A Symbiotic Death Dance

BEIRUT-- History is a stubborn companion to life and politics in the Middle East, so to understand what is happening in the region today you have to go back 30 years. One of the pivotal moments in modern Middle Eastern history was the 1977-79 period, when three major developments occurred that still define, and sometimes plague, the region today. These were the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Israeli election victory of the rightwing Likud Party of Menachem Begin in 1977, and the rise of the current Islamist movements in Arab countries (heavily sparked by the negative consequences of the sharp rise in oil income, like inflation, corruption, and widening poor-rich disparities).

All three will prove to be momentary or transient phenomena, to be replaced in time by other political movements. They dominate our lives and societies today, however, because they reflect a basic human instinct to withdraw into the protective sphere – however illusory – of ethno-religious nationalism, mobilized by charismatic demagogues, sincere populists, and the occasional wild man or crook.

The Iranian revolution, Arab Islamism and Israeli Likudnik colonialism and super-nationalism all reflect the sense among ordinary men and women that their government and state had failed to achieve the basic goals of sovereign nations: security and prosperity, in a context of social order and the citizen’s sense of dignity and opportunity. 

The three dominant orders that were overturned or challenged were the American-backed Pahlavi dynasty of the Shah, the Labor-led Israeli elite, and the incompetent modern Arab order defined by narrow state security and an emotional pan-Arabism (we would now call it the “Sunni-led Arab order,” but three decades ago, before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq and the unleashing of sectarian beasts there, we did not define Arabs as Sunnis and Shiites -- but that is another tale for a different day).

These three Arab, Iranian and Israeli extremist movements feed off each other in a grizzly symbiotic death dance. They have all reached something of a peak, and now interact in a very tight, interlocking drama of brinksmanship, provocation, threat and active warfare. This is symbolized by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repeated verbal nastiness towards Israel, the ability and determination of Hamas and Hizbullah to fight Israel while drawing on Iranian assistance, and the triumph of the hardline, quasi-fascist right in Israel in the elections last Tuesday (in which the right emphasized -- you guessed it -- the existential threats from Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas). 

The only good thing about the victory of the Israeli right is that it clarifies that country’s open embrace of hard line nationalism and anti-Arab militarism, forcing others in the region to figure out if they wish to make war or peace with Israel. 

With the right dominant in Israel and a new Palestinian government sure to be heavily influenced by Hamas, the best we can expect is a long-term truce that allows both societies to get on with their day-to-day life without directly threatening the other, leaving peace-making for others in the future. The irony is that Hamas- and Likud-led governments in Palestine and Israel have much more popular legitimacy and capacity to negotiate peace than the recent governments led by Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert. Nonetheless, peace-making remains illusory for now. 

Therefore, I suspect we are likely to see diplomatic attention shift back to the wider confrontation in the region between the United States and Iran, where there is new room for movement. The Obama administration has signaled its desire to seek normal relations with Iran, and the Iranian president replied this week that Tehran would respond if the envisaged changes were fundamental, not tactical, and talks were “based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.”

The Israelis and the Arabs may suddenly find themselves to be a momentary subscript in this larger American-Iranian narrative that has the capacity to redefine the entire region. If Washington and Tehran are serious about what they say about their core disputes -- nuclear power, Israel, Iraq, terrorism, alleged mutual hegemonic aims -- they should be able to resume normal ties, because these are all resolvable issues.

The wildcard is Israel, which will try hard to stoke the fires of anti-Iranianism. I suspect the historical trend is shifting against Israel’s hysterical attempt to make Iran the evil that America must fight forever in order to protect Israel. A serious American-Iranian rapprochement is eminently achievable if it reflects American and Iranian interests, and is not distorted or held hostage by Israeli fanatics and their wild surrogates in Washington lobbies and pro-Israeli think tanks.

If this happens, it would radically reshuffle the cards in the Arab-Israeli conflict, finally taking us into a new era defined by forces more rational than the frenzy and fear of 1977-79.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large ofThe Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.