Karon:

Viewed through the prism of a zero-sum conflict between a [...]]]> Tony Karon has a nice analysis up at Abu Dhabi’s the National. Many pundits in the U.S. have delivered the verdict that Iran won in the Arab uprisings. But Karon spots a false choice, and once again Turkey is the critical example.

Karon:

Viewed through the prism of a zero-sum conflict between a US-led alliance of Arab autocrats and Israel against an Iran-led “resistance” camp, the Arab rebellion has been nothing short of catastrophic for the anti-Iran forces. Not only has the Egyptian uprising swept away one of the key antagonists of Iran in the person of Hosni Mubarak; the fact that two Iranian warships were allowed to sail through the Suez Canal en route to Syria last week was a clear signal that the new military rulers in Cairo hope to normalise ties with the Islamic Republic, and are unlikely to support a regional strategy of confronting Tehran, much less take the lead in promoting one. Even before Egypt and Tunisia, the anti-Iran camp had suffered major setbacks in Lebanon and Iraq. Events in Bahrain, Jordan and elsewhere suggest that Arab leaders pressing hardest to confront Iran are in deep trouble.

[...]

But whatever its current state of progress, Iran’s nuclear development is simply not a priority for the newly empowered Arab public, and more accountable Arab governments are likely to distance themselves from Washington’s regional strategy, pretty much as Turkey has done. That’s precisely why so many US and Israeli observers paint the Arab rebellion as a win for Iran. But that conclusion is based on the flawed premise that a setback for the United States is automatically a gain for Iran. The Arab declaration of independence from Washington is anything but a declaration of loyalty to Tehran. Turkey may have built new trade and diplomatic ties with Tehran and opposed the US policy on Iran, but it has not broken ties with Washington. Its policies are genuinely independent, geared towards resolving problems rather than power bloc politics.

Karon’s headline screams that the elections are likely to “clip Obama’s wings [...]]]> Analyst and Time editor Tony Karon has a piece up at Abu Dhabi’s The National newspaper about the likely effects of Tuesday’s mid-term elections on Barack Obama’s foreign policy, due to the predicted Republican takeover of the House (and possibly Senate).

Karon’s headline screams that the elections are likely to “clip Obama’s wings in the Middle East.” As for Iran, Karon strikes a more nuanced stance. Yes, the elections could result in pressure on Obama for escalating measures against Iran, but the prospect of war with the Islamic Republic (and airstrikes means a war) will remain dim as long as Obama is in the driver’s seat.

Karon writes:

Another [area of agreement between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, who are both expected to send comrades to Washington]  is the idea that the administration needs to get more confrontational on Iran.

Indeed, if Mr Obama were a truly cynical politician (and there are no signs yet that he is) he might recognise that he’d find it easier achieving bipartisan cooperation through military confrontation with Iran than by seeking rapprochement with a regime that most of Washington is never going to trust.

Still, mindful of the dangers of dragging an overburdened empire into yet another potentially catastrophic war, Mr Obama remains likely to resist pressure to attack Iran. But just as his already limited ability to respond to the deep crisis in the US economy will be further limited after tomorrow, so has there been a decline over the past decade in Washington’s ability to project influence to resolve complex problems in the Middle East. The harsh reality for Mr Obama is that the Middle East’s key power players are no more inclined to do his bidding these days than are the Republicans who look set to take charge of the House of Representatives.