During the summit of 2006, as the West awaited Iran’s decision on whether it will suspend sensitive elements of its nuclear program in return for a package of incentives, Arab observers appeared to be growing increasingly uneasy. Their core concern is that the Arab states will be little more than spectators as Tehran and the West strike a grand bargain that they fear will likely reshape the Middle East and confirm Iran as the region’s dominant political power.

Since June 2006, numerous reports and articles in the Arab media have criticized the lack of initiative and involvement of Arab governments in the on-going negotiations, implying Arab governments have become too complacent about issues that could profoundly affect their own interests. A common theme of some recent articles is the suspicion that Iran will reach an agreement with the United States at the expense of Arab interests. While it may be difficult for Western analysts to comprehend Arab concerns of an Iranian-American rapprochement in light of the long-standing hostility between Washington and Tehran, many Arab analysts believe nevertheless that the United States colluded with Iran in the overthrow of Saddam’s nationalist Arab regime in Iraq and that cooperation is continuing between American forces and Shi`a Iraqi parties closely allied with Iran.

Some Arab analysts fear that an Iranian deal with the United States will bring the region back to the days of the Shah and Iran’s undisputed military hegemony in the area, a time when Iran was viewed as the “policeman of region.” There is also concern that following a rapprochement with the West, Iran will exert pressure and intimidate many of its smaller Arab neighbors. In the same vein, and in order for Arabs to be the masters of their own destiny, there are calls for Arab governments to transcend narrow national interests and adopt a more unified and assertive stance against Iran’s reemergence, calls which echo appeals of previous decades for Arabs to unite to face a threat from Persia.

Raghda Dergham, a reporter for Al-Hayat, which is a London-based Arab-language daily distributed throughout the Middle East, decried the lack of Arab involvement in these negotiations, writing: “The West is getting close to a deal with Iran… and the Arabs, where are the Arabs?” She urged Arab governments to voice their concerns over the shaping of the Middle East, in general, and the Persian Gulf region, in particular, adding that “Gulf countries have the ability to use their influence emanating from oil and their close political and security ties to avoid being overlooked in the Iranian issue.... Arab countries should take part in shaping the region.” [1] Similarily, al- Jazeera’s popular TV segment “Ma Wara` al-Khabar [Behind the News],” commentator Mundir Souleiman, argued that the position taken by Arab countries should not simply follow the United States, but should take into account their own strategic interests in terms of their relation’s with Iran. [2]

An op-ed piece in Asharqalawsat, a London-based pan-Arab daily published throughout the Middle East, struck a similar note, with analyst Salih al-Kallab stating, “The Americans and the Iranians are about to reach a historic agreement based on balancing the interests of the two parties by rendering unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and redesigning the map of this region.” Further explaining the point, he continued, “The West will be compelled to accept the solution offered by the Iranians: to trade the military part of Iran’s nuclear capabilities for a major regional role in the Middle East.” This, he concluded, will result in “the functional division of roles between Tehran and Washington [that] is more than a mere worry for some Arab countries.” [3] Another piece in Al-Hayat identified specific issues on which Iran might take a growing role, stating that Iran had pledged to “cooperate with the international community regarding regional and Middle Eastern crises and bring peace and stability to the region, including [with respect to] Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and the Syrian-Lebanese issue and start direct negotiations with the U.S. regarding mutual interests.” [4]

Appearing on al-Jazeera’s “Ma Wara` al-Khabar [Behind the News],” on August 14, the day a ceasefire halted the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, Mustafa Allabad, editor of the Arabic magazine East Nama, underscored Arab concerns: “If ‘god forbid’ a battle erupts between Washington and Iran,” he stated, “the losers and those who will pay the price are the Arab countries, which will be caught in the crossfire in this confrontation. I think the time has come to formulate a united Arab political stance, not necessarily with Iran or against it, but to protect Arab interests. But truthfully, the only two trends in the current regional climate are the American Israeli project and the Iranian project.” [5] (“Project” apparently refers to a policy of military force or the plan to use military force in the region.)

Also fueling Arab anxieties is that the incentive package offered to Iran has received the approval of the United States, which is considered in some Arab circles as amounting to a tacit recognition of the Iranian Revolutionary government and as a first step towards negotiation and bartering between the United States and Tehran. The package reflects the willingness of the U.S. administration to “co-exist with the Islamic Republic of Iran [which is] headed by theocrats” and potentially to resume relations should there be a need to do so. [6]

A piece in the Pan Arabist al-Quds al-Arabi, struck a more assertive note, arguing that Arab leaders should take the current nuclear negotiations as a valuable lesson. It stressed that Arab leaders should see these negotiations as a victory for Iran’s steadfast approach, which “forced the U.S. to give up its former aggressive attitude. This was the result of the Iranian leadership’s perseverance and the fact that Iran has gained the largest possible number of cards that it can use to put pressure on the U.S. especially in Iraq.” [7] It added that Arab leaders should refrain from being mere followers of the United States and pursue a more assertive posture following Iran’s example.

On July 27, at the height of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, Egyptian security analyst Salamah Ahmad Salamah reiterated the theme that Arab countries, especially Egypt, should emulate Iran’s resolute behavior, focusing specifically on the nuclear sector. In an unusually explicit commentary in the English-language version of al-Ahram, (a weekly version of the Cairo daily, which is closely linked to the Egyptian government), he wrote:

We should compare our conditions and actions with those of Tehran. Iran has doggedly pushed on with its nuclear program in the face of fierce U.S. and European opposition. Iran has been cajoled and threatened, offered carrots and sticks, and it refused to listen. Iran refused to trade its nuclear program for a bag of poisoned sweets. We, on the other hand, buckled at the first temptation. Egypt and other Arab countries gave up their nuclear programs in the 1970s and 1980s because we were told to do so or else were frightened in the wake of Chernobyl. Whatever the motives, Arab populations were duped and now have to pay homage to a scientifically and militarily superior Israel.… I do not know how far Iran is from having nuclear weapons. Suffice it to say that whatever progress it has made, it has scared its foes.… Iran is standing up to the United States and Israel, and because it is doing so has a chance to escape the tragic fate of Lebanon. Had one Arab country, say Egypt, refused to bow to threats and listen to temptations, we would have had nuclear weapons, just as Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea do. And things would have been different in this region. We would not have been watching the rape of Lebanon. We would not have seen the United States throwing its weight around the region. We would have had nuclear parity, and with it some respect. The humiliation and helplessness that we now feel could have been avoided had we acted in a timely manner, had we had more foresight, and had the strength to stand up for our rights. [8]