Commentary > Opinion
from the February 08, 2007 edition
Sunni Arab view of US-Iran tensions
There's virtually unanimous opposition to a US attack on
Iran.
By Helena Cobban
CAIRO - As the level of tension rises between the US and
Iran, I am very concerned that the Bush administration is trying to paint
a scenario of the probable consequences of a possible US military action
against Iran that is far more rosy than the situation warrants.
One key example: Both Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley have talked about the
great threat that Sunni Arab countries perceive from Iran, which is
predominantly non-Arab and Shiite. Some advocates of an attack (in the US
and Israel) have argued that a US strike on Iran would be welcomed in
Sunni-dominated nations and would therefore generally bolster the region's
forces of stability. My current tour in Egypt contradicts that. The
Egyptians I've talked to so far - including retired diplomats, experienced
political analysts, and journalists - have expressed unanimous opposition
to any US attack against Iran.
The social researcher and former liberal presidential
candidate Saad Eddin Ibrahim recalled the arguments Bush supporters made
in early 2003 that the US invasion of Iraq (which he discreetly supported
at the time) would be "a cakewalk," and noted that it has turned out to be
anything but. He warned, "A US attack on Iran could spread the same chaos
we now see in Iraq to a number of other Arab countries. No one wants
that."
A former Egyptian ambassador rebutted Mr. Hadley's claim
that Arab countries feel deeply threatened by Iran's nuclear program. "We
have lived beneath Israel's nuclear weapons for many years, so even if
Iran gets nuclear weapons it wouldn't be anything new. Anyway, they are
not that close to it," he said.
It is not just in Egypt that prominent voices in the
(Sunni) Arab discourse have countered the Bush officials' claims. One very
high-level Saudi executive told me he thought a US attack on Iran would be
"disastrous for the whole region" and implored Washington to find a way to
resolve its differences with Tehran through diplomacy. Even in US-friendly
Kuwait, the government-sponsored Al-Rai newspaper has begun to publish
stridently anti-US editorials.
It's true there are some concerns among Sunni Arabs
about the growing influence of the (sometimes Iran-backed) Shiite
populations present in many Arab countries. But well-informed Egyptians
have stressed to me that anti-Americanism now runs much, much deeper than
any concerns about Iranian or Shiite influence. That anti-Americanism has
been hardened, they say, by the policies Washington has pursued toward
Iraq and the Palestinian territories, and toward Israel during its
destructive attack on targets in Lebanon last summer.
Many Sunni Arab leaders find themselves trapped
uncomfortably between those popular attitudes and their own strategic
alliances with Washington. Their reactions during last summer's
Israel-Hizbullah war were instructive. They started out expressing timid
support for Israel's attacks on Hizbullah. But as their publics swung
behind Hizbullah, they quickly joined the growing calls for a very rapid
cease-fire. In the event of a US strike on Iran, these leaders will
probably need to show similar responsiveness to public pressure. And that
pressure is now strongly anti-American.
Bottom line for Americans: In 2007, as in 2003, they
need to be very skeptical indeed of the rosy scenarios being conjured up
by the advocates of war. An attack on Iran risks bringing terrible harm to
US forces and innocent civilians both in and far beyond the focus of any
such attack.
Back in 2002-03, the Bush administration ignored the
advice offered by the vast majority of Middle East specialists. Listening
only to ideologues and others with a strong pro-war bias, it rushed the US
into a war that continues to have terrible consequences for everyone
concerned. We cannot let that happen again. Now, as then, there is no rosy
scenario. Now, as then, many diplomatic channels for resolving our
differences exist. Our leaders must now use them.
. Helena Cobban is the author of "Amnesty after
Atrocity? Healing Nations after Genocide and War Crimes."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0208/p08s02-coop.html
.
|
