, its neighbors and the world.
Damascus ousted the 'way of the resistance' that the Assad regime had long relied on. The US is no longer viewed as an enemy. Syria is now being desired and is in demand. Its advice and demands are also being heard.
Syria no longer hosts the officers of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as part of the plan Soleimani spent years drawing up, especially after he successfully persuaded Vladimir Putin's Russia to save the Assad regime from collapse. Syria no longer hosts the headquarters of Palestinian 'resistance' organizations or offers its leaders safe havens. These groups are no longer welcome in Syria, while Lebanon's Hezbollah is now viewed as an enemy.
Lebanon has also changed. The naming of presidents is no longer in the hands of Hezbollah commanders. The current president of the republic was elected after vowing to achieve a state monopoly over arms. The same can be said of the current prime minister. The current rule in Lebanon is based on the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701. Any delay is full of dangers and risks wasting opportunities for reconstruction and reestablishing stability.
Araghchi knows that the current nuclear crisis erupted at a very difficult time. The changes in Syria are comparable to the changes that took place in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Another Iraq and another Syria. Iran has not been able to make up for such losses. Iraq did not hop off the Iranian train in the wake of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation and its ensuing wars, but it managed to remain outside of the storm and avoid any adventures. The Houthi missiles are not enough compensation for Iran's losses.
One must pause at the situation in Gaza. The catastrophe there has no bounds and there are no limits to Israel's savagery. Hamas fought long and hard and paid a hefty price, but today it has no other practical alternative than to seek shelter in US envoy Steve Witkoff's proposal.
Araghchi is aware of what happened to the Iranian train in the wake of the Al-Aqsa operation. He knows that the countries of the region encourage the building of bridges with his own. Perhaps he even knows that accepting a lesser role for his country is much better than risking exposing it and its regime to a direct clash with the American military machine.
*Ghassan Charbel is editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. X: @GhasanCharbel
This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.
