Is it a coincidence that unrest in Iraq and Lebanon began two months ago almost simultaneously followed by anti-government demonstrations in Iransome weeks lateralthough for reasons of sudden rise in petrol prices up to 300 percent? There is another commonality-both Iraqi and Lebanese demonstrations apart from raising anti-government slogans mainly against corruption, nepotism and rising cost of living have been raising anti-Iran slogans demanding cessation of Iranian interference in their countries’ affairs. Interestingly, demonstrators in Iran have echoed similar sentiments demanding the revolutionary regime to end its involvement in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Some commentators are describing these unrests as a precursor to “Arab Spring 2.0” despite the fact that original Arab Spring failed to bring democracy or stability in Tunis, Egypt or Libya. Iran could withstand the wave of first Arab Spring because of its revolutionary setup which has evolved a system of governance allowing adult franchise although freedom of choice or expression may still be a far cry. But if compared with other states of the Middle East Iran is far ahead in political stability and offers workable system of representation to the people which is conspicuously missing in other countries of the region.Additionally, the Iranian opposition was ruthlessly crushed in the beginning of the revolution; whatever was left of it fled the country and could not do much except issuing anti-regime statements whenever unrests started in the country mostly on domestic issues.
In the region, Iran is considered as a lynchpin and blamed for interference to spread its influence through the use of Shia card especially in the Persian Gulf States where Shias are either in majority or a substantive minority. The states of the region realize that the Iranian revolution during the past four decades has consolidated its position in the country and has further expanded in the modern Arab states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) of the Middle East. Therefore, a stable Iran with revolutionary zeal is considered a lingering threat by the US, Israel and conservative Arab states led by Saudi Arabia. However, it is also becoming obvious that Iranian attempts of expanding its influence in the neighbourhood have stretched thin its political and financial capital. According to conservative estimates, Iran’s “overseas projects” are costing the country approximately US$ 10-12 billion per annum mostly in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Hamas and Yemen.
For Pakistan, the evolving situation in the Gulf Region is a tightrope walk. In the absence of a dialogue between Iran and Saudi Arabia, chances of a rapprochement for the time being are slim
In order to counter criticism of Iran’s intervention in the region, senior officials of the Iranian regime, including Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, maintain that Iran has not attacked any country during the past 250 years. However, the Arab analysts dispute this claim. CEO of Saudi think-tank, Rasanah, Dr. Mohammad Al Sulami holds Iran responsible forintervention in the neighbouring countries. He contends that Iran-Iraq war broke out due to Iran’s provocations soon after the revolution; Imam Khomeini’s threat of “liberating” Harmain Sharifain (the two holiest places of Islam) from Saudi Arabia remains a source of concern; and stoking unrest in Arab countries by playing the Shia card have been typical of Iranian interventionist tactics. Some Middle Eastern commentators believe that Iranian footprint in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen is an ample evidence of Iranian interference which is why one could see frequent unrests in those countries. But the Iranian analysts see this as a success of Iran’s diplomacy to counter the US and Israeli hegemonic designs in the region and against the Iranian revolution.
Whether protests in Iraq or Lebanon would bring about relief sought by the agitators is yet to be seen, but anti-Iran sentiments expressed by the protestors in Iraq and Lebanon must have alarmed the Iranian leadership about the brewing storm in those countries and involvement of US/Israel to neutralize Iranian influence. Already President Trump has slapped tough sanctions against Iran that have started showing signs of economic downturn in the country, particularly affecting the lives of common people. Iranian currency (Toman) has depreciated by 60% against dollar; unemployment rate has touched all time high (31%); prices of essential items have gone up (47%); Iranian trade has gone down almost 40% with oil exports plummeting to mere 400,000 barrels per day as compared to earlier exports of 2.7 million barrels per day. These are alarming indicators and may lead not only to cause internal unrest but also with current level of belligerence between Iran and the US may impact the entire Middle East, especially the GCC countries.
The Trump administration believes that by tightening the noose around the Islamic regime, the people in the country would rise against the clergy. Secretary of State Pompeo wasted no time in condemning the regime for cutting off Internet links in Iran, which he thought, was the fundamental right of the Iranian people. However, he never applied the same yardstick on India which has locked down hapless Kashmiri people since August 5th and cut off all communication links, especially internet and WhatsApp; thousands of youth have been taken away to unknown detention centres all over India while their parents are being pressurized to give guarantees of their sons “good behaviour”.
The US is vying for”regime change” in Iran without realizing the consequences of such an enterprise. It tried the “regime change” in Iraq and only ended up witnessing death and destruction in that country apart from losing $ one trillion in the Iraqi front; its support for similar enterprises in Libya and Egypt have miserably failed to “rekindle” the flame of democracy in those countries except that lives of common citizens have been ruined. Syrian mass exodus of Biblical proportions could not bring about regime change but destroyed the entire fabric of the Syrian society. Therefore, the change of regime in Tehran would not guarantee peace, stability or prosperity for the Iranian people. However, chaos resulting from such a change in Tehran may provide opportunity to the US and Israel to consolidate their position in the entire Middle East and sell more arms to rich Arab states. India, apparently a fence-sitter, is likely to jump in as a surrogate policeman to promote its interests in the name of protecting its 8 million diaspora working in the GCC countries.
Chaos in Iran would be detrimental to Pakistan’s security because of joint borders and the likelihood of peoples’ exodus from that country should the unrest go beyond control or a war breaks out. There are also chances that dissident Baloch groups in the Iranian Balochistan may take benefit of instability in mainland Iran and assert for their rights or may be hired by the hostile powers to add to chaos and weaken the state’s security apparatus. There is also a possibility that India may instigate Pakistani Baloch dissident groups to create unrest in the province. Indian Consulate in Zahedan is already active against Pakistani Balochistan and the current extremist Hindutva dispensation in New Delhi will have no qualms in shaking hands with the US and Israel to launch joint sabotage operations in Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan provinces leading to their secession.
For Pakistan, the evolving situation in the Gulf Region is a tightrope walk. In the absence of a dialogue between Iran and Saudi Arabia, chances of a rapprochement for the time being are slim. Therefore, while continuing its mediatory efforts between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan must maintain “positive neutrality” by encouraging both the Muslim countries to engage each other for the greater interest of peace and prosperity in the region. If needed, other influential but neutral Islamic countries may join the mediatory efforts.
The writer is a former ambassador