Dr Ibrahim Al SheIkh
All the events that the region has experienced since Obama took over the presidency of the United States send warnings that there is a lack of confidence between most Gulf regimes and the American administration, especially during the past few years.
The US stance, starting from Bahrain through Syria and Yemen recently, and the western Iranian nuclear deal, confirm that behind the hill there is definitely something unusual going on.
Some explain that the Iranian lobby became stronger during the past few years. Particularly in 2008, it created a lobby parallel to one of the world’s most famous lobbies in Washington, the Zionist lobby.
The Washington Post published an analysis of the reasons for the last absence of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, confirming that it was very surprising, because Kerry’s previous visits to the region and statements of officials from both sides affirmed the presence of King Salman in America, and that there was a planned meeting between the two leaders preceding the Camp David Summit.
The New York Times, however, has touched the wound, by publishing hours after the absence of King Salman and rest of the GCC leaders: “The failure to attend the Summit is a clear message from King Salman to the US administration about the Kingdom’s dissatisfaction concerning US-Iranian relations and Iran’s recent rise in the region.”
The final draft of the Summit mentioned about focusing on the establishment of a Gulf defence arsenal (billions to be paid to America), and Iran’s refusal to accept that it affected regional stability, verbiage that we heard years ago, after which Tehran took control of four Arab capitals.
I read also the acceptance of a deal to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. However, what do we call the prior agreement that was sponsored and blessed by Obama himself. In addition to the confirmation that the Syrian president has lost his legitimacy, words that carry no benefit.
On one side, the draft addresses the disposal of Iran’s destabilisation of the region, at a time when it talks about the normalisation of the relationship with Iran in case it stops threatening the region’s security and safety.
Is it comprehensible that Iran, which employs all what it has using iron and fire to implement its agenda since 1979, would all of a sudden abandon everything for the sake of Camp David? Let us talk some sense here.
In addition, America is talking about Iraq as if it were not the cause of plundering and destroying it using sectarian strife and handing it over to Tehran to play around with and devastate the Sunnis. Camp David is no more than a public relations campaign to justify the stand of the US president after major disagreements with members of Congress on the Iranian nuclear file.
This question needs to be asked: To what extent did the ‘marriage’ between America and Iran reach, and is Camp David just an anaesthesia for the birth of a new American-Iranian hegemony in the region to hand over another Arab capital while the US is watching?
Broadcast: While we follow the successive marriages of interests between America and Iran, it is necessary for our countries to honestly answer this question: Does the problem lie originally with Iran, America or us?
Weren’t we absent from the scene, allowing anyone to tamper with our future?
The writer is a columnist and researcher.
The Peninsula
