During a visit to a London zoo with a friend, I saw him engaging with a lion in a manner that suggested familiarity and trust, as if the lion were a docile creature. Despite the lion playfully swatting at him, my friend seemed unfazed, treating the encounter more like a circus act than a face-off with a formidable predator.
Expressing my concern, I questioned his audacity in approaching a wild lion, armed with sharp claws, gleaming fangs and intimidating roars.
“Are you genuinely not afraid?” I asked.
He chuckled and said, “Do you think I’m crazy? I know this lion won’t harm me; I’ve been part of its coaching staff for a long time.”
He then added a contemplative comment, saying, “When your enemy in public is your friend in secret, no harm will befall you and you will not be exposed to any danger.”
The current dynamics between the US and Iran are reminiscent of the above situation. The US response to the killing of three soldiers near the Jordanian-Syrian border was measured and somewhat cautious. This, even though the fatal drone attack was associated with Iranian-backed groups. The response reflects a persistent pattern of animosity between the two nations.
The formidable military power of the US is well-acknowledged. The Americans are capable of targeting and impacting any chosen locations swiftly. Their superior military has the potential to erase cities and countries from the world map. However, it is essential to recognise that this power operates under the directives of the White House.
The politicians in the White House seem more inclined towards managing conflicts than actively seeking resolutions. This approach applies not only to the Middle East but also to global issues like the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Their process involves manipulating the dynamics of the conflicts, weakening all involved parties and ultimately ensuring their vulnerability. This invariably leads to submission or dependence on Washington.
The observer of US-Iranian relations might recognise a lengthy history of understanding and occasional co-operation, and at times, even alliances between the two nations. The foundation of their interactions appears to be rooted in strategic interests, leading to a relationship that is often described as ambiguous and questionable. Despite the exchange of hostile statements in the media, both parties have, at times, actively sought to ease tensions.
Even during the most challenging circumstances, such as the US assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, the lines of communication between Washington and Tehran remained open. For instance, when former US president Donald Trump, compared his presidency from 2016 to 2020 with the current administration under Joe Biden, he unveiled a potentially undisclosed detail regarding the killing of Soleimani. Trump claimed that the Iranian regime sought his permission before retaliating to the operation. They expressed their desire to save face and their concern about a more forceful American response.
It is important to note that Iran and the US have publicly entered into an agreement permitting Tehran to access its frozen funds totalling $6 billion. These funds have already been transferred and the agreement was made in exchange for the release of five American citizens who were held in Iran.
Following a period of heightened tensions under Trump, Biden announced his commitment to diplomatic efforts in addressing the nuclear file. However, these intentions faced challenges due to Tehran’s steadfastness and refusal to compromise, resulting in the failure of seven consecutive rounds of talks aimed at reviving the nuclear agreement in Vienna.
Globally, the Iranian regime is considered one of the most militant, ostensibly surpassed only by North Korea. However, sometimes it shows limited capability especially in response to internal threats. One such instance was the demonstrations witnessed after the death of Iranian activist Mahsa Amini. And, when facing significant economic sanctions, the regime tends to seek de-escalation with external entities as a response to economic pressure.
It is essential for us in the Arab world to remain mindful of the Iranian regime’s efforts to impose a specific doctrine and sectarianism on the Arab and Islamic world, often framed as “supporting the weak on earth”. The regime pursues a strategy of building transcontinental armies and uses sectarianism to disseminate its beliefs and ideas. This is evident in countries like Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. By inciting strife and internal conflicts, it aims to spread chaos in these nations.
Nevertheless, amid these geopolitical complexities, a prevailing consensus suggests that the US is unlikely to engage in direct aggression against Iran, much like the assurance that a lion in a zoo wouldn’t harm a friend.