Michael Young: From Russia without love/Abdulrahman al-Rashed: Geopolitical balance with Pakistan/Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi: Arabs and Iran — the last chance

From Russia without love
Michael Young/Now Lebanon/January 14/16

In an interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin hinted that Moscow could grant asylum to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if he ever decided to leave Syria. While saying that this discussion was premature, Putin observed “we granted asylum to Mr. Snowden, which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr. al-Assad.”Putin’s comments were the first time that the Russians have spoken publicly of Assad’s possible exit from Syria, after having steadfastly refused to do so in negotiations over the future of the country. Many interpreted the Russian president’s remarks as a subtle shift in Moscow’s position. Perhaps it was, but it’s more reasonable to assume that this interpretation is somewhat optimistic.Putin did criticize Assad and repeated the Russian mantra that only the Syrian people could decide his fate. “I think that President al-Assad has made many mistakes in the course of the Syrian conflict,” Putin said. He went on to call for a new Syrian constitution, to be followed by early elections. “It is the Syrian people themselves who must decide who … should run their country,” the Russian president added. In many regards that is the nub of the problem. Placing the burden of getting rid of Assad on the Syrian people is an indirect way of saying that if the Syrian leader can successfully manipulate the electoral process coming at the end of the United Nations-mandated transition in Syria in his favor, then he can stay in office. And knowing Assad and his entourage, manipulation and intimidation are what we should expect. In other words, Putin may have tossed out negative comments about Assad merely to conceal the fact that Russia has offered no real concessions on the Syrian president’s destiny. Nor does his odd formulation suggest he will ever do so, since that will always remain a matter for the Syrians themselves.
Periodically, Russian officials have expressed distaste for Assad, or so it has been leaked, but with no practical consequences. Meanwhile the Russians have continued to bomb everything in sight, allowing the Syrian regime to regain the initiative and make it far less likely that Assad will ever agree to surrender power, let alone follow Edward Snowden to Moscow. In the end, why should Russia behave any differently? The United Nations plan agreed in Vienna last November has called for talks between the Syrian regime and opposition groups, which are to begin at the end of this month. The process is supposed to lead to the formation of a transitional governing body, which will organize presidential and parliamentary elections by August 2017.
While there is much skepticism that the UN plan will work, the reality is that it has much more potential than anyone imagines. Virtually everybody seeks a political solution in Syria, perhaps with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who have said that if Assad refuses to leave office, he will be made to do so militarily. But that may ultimately weigh little against the combined efforts of the United States, Russia, Iran and the major European states, who all have a major stake in bringing the carnage in Syria to an end. What Putin realized some time ago is that the American and European preoccupation with ISIS gave him considerable latitude to intervene in Syria and try to impose an outcome of his choosing. Until now the Russian president’s tactics appear to have succeeded. Coordination with the United States is ongoing, the Obama administration sees that Putin is the only person who can get through to Assad, and the Russians agree with Washington that ISIS represents a major threat.
This situation prompted columnist David Ignatius, who often reflects the administration’s mood well, to write this week: “Russia is emerging as an essential diplomatic and security partner for the U.S. in Syria, despite the Obama administration’s opposition to Moscow’s support for President Bashar Assad.” For Ignatius, “an administration that has had trouble living with President Vladimir Putin, especially after his actions in Ukraine, finds that it can’t live without him in Syria.” This sense of dependency is worrisome, because it gives Putin room to do what he pleases. For now the Russian president is keen to neutralize Assad’s regional enemies, above all Turkey, and limit as much as possible the rebels’ ability to be rearmed from across the border. If the UN diplomatic scheme moves forward, Putin will likely find it easier to corner the Saudis and Turks, a fact that has contributed in no small measure to raising tensions between Riyadh and Washington, as the Saudis see America as being in bed with the Russians. With everything going his way in Syria, as it did in Ukraine, Putin has no reason to fret about Assad’s exile. And yet everybody believes he does, because the Russian has proven time and again that even if you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time. Putin tells everyone what they want to hear and they nod their heads, ignoring how he has duped them repeatedly.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Geopolitical balance with Pakistan
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/January 14/16
Apart from the 3 million Pakistanis who work in Gulf states, and the $4 billion in annual transactions they make, the region considers relations with Pakistan strategic. The country is not viewed as a mere trading party or another Muslim nation. Pakistan has always been considered part of the formula of regional balance with Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There have been military agreements with it via undeclared contracts and alliances. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have worked to bridge the gap, even when U.S. pressure on Pakistan intensified following the Sept. 11 attacks. Back then, Washington believed Islamabad was lenient when dealing with terrorist threats, and some parties accused Pakistan of obstructing U.S. plans regarding war and governance in Afghanistan. Gulf countries consider Pakistan a strategic ally, and a provider of regional balance aimed at preventing Iranian unilateralism and chaos. Pakistan’s military capabilities qualify it to play a balancing role in the region, whereby it is a deterrent against Iranian expansionism, which has increased following the nuclear deal. Despite tensions, I do not think the situation will deteriorate into military conflict between major regional countries. However, an active Pakistani presence in the Middle East, and particularly the Gulf, will provide regional stability and security, and enhance Islamabad’s international influence. Pakistan has succeeded in avoiding military confrontation with its bigger neighbor India, despite their many previous conflicts. Despite Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan, it has also overlooked what the Americans – who are always suspicious of Islamabad’s secret activity there – are doing.
Iran
Since Pakistan is militarily stronger than its neighbor Iran, with which it shares a 900-kilometer border, Tehran has avoided a confrontation with Islamabad, although it has not stopped inciting sectarian tensions in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran has been keen to tempt Islamabad by talking of building a gas pipeline through Pakistan – a plan that has always been delayed by regional crises, geopolitical issues, and sanctions on Iran that prevented bilateral trade. Even if Tehran implements the plan, Pakistani interests with Arab Gulf countries are of bigger value commercially, politically and religiously.
Pakistan has played a balancing role with Iran in the Gulf since the 1970s, and its weight increased as Tehran’s threats against Gulf countries increased in the 1980s. Consecutive Pakistani governments have strengthened relations with the Gulf since then. Gulf countries consider Pakistan a strategic ally, and a provider of regional balance aimed at preventing Iranian unilateralism and chaos.

Arabs and Iran — the last chance
Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi/Al Arabiya/January 14/16
Whatever plans Iran has for the region is in disarray because it now finds itself increasingly isolated, including seeing the unexpected development of Arab nations, taking the lead from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, forming a united front against its actions. The Council of the Arab League earlier this week added to the growing chorus of condemnation, saying the Iranian government’s continued intervention in the internal affairs of Arab countries was undermining security and stability in the Gulf region. The bottom line for virtually everyone now is that Iran has been identified as the chief troublemaker in the region, despite attempts by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to distort the facts in a New York Times article published on Jan. 10. Arabs are in a critical position now — they can either decide their future collectively or cease to exist. They have to prove to themselves and the world that they can manage their own affairs. Zarif sought to shift the blame from the so-called peace-loving Tehran, claiming that Saudi Arabia was responsible for stoking sectarian fires in the region among Arab nations. He is entitled to his opinion, but the facts on the ground tell a different story.
He has clearly not taken into account that Arab nations themselves are now standing together and condemning Tehran. The Arab League in its communiqué issued following the meeting, held Iran responsible for the attacks on Saudi missions.
It also deplored what it described as Iran’s hostile and provocative statements against Saudi Arabia following the execution of several terrorists who were convicted and sentenced by Saudi courts. The council stated that Iranian statements were blatant interference in the Saudi judiciary and the internal affairs of the Kingdom, and incompatible with the U.N. Charter. The Arab League also called on Iran to stop supporting armed militias and parties in Arab countries. The only country that did not sign the communiqué was Lebanon, because Hezbollah, now in the government, was mentioned in the statement. Question of the Emirati islands
How can we believe the soft-spoken Zarif while Iran still occupies three Emirati islands and has rejected all calls to end its occupation? It has also refused to seek a resolution at the International Court of Justice because it knows it has no legitimate claim to the land. All these events may just be a catalyst for Arab nations to take the lead and decide on action once and for all to end Iran’s intervention in their affairs. It is clear that Iran has never previously worried about the response of Arabs to its imperialist designs. It has behaved as if it controlled the region. For instance, when the late Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat was assassinated, it renamed a Tehran street after the assassin. What greater form of ridicule can there be? It continued on this path until it expanded to the south of the Arabian Peninsula, ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations would never allow the strategically placed Yemen to fall under Iranian rule. Arabs don’t want Iran to transform from the Gulf’s “policeman” that it was during the Shah’s time in power, to the Gulf’s ruler in the era of the Supreme Leader. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir raised an important issue when he asked whether it was possible for Iran to modify its foreign policy by tempering attempts to export its revolution. Its behavior shows that it has not done so. Presumably, any country undergoing a revolution would reach some form of maturity to ensure its policies align with those in the world, including noninterference in other nations’ affairs.
Critical position
This is not beyond Iran’s capabilities. It has already made major modifications to its foreign policy out of necessity, as it recently did when it improved relations with the United States, this coming after years of dubbing it the “Great Satan.”Arabs are in a critical position now — they can either decide their future collectively or cease to exist. They have to prove to themselves and the world that they can manage their own affairs, not only militarily but with other weapons such as trade boycotts or cutting off diplomatic relations. Only then will Iran know that Arabs mean business.
It is a cliché, but certainly true, that out of every bad situation a good opportunity arises. Arabs now have the chance to seize the day.