Arab News Blog

The US must stop using “cowboy logic” if it wants dialogue with Iran over its nuclear programme, the Iranian president says.
Go to Source

Headscarves, minarets and burkas given too much emphasis in dialogue about Islam in Europe -imams.
Go to Source

A picture of the first ever nuclear explosion, 0.016 seconds after detonation.

I know I’ve been doing a lot of linking to Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel lately, but it’s because they have so much good stuff. One item I’d really like to highlight in this piece on the nuclear question in the Middle East by Ezzedine Shukri-Fischere. It matches my thoughts exactly, and highlights a dimension of the current debate over Iran’s potential nuclear program that is rarely touched upon in the American or European debate:

In the Middle East, however, the situation is more troubling and continues to generate serious risks for the world as a whole. Iran seems like the most compelling case at hand, but it is important to remember that Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity also stands in the way of establishing a regional security regime in the region. In the multilateral security talks that followed the 1991 Madrid Conference, Israel adamantly refused to discuss its nuclear program unless conventional and unconventional threats of its neighbors were addressed first (including those posed by Iran and Saddam’s Iraq). Conversely, Arab states insisted on including Israel’s nuclear weapons in the discussion before any security arrangement could be agreed. As a result, the talks collapsed and were never revived in the years since. Had the US intervened 15 years ago and led Arab states and Israel towards overcoming their tit-for-tat attitude, a Mideast security regime, with confidence-building measures, safeguards and verification mechanisms, would probably have emerged by now.

Both the US and actors in the region need to start a dialogue on all security concerns in the Middle East that includes the nuclear issues. And they need to start this dialogue now, and urgently.

Such a dialogue would help address a number of challenges at the same time. First, it would lay to rest the complaints about double standards in the nonproliferation community and relieve the US – and Israel – from the untenable claim that Israel’s nuclear arsenal should somehow be treated as exceptional (a claim that nobody outside Washington and Tel Aviv gives serious consideration). The double-standard argument has been the most successful weapon against nonproliferation, especially in mobilizing public support for nuclear projects like those of Saddam’s Iraq, Ghaddafi’s Libya or Iran (and you will hear a lot about it in the coming weeks leading up to the NPT review). Second, such a dialogue would significantly decrease the pressure on Arab governments to start their own nuclear programs and abort what could be the beginning of a nuclear race in the region. Third, this dialogue would pave the way for the establishment of a Middle East security regime, which could be the vehicle for addressing a wide range of security hazards in this troubled and troubling region. Finally, such a dialogue might offer a framework for addressing Iran’s problematic nuclear activities, especially if accompanied by a package of stabilizing confidence-building measures.

It’s really a shame that al-Shorouk stopped running Ezzedine’s columns, especially when they now instead have Fareed Zakariya and Thomas Friedman — who needs more of them?

Go to Source

Spain has asked Israel to take 'necessary steps' to begin a dialogue with the Palestinians as soon as possible, even as Lebanon warned of an 'implosion' in the Middle East if a new peace process fails.
Go to Source

President Obama says the US offer of dialogue with Iran still stands, in a New Year message to the Iranian people.
Go to Source

Views from the Occident, Conversation with a Cyber Jihadi, 5 Feb 2010 online dialogue, together with screenshots from various sources
Go to Source

“French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Monday that France is committed to protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty and will continue to support its stability, but cautioned Lebanon that its problems cannot be solved without dialogue with Syria.

“It is illusionary to think that all regional problems, including Lebanon, can be solved without dialogue with the Syrians or with countries that have influence over the situation,” Fillon said at the end of his Lebanon visit. 
“Our dialogue with Damascus is honest and uncompromising,” he told reporters at a press conference…”

Go to Source

Palestinian national dialogue is put off until after Ramadan while key players also await the new initiative of Barack Obama, writes Saleh Al-Naami
Go to Source

EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN in the WSJ, here 

” …..The often adversarial relationship between the U.S. and Syria is a case in point. The Syrian regime could undermine security in southern Lebanon, hinder progress in Iraq, and continue to support Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. It also has the potential to play a constructive role in the region—a possibility that has yet to be fully explored. A high-level bilateral dialogue could enhance our national security interests, as demonstrated by U.S. diplomacy in the recent past.

When I was ambassador to Syria (1988-1991), my major task was to implement the policy of strategic engagement established by President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Our relationship with Syria in the late 1980s was troubled. But we understood that without Syria we could not help end the civil war in Lebanon, make progress on Arab-Israeli peace talks, curtail certain terrorist groups, control drug trafficking, promote regional security, and advance our human-rights agenda. We sought common ground through serious dialogue.

Despite many obstacles, tangible goals were reached. Our consultations in Damascus facilitated the end of the tragic Lebanese civil war. Syrian President Hafez Assad responded positively to President Bush and Secretary Baker’s direct request for him to lend Syria’s political and military support to Operation Desert Storm. In a major breakthrough, U.S.-Syrian cooperation on Desert Storm helped to lead to Assad’s agreement to enter into face-to-face negotiations with Israel, which in turn led to the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991…….

While the historic context is different today than in the early 1990s, the basic rationale for promoting U.S. interests by engaging Syria remains valid. Engagement with Syria would promote peace negotiations between Jerusalem and Damascus. It would also distance Syria from its close relationship with Iran—and thereby reduce Iran’s influence in the Levant.

U.S. dialogue with Syria could lead to diminished support for Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. It would consolidate Lebanon’s sovereignty. And it could secure the Syria-Iraq border.

On a broader level, a stronger relationship with the U.S. could create the conditions to promote economic and political reform within Syria. Our countries could also resume intelligence cooperation against al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups that have threatened the Syrian regime in the past.

The Syrians are not interested in a piecemeal dialogue with the U.S., but they seek a comprehensive dialogue where all the major issues can be discussed. ….. While there are many important issues to be discussed, the key agenda item is the prospect for Israeli-Syrian peace. Syrian President Bashar Assad has reiterated his father’s “strategic option for peace,” which is based on the principle of land for peace. Though the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the issue of Palestine, the geopolitical core of the conflict is the Israeli-Syrian front. Without an Israeli-Syrian agreement, there will be no comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. An Israeli-Lebanese agreement would quickly follow……”

Go to Source