The rapprochement between the US and Iran is a historical event that not only brings sighs of relief to the countries of the region but to the whole world, providing that is, that both sides act in sincerity as both share this suspicion. In fact, if we were to generalise, it would be fair to say that all states in the region harbour suspicion towards Iran and the US. Arab states in particular have serious trust issues with Iran and fear them because of the Shiite presence in the region. It would be beneficial for Tehran to take into consideration the concerns of Arab states like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia on Iran's increasing influence within Iraq. Iran, primarily, should take the necessary precautions and make the first move in Iraq to build trust. Otherwise, the revival of the Turkey-Syria-Iran security mechanism will have no benefit.
Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, while expressing his views on Iran, has highlighted a serious contradiction: "Iran, while supporting the Shiite majority government in Iraq, is simultaneously working for the failure of the US."
Member states of 5+1, starting with the US, should give a security guarantee to Iran in order to facilitate a diplomatic solution; that is if they are sincere about a diplomatic solution. The security guarantee to Iran should be against a possible Israeli operation and it is something the US can easily provide. Iran in turn should guarantee a peaceful environment for Israel and for the continuation of its existence. Repeated statements of wiping Israel off the map just pours more oil onto the burning fire in the Middle East.
Any acts, fuelled with revenge, by Israel towards Iran will only help to deepen the problem. The Israeli Army was defeated by Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon War. Seeking revenge for this defeat will not help Israel in their goal to live as a powerful state in the Middle East. Any operation that Israel instigates against Iran will result in disaster. Besides the Shaab missiles that Iran possesses, security problems for Israel would be unavoidable; apart from anything else, preventing the 22 thousand mobile missiles that Hezbollah and Hamas have would be impossible. Faced with such a reaction would Israel resort to nuclear weapons? This is unimaginable. To what extent Patriot missiles deployed by Israel and Jordan can eliminate Iran's missiles is questionable. One should not forget that even when Saddam Hussein's Scuds were hit, the warheads dropped onto Israeli cities. No Israeli, Arab, Persian or Turkish life should be this worthless.
The Middle East's NATO
Iran and Israel should take simultaneous steps to create trust primarily in the Middle East but also throughout the world with Iraq being the starting point. Arab states are prone to remain silent to a US supported Israeli operation against Iran because of their fear of Shiites. Iran needs to show that it has no hidden agenda to turn Iraq into a satellite state. If Iraq is to realise true freedom, and develop in a stable environment as the state of both Sunnis and Shiites, it can only happen with the cooperation of the states in the region. This cooperation can be realised through a collective security organisation. The development of the Turkey-Syria-Iran tri-mechanism can be enhanced by establishing an organisation that can operate as the Middle East's NATO. This security organisation would protect Middle Eastern states from foreign threats. In the future, a Rapid Reaction Force, as in NATO, can be established, where the militaries of the regions' states can unite under their collective security, within this organisation. The highest-ranking security institution of Turkey, the National Security Council, considered the parameters of this issue at its last meeting on 26 June. Ankara, just as in the recent Israel-Syria talks, will become actively involved in the Iran issue. This time, Turkey was just a host for the recent secret meeting held in Ankara between the US and Iran. However, during the same period as this meeting between the US and Iran, a private meeting was held between Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus with some high-ranking Turkish generals in Turkey's touristic southern province, Antalya, and it obviously was not for the purposes of recreation. It would be naive to think that only the future of Iraq was discussed at this private meeting. Issues such as the future of Iran and the course of the Israel-Syria talks are equally in the interests of both Turkey and the US.
The Iran issue is actually a problem of sustaining the Turkish-Persian-Arab balance in the Middle East. The reason the balance was lost is due to the occupation of Iraq. Secular Iraq, with its Shiite and Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and Christians, was a natural buffer zone between Iran and Israel. Today, we are talking about an Iraq that is under Shiite influence and has religious references in its constitution. As a result, through Iraq, Israel has come closer to Iran's range of influence. The partition of Iraq is not the solution to the problem. Thinking that an independent Kurdish state can undertake Iraq's former role against Iran is an even worse lack of foresight than the occupation of Iraq was in the first place.
Using force in order to re-instate balance and "educate" Iran is unthinkable. Iran has a serious state culture and knows well how to behave at the negotiation table. Moderates like religious leaders Ali Hamaney, Kemal Harrazi and Ali Laricani should be given more attention and consideration against the pro-aggression group that Ahmadinejad represents.
Any implementation of a plan as set out in a scenario that was published by the Greek newspaper Eleftrophia on 28 June has a very low probability, at least in the case of any expectation of Turkish participation. The same also applies for Arab states. The case where Arab states open their territory unilaterally to allow an Israeli attack is out of the question. Like Turkey, all Gulf States know very well that Iran would not hesitate to strike any state that facilitates an attack against it. Furthermore, it is unknown which type of warhead Iran would use. A continuous attack for three days would be nothing short of suicide for the Middle East. The infiltration of Iran by Special Forces from Turkey and Northern Iraq, under the cover of missiles is also a part of the above scenario. However, there are some problems attached to this:
1. Any Special Forces that infiltrated Iran would not know in advance what they were likely to encounter
2. It would be even more difficult for Turkey to open its territory for an infiltration operation against Iran than it would to open its airspace
3. Promises of support by Azeri, Baloch and Kurdish opposition for Special Forces may mislead Israel
4. The already considerable Iranian military presence on the borders of Turkey and Iraq, currently deployed against the PJAK
For these reasons, any possible land operation is doomed to fail just like the CIA's first Musaddik Coup did.
There is also a European dimension to the Iran problem. While Israel carries out military exercises and enacts scenarios for attacking Iran, Switzerland and Austria are signing energy agreements with Tehran. European expectations of transporting Iranian gas to Europe are in contradiction with the EU's embargo on Iranian banks. The statement made by the French ‘Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Speaker Pascal Andrani that financial embargoes on Iran and travel limitations for some firms and officials is not enough to end the nuclear activities of this state is another example of the contradictory approach of the EU.
It is clear that security guarantees backed up with negotiated incentives is the way to move forward as a solution to Iran's nuclear activities, and in the wider context, the Middle East problem.