and in which Israel plays a pivotal role, as long as this grand deal holds the major issues and the following conditions as its basis:

* The negotiations over the deal should not be a mere tactical move aimed at buying time and avoiding a strike. Indeed, buying time is an essential element in the strategy of the Iranian-Syrian alliance with Hezbollah and Hamas, each for its own motives.

The Iranians need time to enrich more uranium, and the Syrians need time to tone down the international tribunal. Hezbollah benefits from buying time because its current situation is very convenient, after the Doha Accord granted it the right of veto inside the government as well as that of keeping its weapons. Finally, Hamas buys time because it finds in its relationship with Israel a golden opportunity to bring down the Palestinian Authority.

* Evading punishment for terrorist crimes such as political assassinations should not be part of the deal. The assassinations that have claimed the lives of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and other Lebanese figures are no longer a domestic affair. It is an international responsibility which the US and France in particular cannot evade. Any indication of evasion or readiness to tone down the international tribunal, established by the Security Council under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, will backfire on Washington and Paris.

* Those behind the grand deal as well as the negotiators involved should not even consider the possibility of mapping out a new regional security order, where leadership would be granted to Israel and Iranian leaders, with secondary partnership status given to the Syrian regime and to the militias supporting Tehran and Damascus which operate in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. Such a regional order will lead to consequences far worse than those resulting from the emergence of Al-Qaeda and similar organizations.

* The negotiations for the grand deal should not reward those who have resorted to intimidation and extremism, nor punish those who have taken the path of moderation. To reward Syria for what it has done in Iraq, Iran and Palestine will reinforce its customary approach toward Iraq, Iran and Palestine. Such is the language of "appeasement." It is based on creating a breathing space to allow preparations for renewed assaults.

* Such a grand deal should not reward states like Iran and Syria by granting them what they had fought for militarily, i.e. giving Lebanon to Syria and Iraq to Iran.

* The grand deal should not give its blessing to the practices of the Iranian regime's state ideology in terms of repressing basic civil liberties and individual rights, particularly women's rights. The rule of clergymen in Iran has sought to export its revolution and ideology, and failed, even after two wars. It is therefore not acceptable for the "grand deal" to grant it the prerogative to change the face of the region. Any talk of "investing" in internal Iranian disputes to get rid of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is simply ridiculous. The grand deal will grant the Iranian regime an international license to survive indefinitely. Any talk of a "grand deal" that will get rid of the regime in Iran is nonsense.

If the "grand deal" manages to avoid these bumps and to succeed in correcting courses, repairing relations and laying the right foundations for a new regional security order, one that would includes Iran without giving in to its threats and demands, then such a deal is welcome. On the other hand, if it is nothing more than surrendering to threats, intimidation, terror and the use of militias in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine as a tool of hegemony, its outcomes will be counterproductive for the Middle East, US-Iranian and US-Arab relations as well as for American and European interests in the Middle East and even in the US and Europe themselves.

Several key players can be identified in the current phase, which may be referred to as a phase of truce and appeasement. The formulation and weaving of a truce here and some appeasement there over the past five weeks is remarkable in terms of content and timing and has significant implications, because Iran has a direct relation to all four issues, in addition to Iraq, as it constitutes the most significant issue in the relations of Iran with the US and Europe. Those issues are:

* The Doha Accord, sponsored by Qatar in an effort to resolve the Lebanese crisis, has led to appeasement that has strengthened Hezbollah politically and militarily, and given Syria the opportunity to hinder the formation of a Lebanese government, after having "cooperated" by ending its obstruction of Lebanese presidential elections. Such Syrian "cooperation" has resulted in practically taming Lebanon and in what seems to be the US and France embracing Syria regardless of the fact that the Doha Accord has in fact resulted in nothing more than buying time and regaining strength, an outcome that essentially serves the interests of Syria, Hezbollah and Iran.

* So-called progress in Syrian-Israeli negotiations, through Turkey and through Qatar, has in reality nothing to do with ending Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and reaching a bilateral Syrian-Israeli peace treaty in return. Such a discourse is being led by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who at this point in time is effectively in control of the Israeli decision making process as a result of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's weakness and the allegations of corruption he currently faces. Ehud Barak wants the return of Syria's influence and presence to Lebanon. He fervently believes that the current regime in Syria constitutes the best guarantee for Israel's security, on the basis that the Syrian regime is weak the face of Israel but strong in the face of the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, the Syrian regime did not activate resistance on the Syrian-Israeli front, and did not permit resistance from Syrian soil. Consequently, the crux of the Israeli position as led by Barak is the need to end the Syrian regime's isolation and to rehabilitate it on the American and European levels. It is noteworthy that Iran has boasted the green light it gave Syria to go ahead with its negotiations with Israel.

* Iran has also given Hezbollah the green light to hand over the bodies of eight Israelis to the Israeli government in return for an "unknown", believed to be part of the preparations for the grand deal. It was remarkable that Hezbollah's Secretary-General had within a matter of weeks decided to enter a truce-like phase with Israel, though the weapons he holds are meant to inflict defeat upon it. It was as remarkable as Israel's silence and its turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's actions and the Doha Accord which preserved its weapons. Perhaps the "unknown" is quite obvious after all. Perhaps it lies between the lines of the grand deal over which Iran is negotiating various smaller deals through its proxy militias and political parties.

* In addition to this, Iran was not unconcerned with the truce reached between Israel and Hamas, although Egypt took the lead in reaching the truce, nevertheless with significant assistance from Iran and Syria. The price for such assistance will probably come when President Hosni Mubarak meets with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Paris. According to sources, it is there that one should observe the possibility of an embrace rather than a hand-shake between the two. The reason for this is the truce and Syria's contribution to it through the use of its influence with Hamas, whose leadership is hosted by Damascus. Not to mention Iran's leverage with Hamas and Palestinian factions operating in Lebanon but whose leadership is based in Damascus.

What happened? According to one decision-maker in the Middle-East, what happened is that Israel preferred to deal with Syria rather than Lebanon, Hamas rather than the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah rather than the Lebanese government.

Hence, the relationship being weaved between Iran and Israel today is, according to policy-makers, being weaved with American sponsorship, from which French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who suffers from a superiority complex on the personal level and a political complex personified by Jacques Chirac, derives inspiration.

The candor of ordinary French citizens in describing their president Nicolas Sarkozy and their foreign minister Bernard Kouchner as "lunatics" is astonishing, as they say this in all seriousness. A few bemoan Chirac who had given France prestige, power and status. Others blame him over certain policies of his, yet still speak of him respectfully and do not describe him with some of the labels many of the French use when describing Sarkozy and his team.

Regarding his policy towards Lebanon, some blame Chirac for what they believe was tying France to an extreme and excessive extent to the Lebanese issue. Those who do are ashamed and embarrassed with Sarkozy's positions and actions towards Lebanon and Syria. It was Sarkozy who legitimized Syria's role in Lebanon when he involved Syria directly in negotiations over the Lebanese presidency. It is also Sarkozy who leads the campaign to rehabilitate Syria.

As a matter of fact, Sarkozy owes Lebanon, as it was the Lebanese issue that restored good relations between the US and France. Lebanon is the driving force behind reforming the American-French relationship which Sarkozy values highly and views as sacred. His weariness, grievances and complaints over the Lebanese issue is a denial of what he owes over reforming the French-American relations.

What he, or any American president-to-be, has no right to do is to manipulate the international tribunal, intended to prosecute those accused of political assassinations, through attenuation or obstruction. Nicolas Sarkozy is accused because what has not been clarified and emphasized is that his only concern with the international tribunal is that of offering it support. Any attempts at obstructing the tribunal, although judicially and legally impossible, will backfire on Sarkozy, and not just politically. His visit to Israel and meeting with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, will merely be a "souvenir" picture, in which his beautiful Italian wife, Carla Bruni, steals the light, if he does not cease to strengthen extremism.

The leaders of states that have opted for moderation are not interested in the political game played by Sarkozy or in the one played before him by American President George W. Bush, who brought down his own vision himself, eliminating the opportunity of establishing a Palestinian state during his term in office.

Jordanian monarch King Abdullah II has not ceased to place the Palestinian cause at the top of regional priorities, because he rightly believes in the need for a radical solution for the Palestinian issue, rather than a mere truce and some appeasement. It is indeed time to end the hypocrisy, to stop claiming resistance or a desire for peace. If Israel truly wants peace, why then does it undermine the Palestinian Authority with which it is negotiating for peace? Why is it the most significant partner in the alliance that strengthens radicalism and grants partnership to Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas understands Israel's methods because he has been dealing with them for decades. He remains committed to peaceful negotiations as the sole means of ending the conflict. Today, Israel plays the same old game and manipulates Syria, Palestine and Lebanon's destinies while offering yet another dose of support to Hamas, which it created and then insisted on having elected as a means of obstructing peace negotiations.

If the grand deal comes at the expense of moderate leaders in the region, then it will be a wretched deal that will inflict great losses and high costs on the entire region and the whole world. Those leaders have dared to defy and seek change using means other than those employed by the wise men of politics and manipulation who exploit national causes to serve only the interests of regimes. Consequently, the fate of moderation and radicalism in the world is the responsibility of the world powers involved in that grand deal we hear is being weaved. It is also the responsibility of public opinion wherever it may be, because the matter is a global one in what it involves in term of oil, terrorism and additional wars. However, this does not absolve moderate leaders of their responsibility. It is time to break free from the restrictions that make it impossible to fight existential battles with more humility and as much intensity as the war at hand requires.

Photo : Syrian president Bashar el Assad and French president Nicolas Sarkozy. It was Sarkozy who legitimized Syria's role in Lebanon when he involved Syria directly in negotiations over the Lebanese presidency. It is also Sarkozy who leads the campaign to rehabilitate Syria.

Share this Article:           
Feedback? We want to hear your thoughts!