After Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, relations between the Arab world
and
Iran soured. The new revolution had an overt agenda to dominate the Islamic
world under its banner, and a covert agenda to reign supreme over the Sunni
world — a very futile and distant dream.
اضافة اعلان
In 1997, when
Sayyed Mohammad Khatami was president of Iran, two
of his traits endeared him to the late King Hussein of Jordan.
Firstly, he was a descendant of the Hashemite. Secondly, he was a moderate
president that did not agree with the concept of “wilayat Al-faqih,” which is a
system of governance where all political and religious authority is held by the
clergy.
Khatami was a co-winner of the prestigious Global Dialogue Prize
in 2009, but he was shunned by conservative Iranian clergy and by a hesitant
Clinton administration.
The Late King Hussein asked me to pay a visit to Iran, and with me
I carried a written letter addressed to “My Cousin President Sayyed Mohammad Khatami”.
I met with president Khatami in the presence of Kamal Kharazi, the
former foreign minister of Iran. During the meeting, Kharazi asked me why Jordan
had signed a peace treaty with Israel. However, the president interrupted him
and asked me about his cousin King Hussein.
I believe he truly wanted peace and cooperation with the rest of
the world.
King Hussein, on his next trip to the United States, tried to
convince former president Bill Clinton to initiate contact with Khatami, but
his call went unheeded. As a result, Khatami decided not to run for president,
and in his place came the ultra conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I had a chance to visit Iran twice in 2017 and 2018, to attend an annual
Islamic conference in Tehran. At both conferences, there were discussions on the
Islamic Revolution in Iran’s achievements. Some of the imams’ language revealed
a deep sense of victory, particularly those from Iraq. “Now we are in four Arab
capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Sanaa, and Beirut,” they said.
I reminded them of Henry Kissinger’s theory of “dual containment”.
Let Iraq and Iran fight, let one of them end in defeat, and then attack the
weakened winner. It sounded like a vintage Machiavellian recipe. Yet, it is
still a part of the United States’ strategic foreign policy approach.
Iran is now very much economically weakened by years of boycotts, blockades,
costly wars, and dwindling oil reserves. The Iranian people have put up with a
great deal of pain and suffering. Both internal and external opposition have
been emboldened by such state of affairs
Jordan has shown itself to be the boldest country when it comes to
mending fences with Iran. His Majesty King Abdullah’s statement two weeks ago involving
the restoration of the Maqamat (citadel), of Prophet Muhammad’s cousin invited
a huge response. Most Jordanians understood the King’s statement as a message
to Iran that Jordan is willing to allow religious tourists to visit the grave
of the prophet’s cousin and Ali bin Abi Talab’s brother, Jaafer; a place highly
coveted by Shiite Muslims and Sunnis.
The second message sent by the King was a cable of congratulations
to the new Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi. Both moves go beyond diplomatic tact
and decorum.
Additionally, the tripartite of Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan is crucial
for all three sides. Iran needs to show some flexibility in its objections to
major projects leading into and out of Iraq, such as the oil pipeline from Basra
to Aqaba and the Sinai. A gesture of goodwill from Iran would deserve a reciprocal
gesture.
Iran should follow a similar route in redrawing its relations with
Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Yemen. Whatever Iran gains from its current way of
doing things; their methods are not sustainable and continued foreign ventures will
only be maintained at the expense of the Iranian people’s well-being.
Read more opinion
.jpg)
.jpg)
