The rules of engagement with Iran have changed, after US President Barack Obama condemned the regime of the Islamic Republic for its repression of demonstrators and protesters objecting the manipulation of the presidential elections, as well as for the violence of its militias against civilians, both young men and young women. Thus the leaders of the US Administration have returned to the policy-drawing board to reformulate everything they had in mind when they thought of granting legitimacy to the regime in Tehran and recognizing its perenniality by providing guarantees that they would not interfere in its internal affairs. Today, after panic has possessed Iran’s leadership, its internal affairs have become international affairs, and it is no longer possible to overlook the challenges that face this leadership from the reformists and from clerics, who are part of the system of the Islamic Republic, as well as from those who oppose the rule of mullahs, the notion of the Vilayat-e-Faqih and the concept of the monopoly of religious-military rule of the state and the country. Yet it is not the United States alone, nor just the West, that are in the process of reframing policies towards Tehran. In fact, the Islamic Republic, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his partner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is preparing different scenarios for the phase that comes after carrying out the plan of Ahmadinejad’s inauguration as President, in the face of the Iranian people, in August. The possibilities that these scenarios involve range from fabricating crises in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine in order to divert attention away from the uprising within Iran and justify additional restrictions in order to suppress the ability to protest, to focusing exclusively on internal developments to contain and corner the opposition, which would consume all of the regime’s forces and render it unable to implement its desired escalation strategy. Thus when leaderships in the Arab region observe the events taking place in Iran – whether these are loud or inhabit the silence of the unknown – they must think of their options at this transitional phase, which is of the utmost importance for the future of the region, whatever happens. Within such a framework, Arab and US policies certainly overlap, such as in policies regarding Syria or Iraq. Overlapping in the minds of the leaderships of organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas are realistic ideas, related to the wager on national identity instead of burning in the flames of what is taking place in Iran. Such wisdom may not be the final option, but it is an option worth encouraging, especially as Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel is skilled at attracting the enmity even of friends, and seems headed towards a very important confrontation for the future of US relations with the Middle East.

First, at the level of Iraq: more than any time before, this phase requires an Arab role – primarily a Saudi one – within Iraq to sow the seeds of readiness in case of imported unrest or military operations against US troops. Obstructing the withdrawal of US troops from the cities may apparently not seem like a useful goal for Tehran. Yet if the media becomes occupied with any military escalation in Iraq that might weaken and endanger the US-Iraqi security agreement, this will reduce pressures on the ruling leaders in the Islamic Republic and help turn the attention away from what they are doing at the domestic level. Thus it is in the interest of the Arabs to be ready to support and help Iraq to continue moving forward towards stability, so that it may not become the alternative arena for power struggles within Iran. Neighboring countries especially should make certain to help Iraq through different means, so that it does not fall victim to the events in Iran. As for those countries that have clung to the notion of avoiding direct contribution in Iraq, they must reconsider, so as not to be taken by surprise by a sudden change in Iraq. Most prominent among these is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia plays several roles, at the regional level and also within the framework of international partnerships, in many issues, extending from the Arab region to the Caucasus, through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq is a milestone of the utmost importance, one which requires readiness but also positive contribution with an influence that aims, on one hand, at safeguarding Iraq and defending against legitimization, and on the other at restoring it as a country that falls within the Arab bosom.

Syria has a role in protecting Iraq from exploitation, one which it has played in the past by its agreement with the United States to stop the infiltration of fighters through its borders to Iraq to wage operations against Iraqis or against US troops there. This agreement is ongoing, and this is why certain figures in the US Administration visit Damascus, as it is expected that the Commander of US Central Command General David Petraeus will visit, after the visit there of the President’s Envoy for the peace process in the Middle East Senator George Mitchell. And because Damascus has promised and kept it promises of not interfering in the Lebanese parliamentary elections, it has obtained one of its chief demands from Washington – the return of the US Ambassador to the Syrian capital. Syria has not decided to separate – nor has it separated – itself from the Islamic Republic in Iran, as many have wished, dreamt and drafted policies in which they have based their hopes on such a separation. Damascus, in fact, will not have to choose. Fate has decided for it to choose the United States amidst its Iranian ally’s internal battle in Iran and external battle in the world. Nevertheless, Damascus is also skilled at decrypting politics most of the time. It has observed the foundations of power shaking in Iran and has perhaps concluded that it would be a lengthy and uncertain battle. This took place after it had taken the decision to wager on the United States and President Barack Obama in any case.

Now Damascus will most probably implement an agreement over the Syrian-Lebanese border similar to the one it reached with the United States over the Syrian-Iraqi border. This matter is of the utmost importance for President Obama, who does not wish to abuse Lebanon, but rather to remove any pretexts from Israel, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might use to turn Lebanon into a battlefield, in order to draw attention away from his blatant obstinacy in clinging to the settlements.