Al-Arabiya TV Director Al-Rashed on the Possibility of War

On September 23 and 24, 2007, Al-Arabiya TV director-general 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, who is also the former editor-in-chief of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, published a two-part article analyzing the likely behavior of the Gulf states in the event of war between the U.S. and Iran. He opined that war could and should be avoided, but stated that since it remained a distinct possibility, it was worth analyzing what the positions of the Gulf countries would be.

First, he noted that Kuwait and Qatar were both special cases – Kuwait because it was tied to the U.S. by a common defense treaty, and Qatar because it hosts the largest U.S. military base in the region.

As for the other important oil-producing states – Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, and the UAE – Al-Rashed wrote that although Iran's nuclear project directly threatens them, their natural tendency would be to remain neutral and not to allow the U.S. to use their infrastructure or airspace.

This assumption was based both on their behavior in the second Gulf War and on the fact that Iran could easily strike at them and do them serious damage. Al-Rashed also noted that Iran is a much larger country than Iraq, and would be likely to weather whatever military action the U.S. is planning.

According to Al-Rashed, the only situation under which the Gulf states would enter the war would be if Iran decided to attack them in response to a U.S. strike, so as to disrupt the flow of oil to the rest of the world.[1]

British Minister at Foreign Office Howells: Iran's Aim Is to Destabilize the Region, and Ensure the Hegemony of the Islamic Revolution

On October 5, 2007, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published a reply to Al-Rashed's op-ed, by Kim Howells, British Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In the op-ed, titled "The Language of Dialogue Has Not Yet Ended," Howells expressed his concern that Al-Rashed's article gave the impression that war was inevitable, and emphasized that there was still time for diplomacy. In so doing, however, he sharply criticized the Iranian regime, in a number of areas – which is what led the Iranian ambassador to publish a response.

Following are excerpts from Kim Howells' article:

"…The main threat Iran wields is to the stability of the Middle East region as a whole. I know from my discussions with Ministers and commentators from the region that Iran under its present regime possessing a nuclear bomb is a terrifying prospect. They know already, that Tehran is prepared, whenever and wherever it believes it will gain itself advantage, to meddle in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

"It finances and arms murderous militias in Iraq, and has illegally captured and detained British sailors who were trying to combat smuggling in the Gulf. Iranian elements smuggle guns and explosives to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Many others already are deeply disturbed by the implications of direct Iranian interference in their internal affairs, most notably in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

"Instead of spending its oil wealth on improving the lives of ordinary Iranians and grappling with spiraling economic problems, this regime showers millions of dollars across the region, much of it on weaponry, bankrolling any armed group, from Yemen to Gaza, prepared to undermine with terrorism legitimate governments…

"Many of us hoped before the election of President Ahmadinejad that we were beginning to see an Iran interested in promoting dialogue and understanding between civilizations and cooperation for a better future. However, over the past two years the regime has appeared to be heading in entirely the opposite direction, with its leaders speaking in an increasingly xenophobic, hostile and uncompromising language.

"British and Iraqi troops have seen regular evidence of arms of Iranian origin coming across the long [Iraqi] border with Iran. The jury is still out on which part of the Iranian ruling elite is supplying these weapons and helping Iraqi militia groups make use of them, but what is very clear is that there are Iranian elements investing heavily in creating a violent and fragmented Iraq, presumably in the hope that eventually they will succeed in controlling the politics and wealth of Iraq’s overwhelmingly Shi'ite southern provinces.

"The regime’s embrace of Syria seems similarly designed to stay the Syrian hand and prevent it from changing from a net supporter of those committed to instability to a partner for peace… This embrace, in which Syria for the time being seems willing to be ensnared, seems likely to reap only further isolation along with a rag-tag bunch of other dubious allies who have fallen foul of the international community, like North Korea and Burma.

"…[Iran's] aim apparently is to ensure a Middle East that continues to suffer from simmering violence, while at the same time trying to ensure the hegemony of Iran’s Islamic revolution across the region."

Howells: There Is Still Time for Dialogue and Persuasion

"As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, the U.K. believes that Iran has every right to be a proud and respected member of the international community. But to do so, it must also accept that it has responsibilities to the region and the wider international community. It does not have the right to violate the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor undermine regional stability.

"The United Nations has passed unanimously two Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to cease uranium enrichment. Iran must comply with IAEA Board and Security Council requirements. The whole of the international community wants a peaceful, diplomatic solution to this problem. We are working hard to make sure that the diplomatic process succeeds…

"This is not about taking sides, it is about the countries of the Middle East working together to safeguard their own national interests and guarantee their security and prosperity.

"Britain has the greatest respect for the Iranian people who have borne the excesses of their leaders with patience and fortitude. We have no quarrel with them and we recognize that the vast majority of them want a peaceful and prosperous future, living in harmony with the states bordering them. We support those in the Middle East who are privately and publicly sending a clear message to the Iranian regime: Your attempts at subversion and intimidation won't work; your defiance of the UN and pursuit of atomic weapons is not the way to build a constructive regional role for Iran. Work with the region not against it.

"We must place our faith in the language of dialogue and persuasion to promote peaceful and sustainable resolutions to the problems that continue to generate misery, injustice and hatred in this troubled region."[2]

Iranian Ambassador Rasoul Movahedian: Howells's Article Is War Propaganda

In response to Kim Howells' op-ed, the Iranian Embassy in the U.K. filed, on October 7, 2007, an official complaint with the U.K. Foreign Office.[3] That same day, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published a response to Howells by Iranian Ambassador to the U.K. Rasoul Movahedian. Following are excerpts:

"…The news on Iran these few weeks has been distorted, in that it depicts the country as a menace that must be dealt with urgently. It is strange that a British official would openly interfere in a local issue that is a matter of national sovereignty, employing an inappropriate and undiplomatic tone towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. These views are nothing but an attempt to demonize Iran…

"Our message is clear: This ancient principle of divide and conquer has lost its effectiveness – or, at the least, will never terrify a great state like Iran. What Howells mentioned is nothing but well-known propaganda aimed at influencing Arab public opinion against Iran…

"I consider his views to be both a kind of drumbeating for another war adventure and as a paving of the way for the continued illegal presence of foreign forces in our highly sensitive region.

"…That the author [i.e. Howells] tries to portray himself as a well-wisher of Iran is laughable… The planning for the 1953 coup against Mossadegh, Iran's elected prime minister, was carried out by those who made a display of being well-wishers of Iran, but who in the end brought down a popular government whose [only] sin was nationalizing the country's oil industry.

"The issue of our right to peaceful nuclear activities and the violation of our nation's rights is one and the same. And remember that the Iranian nation will never forget some parties' support for Saddam, so that he could force a savage eight-year war on [Iran] in order to strangle the Iranian nation's call for liberation and independence. Those who [today] support democracy… are the same ones who sadly turned a blind eye to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and soldiers…

"I will bring to the attention of this diplomat [i.e. Howells] that the current Iranian government was, like its predecessors, democratically elected by the Iranian people…

"Iran is one of the countries that are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it has the right to use lawful nuclear energy. Nonetheless, it faces an unprecedented clamor over its nuclear program – while Israel, which is a nuclear power outside all accountability, has the full support of the great powers so that the scale can tip in its favor at the expense of the Arab world…

"Yet I think that diplomacy has not yet been fully put to the test. Iran has consistently called for unconditional negotiations of limited duration … Howells would better serve [the cause of] solving the region's problems, as well as his own country's problems, with a peaceful approach."[4]

'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed: "Animals That Lose Their Warning Instincts Do Not Live Long"

In another op-ed, 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed replied to Howells, arguing that it is necessary to brandishing the threat of war against Iran in order to reach a peaceful resolution to the crisis:

"…Minister [Howells] said that we should put our trust in the language of dialogue and persuasion. My article was about possibilities – I did not rule out the possibility of reconciliation, nor did I rule out the possibility of war…

"In my estimation, insisting on banishing the thought of war from our minds is what will lead to diplomatic collapse. Iran's constant welcoming of military confrontation by way of its wrangling to attain nuclear weapons could lead to war, and this is no joke. The reason for this could be that the Iranians see no indications [that] war [is indeed approaching].

"In the days of his rule in Kabul, Mullah Omar did not heed the mediators' warnings, because he did not see the Americans' advance forces on the horizon, and he did not have a television to watch what they were preparing against him…

"And [Saddam Hussein]'s awareness of the [approaching] disaster was limited, because the delegations kept competing with one another to reach his palace, whether for mediation, or to show solidarity, or to reassure [him] – among them the human shields who came from Europe to oppose the war. [Saddam] believed that war would not break out.

"The same story is repeating itself with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who said in his speech at Columbia University that the threat of war is just American propaganda. This confidence that war will not break out – or that if it does, it will be a walk [in the park] – pushes [Ahmadinejad] to extremism, and perhaps also to entanglement [in war]….

"I think that clarifying the whole picture to the Iranians and Arabs is of the greatest importance. Animals that lose their warning instincts do not live long…"[5]