When President Bush visited Dubai on January 14, 2008, the government declared a curfew. The curfew was justified as a necessary security measure to foil a possible plot to kill the president, probably by Iranian sympathizers. Though there was no credible proof that the president’s life was even remotely at risk, Washington used the occasion to send a powerful message to the Iranian regime that their regional ambitions would be treated as a threat to American interests in the Middle East.
So when Attorney General Eric Holder announced, on October 11, that Iran had plotted to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington, along with the assassination of the Saudi Arabia Ambassador, experts questioned the seriousness of the accusation. Was the plot credible or just a geopolitical game aimed at rearranging events in the Middle East to serve Washington’s urgent priorities?
Middle East experts argue that Washington has four pressing priorities in the region but without distracting Iran, acting upon them satisfactorily will be impossible. These strategic goals are to: give Turkey a free hand to interfere in Syria and change the Assad regime, obtain immunity protection for American security and military personnel who stay in Iraq after the formal withdrawal of troops at the end of this year, force Palestinian leaders to rethink their bid for full membership in the UN and instead accept Israel’s offer, and enable the Arab Gulf authoritarian regimes to strengthen their hold on power, while strengthening Salafi groups in the region to effectively counter rising Arab nationalistic and liberal sentiments.
The Washington Post (October 11) stated that the alleged plot was a sloppy one “with extremely poor tradecraft, by Quds Force standards.” The New York Times questioned the validity of the accusation stating, “it seemed unlikely that the government [of Iran] would back a brazen murder and bombing plan on American soil.” The Christian Science Monitor (October 12) was more skeptical stating that the plot did not add up and that many Iran watchers have raised doubts about the assassination plot allegations.
The Monitor, too, questioned the credibility of the plotter, Manssor Arbabsiar, and wondered if this former used car salesman would be capable of carrying out a highly sophisticated scheme. Furthermore, the Washington Post reported that Arbabsiar, met with two Mexican drug-cartel informants and began talking “to U.S. authorities after his arrest and at their direction discussed the plot on Oct. 4 with a Quds Force official in Iran named Gholam Shakuri, who was also indicted.”
U.S. relationships with Iran have, for decades, been shaped by Iran’s position toward Israel. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Washington has not missed any opportunity to remind Iran of its disproval of Tehran’s increasing influence in the region and its persistent efforts to form alliances with several regional groups hostile to Israel. Iranian leaders, however, because of their deep convictions or stubbornness, have embarked on independent action.
Starting in 1956, the U.S. replaced Britain as the dominant power in shaping Middle East affairs and since then it has situated the region at the top of its strategic priorities. Accordingly, the U.S. considers any country in the region which aspires to play a greater regional role as a threat to Israeli superiority and American national interests. This was the case with Egypt and Iraq during Gamal Abdel Nasser’s and Abdul al-Karim Qassim’s eras.
Whether the plot is credible or not, the fact of the matter is that the Obama administration has exploited all available approaches to force Iran into submission and changing its ambitions to no avail. The administration has imposed stiff economic sanctions on Iran; in 2009 it seized mosques in New York, Maryland, Virginia, California, and Texas that were suspected of being owned by a charitable organization in Iran; and carried out covert operations to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program. The Obama administration, too, took bold measures in supporting opposition, ethnic and religious separatist groups, and neighboring countries to weaken the Iranian regime and eventually change it.
Recently, the administration has assembled secret drone bases in the Arabian Peninsula. It also persuaded Turkey to agree for the installation of a U.S. radar station near the Iranian border. This missile shield and similar radars on U.S. Navy ships in the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean will enable the U.S. military to operate a high-powered X-band radar station to monitor Iranian military activities and to strike with precision at Iranian targets.
Faced with low approval ratings and a severe economic crisis at home, the Obama administration desperately seeks to rally the public behind the president. More importantly, the administration urgently looks for whatever support it can generate in Congress to pass its job creation plan and other economic programs. In taking a bold stand against Iran, the administration seeks to garner support among members of the Congress, especially the religious fundamentalists represented by powerful members (e.g., Senators Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and Congressman Eric Cantor).
In the meantime, by announcing the Iranian plot aimed at both Israel and Saudi Arabia targets, the administration seeks to cultivate the support of the lobbyists for both countries. More significantly, the Obama administration hopes to demonstrate that both the Arab Gulf authoritarian regimes and Israel face a common enemy, Iran. Therefore, it would be politically beneficial for them to work together and support Washington’s Middle East design.
In the last few decades, the Iranian regime has effectively advocated the Palestinian cause, making it impossible for Arab regimes and Palestinian leaders to accept Israel’s terms for peace. The Obama administration has reached the conclusion that, despite all measures against Iran, since Tehran is not in a mood to compromise it therefore has to be confronted on all fronts.
In the past, the administration, like its predecessor, aggressively sought to weaken Iran’s influence in the Arab World through deliberate targeting of Iran’s allies; Syria, and the resistance forces in Lebanon and Palestine. However, after it successfully contained and or obstructed the Arab youth uprisings, the administration concluded that it was now time for a direct showdown with Iran and to force the Palestinians to submissively accept Israeli plans. This might be a fantasy scheme, but the administration is resolute in deploying all resources to confront Iran. Only time will tell whether this new gamble will deepen regional tragedies or not!
Abbas J. Ali is Professor and Director of School of International Management, Eberly College of Business and IT, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
