Saudi Arabia and Israel have
long called for regime change, but are wary of taking part in an actual
conflict
By ALISON TAHMIZIAN MEUSE
BEIRUT
The United States under
President Donald Trump would go it alone in a potential military confrontation
with Iran, as neither its Middle East allies nor its Western partners see
utility in such an endeavor.
Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu – who is known for his staunch enmity towards the Islamic
republic – this week convened his security chiefs for an urgent meeting,
instructing them to “take steps to isolate Israel from any developments and
ensure that Israel is not dragged into this escalation,” Israel’s Channel
13 reported Wednesday.
They concluded, the outlet
reported, that Tehran posed no “immediate concern” for Israel.
In the Gulf – where tensions
are running high in the wake of reported attacks against shipping vessels and
oil infrastructure – some of America’s staunchest allies are similarly
unenthusiastic about the prospect of a new war.
The United Arab Emirates, for
one, would not be “baited into a crisis” with Iran, a senior diplomat told Bloomberg
Television on Wednesday night.
His comments came days after
the Emirati Foreign Ministry said that four commercial vessels had been
“sabotaged” off its coastal province of Fujairah. In the wake of that incident,
multiple US media outlets have quoted unnamed Trump administration officials
suggesting without evidence that Iran was behind the incident.
The Emirati minister of state
for foreign affairs, Anwar Gargash, emphasized that an investigation, supported
by the French and Americans, was ongoing.
“This is the region we live in
and it’s important for us that we manage this crisis,” he added.
Saudi Arabia, embroiled since
2015 in a military intervention in neighboring Yemen with no end in sight, has
offered only rhetoric and propaganda against Iran.
An editorial published
Thursday in the Riyadh-based Arab News said the US should move beyond sanctions
in its so-called “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran.
“The next logical step – in this
newspaper’s view – should be surgical strikes. The US has set a precedent, and
it had a telling effect: The Trump strikes on Syria when the Assad regime used
sarin gas against its people,” it said.
The editorial notably did not
advocate for Saudi involvement in said military action. The historical
precedent mentioned – the 2017 US strikes on a Syrian military airbase – had no
meaningful impact on the broader war.
For Iraq, which the US
military invaded in 2003, a move stoked by intelligence claims over
non-existent weapons of mass destruction and breathless media coverage of
purported threats, a conflict between Tehran and Washington threatens to
undermine what fleeting security the country has clawed back after a years-long
war to rid its territory of ISIS militants.
“Iraq is a sovereign nation.
We will not let [the US] use our territory,” Iraq’s ambassador to Russia,
Haidar Mansour Hadi, was quoted as telling reporters in Moscow this week. The
envoy said he hoped the latest developments in the region, including the
pullout of US non-essential embassy staff from Iraq, would amount to nothing.
Iraq, he said, “does not want
a new devastating war in the region” and would prefer to be a mediator between
its rival allies than get caught in the middle.
America’s allies in Europe are
no more enthusiastic.
US Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, who crashed a European Union gathering in Brussels on Monday in a bid
to close ranks for his maximum pressure campaign, was met with a cool reception
from his diplomatic counterparts.
EU foreign policy chief
Federica Mogherini told reporters
that the US top diplomat “heard very clearly … from us, not only from
myself but also from the other ministers of EU members states, that we are
living in a crucial, delicate moment where … the most responsible attitude to
take … should be that of maximum restraint, avoiding any escalation on the
military side.”
British Foreign Secretary
Jeremy Hunt went so far as to express his concern that “an escalation that
is unintended” could spark a “much more serious situation than we’re
fearing.”
The following day, the UK’s
Major General Chris Ghika said there was “no increased threat from
Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria.”
The statement – from the
number two officer in the US-led coalition to defeat ISIS – appeared in sharp
contrast to a sudden US evacuation of non-essential staff from Iraq this week
over announced Iranian threats.
Brett McGurk, the former US
envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition who served under both Trump and Barack Obama,
said the ordered departure from Iraq was unprecedented.
“Even when ISIS was bearing
down on Baghdad in 2014, the US did not trigger ordered departure in light of
its serious repercussions,” he tweeted, adding: “The big question now is where
this leads. Trump again said he expects Iran to call him. They won’t. So then
what?”
Speaking from Japan on
Thursday, part of a diplomatic tour meant to shore up Asian alliances amid the
US pressure campaign, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Kyoto News
Agency there was no possibility for direct talks with the Trump administration
at this juncture.
Zarif heads next to powerhouse
China, where he will meet with officials engaged in their own standoff with
the US over trade.
No comments:
Post a Comment