Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. LII
No 9
2
Political Comment (2 March 2009)
Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu has been chosen to try to put together a governing coalition in Israel. Remarks by a prominent member of Iran’s political establishment have created a storm in a teacup in the Gulf.
Netanyahu Chosen To Form Government
Israeli President Shimon Peres on 20 February appointed Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu to try to put together Israel’s next coalition government. Mr Netanyahu immediately made it clear that ideally he would like to form a broadly-based government with the center and leftist parties Kadima and Labour (respectively), saying “I turn to the Kadima and Labour leaders…I want to meet you first and discuss the formation of a broad government coalition.” The Likud leader did not say what purpose such a coalition might serve (other than paralysis, which might suit Mr Netanyahu’s agenda), but he might be thinking that it could provide some sort of camouflage for his hawkish policies with the Americans, since on 22 February he claimed that “aware of the enormous challenges faced by the country, there is no doubt that forming a union should be our foremost goal. I expect a coalition government that will cooperate with the Obama administration.” However, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni did not sound particularly cooperative after meeting with Mr Netanyahu on 22 February, saying “we didn’t reach any agreement. There is an essential divergence and we have to clarify if there is a possible common path. We didn’t make progress on any essential subjects. On the essential subject for arriving at an agreement – that there should be two states for two peoples and a final accord with the Palestinians – there is no agreement.” That was considerably less than an outright refusal, but Labour leader Ehud Barak was unequivocal the next day when he said that “the people have spoken and decided to send Labour into the opposition and we respect their choice. We will be a responsible, serious and constructive opposition.” With both Kadima and Labour dragging their feet, Mr Netanyahu on 25 February turned to the more ideologically compatible parties to the right even of Likud, meeting with negotiators from Yisrael Beiteinu (15 Knesset seats), followed by religious parties Shas (11) and United Torah Judaism (5) and then two settler parties (7). On the same day the Kadima number two, Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, made it clear the party was still open to suggestions, saying “Israel’s citizens did not give us 28 seats in order for us to sit in the opposition. But let it be clear, if we do not reach an agreement on government guidelines in the end, we will go to the opposition.” But according to Likud deputy and former foreign minister Silvan Shalom on 26 February, “there is across-the-board agreement on Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, but there is a big gap between Kadima and Likud on the two states for two people. It’s unsolvable.” Meanwhile on the other side of the fence, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is sticking to the harder line on negotiations that it adopted during Israel’s recent assault on Gaza, with a spokesman for President Mahmud ΄Abbas warning on 20 February that “we will not deal with the Israeli government unless it accepts a two-state solution and accepts to halt settlements and to respect past accords.” At present it looks as if the next Israeli government will be unwilling to meet any of these conditions.
Bahrain, Iran And The GCC
Remarks about Bahrain by a prominent member of Iran’s political establishment have sparked off a storm in a teacup that illustrates how fragile relations really are between the Iranians and their Arab Gulf neighbors. Earlier this month a member of Iran’s powerful Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Nateq Nuri, was reported to have said that Bahrain used to be Iran’s 14th province and was represented in its parliament. (It is true that Iran used to have a claim to Bahrain, but that was formally relinquished by the Shah in 1970.) Although it was far from clear exactly what Mr Nateq Nuri had said and when he said it, this was enough to prompt Bahrain to halt talks with Iran on gas imports and to summon the Iranian ambassador in Manama to the foreign ministry on 12 February to receive a protest. The Saudis also took umbrage, and on 18 February the official Saudi news agency SPA quoted an unnamed official as saying that “these irresponsible remarks are only an attempt to defy historical and geographical facts.” Next, the foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) got in on the act, issuing a statement on 22 February saying that they “looked forward to the Iranian government condemning these inharmonious notes which increase tension…and preventing their re-occurrence.” On the same day Bahraini Interior Minister Shaikh Rashid ibn ΄Abd Allah Al-Khalifa declared that “if these statements are meant to test the waters, then the response was clear internally and externally, and this was affirmed by the magnitude of the Gulf Arab and international condemnation of these irresponsible statements.”
In response to this uproar, the one thing the Iranians did not do was disavow Mr Nateq Nuri’s alleged remarks. Iranian Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli, who was attending a conference in Manama, said on 23 February that “the relationship between the two countries is a warm and sincere one and will not be hurt by the mischief of enemies. Tehran and Manama will not allow anyone to cause divisions between them or to prevent both nations boosting relations.” He also delivered a message from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Bahraini King Hamad ibn Isa Al-Khalifa to the effect that Mr Ahmadinejad would “not allow anyone who does not have good intentions for both countries to violate these good brotherly relations.” The next day, Mr Mahsouli opined that “the crisis between Bahrain and Iran is over, but there never really was what you could properly call a crisis,” but that was not enough to mollify GCC Secretary General ΄Abd al-Rahman al-΄Attiya, who claimed that “the positive stance of GCC countries toward Iran is a lot of times met with a hostile, unfriendly and unjustifiable stance by Iranian officials.” And, probably inevitably, Mr ΄Attiya invoked the question of Abu Musa and the Tunbs – the islands in the Gulf claimed by both the UAE and Iran (and occupied by Iran) – saying that “Iran has been acting as an occupying force which is impermissible with Islam and international law.”
Charles Snow