No subject

Khaled Meshaal, the secretary general of the Islamic Jihad, Ramadhan
Abdullah Shalah, and top officials of the Lebanese Amal and Hezbollah
movements. Later, talking to newsmen in Damascus, Larijani likened
Bush's recent threats against Iran to the "cries of worried aged women
who create a commotion to cover up their fears".

The soft-spoken Iranian intellectual seldom uses such colorful
language. He was obviously making a harsh point. The purpose of
Larijani's visit to Damascus was clear. Tehran wants to express
solidarity with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's rejection of the
American (and French) overtures aimed at persuading Damascus to cease
its ties with Hezbollah and Hamas and to distance itself from Tehran.
Iran is simply delighted that the Syrian leadership "rejected this
barter, preferring the 'hell' of its relationship with Iran and the
preservation of its interests in Lebanon to the 'paradise' of an
opening to America", to quote al-Hayat.

Khamenei praises Ahmadinejad

Meanwhile, Tehran remains firm on the Palestinian issue and Lebanon,
confident in the knowledge that its alliance with Damascus is intact,
and, more important, that its stance is in tune with the overwhelming
public opinion in the region. Indeed, Helena Cobban, the shrewd
contributing editor of the Boston Review, posed a couple of questions
in her blog: "Did the leaders of all these countries transmit warm and
hearty invitations to the US president that he couldn't turn down? Or,
did Washington propose these visits, and the Arab rulers involved
found they had no way to squirm out of their duties as US satraps in
the region?"

Also, in the immediate run-up to Bush's arrival in the region,
Khamenei made it abundantly clear in a series of speeches that he
solidly endorses the policies of Ahmadinejad. Khamenei was signaling
to Washington. Last Thursday, in one of his most significant
foreign-policy speeches in the recent period, Khamenei went to the
extent of chastising anyone who propagated that US hostility toward
Iran was a reaction to Ahmadinejad's firebrand statements. "Its [US]
enmity is with the principles of the Iranian nation and it has been
there since the beginning of the Iranian revolution," Khamenei
insisted.

He admonished any "moderates" within Iran who would want a halt to
Iran's uranium enrichment activities so as to placate the West.
Khamenei warned, "Some people are challenging the system and the
government over this and, acting in concert with the enemy, they
attempt to create despondency. The nation should be watchful about
such [Western] infiltration." (Interestingly, in a debate televised
live on December 16, prior to his departure for the hajj pilgrimage,
Ahmadinejad warned that at an "appropriate time" he would disclose
some "untold stories" about the nuclear issue, which, he said, was one
of Iran's "toughest battles", more momentous than the nationalization
of the country's oil industry.)

Again, in another speech, Khamenei pointed out that the Ahmadinejad
government's "sense of responsibility" and its "self-belief" is the
sure guarantee of the country's progress. He praised the government
for observing "justice" and "perseverance and self-belief" in
advancing the goals of the Iranian revolution. Khamenei said
Ahmadinejad has "successfully carried out development projects and
helped remove the problems of the people as well as honorably
proceeding with the goals and values of the Iranian revolution", and
this despite US propaganda aimed at "weakening national resolve and
forcing the people to backtrack from their legitimate rights".

Bush's last gamble

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad remains focused on his domestic priorities. He
just announced that Iran's budget for the coming fiscal year will make
a whopping 30% increase in allocations for development plans.
Addressing the Majlis (Parliament) on Tuesday, he announced
legislation for disbursing a part of Iran's oil revenue for the first
time directly to the common people - in fulfillment of his major
election pledge.

Evidently, Tehran is keeping cool nerves. It factors a real
possibility that the Bush administration is capable of resorting to
something irrational out of sheer desperation. It is conscious of the
growing sense of frustration in the White House. In his recent
speeches, Khamenei warned that Iran shouldn't lower its guard since it
is still passing through a "crisis period". But then, he added, the
situation at present could only be as sensitive as numerous past
occasions since the Iranian revolution, which the regime successfully
overcame. He referred to Washington's encouragement of Saddam Hussein
for launching the eight-year war in the 1980s and the numerous US
conspiracies since then against the Iranian regime.

All in all, the Bush administration finds itself entrapped. The
Iranian regime has proven to be a tough nut for it to crack. All the
talk about dissensions within the Iranian regime spilling over in lava
form has turned out to be whistling in the wind.

The leitmotif of Bush's high-profile tour of the Middle East is
unmistakably Iran. But Washington's Iran policy lies in tatters and it
has no choice but to ratchet up anti-Iran rhetoric, though it realizes
there are no takers in the Middle East for such rhetoric of fire and
brimstone. The danger now is that Tehran may choose to hunker down and
prefer to deal with the next US administration.

Tehran once heeded back-channel pleas from Ronald Reagan's campaign
managers not to negotiate the hostage crisis with the Carter
administration in its final months in the White House so that Reagan
could claim the credit for the denouement. Bush is certainly better
placed than Carter insofar as presidential hopefuls such as Barack
Obama and Mike Huckabee would never do such a Reaganite thing on him.

Actually, the danger to the Bush legacy comes from faraway places.
Continued delay in constructively engaging Iran will only open the
gateway wider for the international community to encroach into a
region that until four years ago used to be the exclusive strategic
preserve of the US. China is already wading deep into the region, and
Russia too. The S-300 missiles from Russia are a sign that US
dominance of the Middle East is in serious jeopardy.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador
to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>