Despite unkind accusations, Iran is seeking to make international and regional capital out of the Lebanese-Hizbullah-Israeli crisis, writes Rasha Saad Within hours of Hizbullah capturing two Israeli soldiers last week the Bush administration held Iran and Syria responsible, "based on their long-time ties and support". Washington's allegations found an audience among the Western public as well as with some in the Arab world who are familiar with the fiery words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Iranian parliament Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel renewed those attacks Tuesday, branding Israel "a filthy tumour in the body of the Islamic world", adding that "[the] time has come to flee occupied Palestine [and] go back to your homes." Iran thus stands accused of pushing for the current conflict between Israel, Lebanon and Hizbullah. Motive? Under increasing pressure on the nuclear issue, Iran is looking for diversions. What better diversion than a mini-war that could keep international attention focussed on the Israel-Lebanon- Palestine triangle? Proponents of this theory believe that what we are witnessing are the opening shots in a proxy war between the Islamic Republic and Syria on the one side and Israel and the United States on the other, fought in Lebanon, identically to many other times past. Iranian analyst Mohamed Sadeq Al-Husseini dismisses such interpretations. According to Al-Husseini, the last thing Iran needs now is an open war in the Middle East. "For years now Iran has been doing its best to solve the nuclear issue diplomatically and avert military confrontation. The new European-American package of incentives gives solid hope that a breakthrough in the matter might be at hand," Al-Husseini said. Al-Husseini warned that while Iran was not behind the Hizbullah operation, it might be dragged into the struggle. "Iran might get involved if Israel widens its assault dramatically by attacking Syria or even Iran itself," he said. While still at risk of confrontation with Western powers over its nuclear file, Iran is not in a desperate position as portrayed by some Western and Israeli media. On the contrary, being able to avert UN sanctions and military strikes for a whole year while at the same time refusing to suspend its nuclear programme was regarded by many in the Arab world as a failure of the Western powers and a rout by Iran. Iran owes its defiant stance to a number of coincidences in the region that came together in Iran's favour. According to Gamal Salama, professor of political science at the Suez University, the US involvement in the Iraqi quagmire and its fear of Iranian influence there is but one reason why the possibility of a military strike on Iran in the imminent future is on hold. On the other hand, Iran is guaranteed the staunch support of Russia and China in the Security Council. Both countries, with their veto powers as permanent members, have played a major role in shelving US plans to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic. "Iran is not that desperate to ignite a war in the Middle East the outcome of which cannot be predicted. The failure of the last round of talks between Iranian and EU officials is not the end of the road, especially with Iran willing to accept the European-American package of incentives," Salama said. Referring to Western incentives to halt its nuclear programme, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in Tehran Sunday that, "we consider this package an appropriate basis, an acceptable basis [for talks]," and that it is ready for detailed negotiations. Much in the way of accusations concerning Iran being behind the decision and timing of the Hizbullah operation stem from close ties between the two players. While Iran insists its aid to Hizbullah is limited to humanitarian and moral support, Iran is often accused of being Hizbullah's arms supplier and provider of several hundred Iranian Revolutionary Guards for operational training purposes. Sources in Israel argue that Iran supplied Hizbullah with long-range rockets and missiles of the kind that struck an Israeli destroyer and sank a Cambodian freighter on Friday night. These sources claim that the Chinese-made missile used -- the C-807 -- has been in the Revolutionary Guards' arsenal for some years. According to Israeli press reports, the Israeli navy was surprised by the existence of such missiles in the Hizbullah arsenal and failed to counter the attack. Israeli sources also claim that as a result of the Israeli army's intensifying operations in Lebanon, Tehran ordered most of its people operating in Lebanon to leave. Some advisers, all members of the Revolutionary Guard, remain. These are mainly responsible for instruction in the use of long-range rockets, the operation of Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicles and also in planning and combat operations training. For its part, Iran totally rejects accusations of any involvement in the Hizbullah operation. "There are no [Iranian] guards there. Shipment of [Iranian] missiles to Hizbullah is also not correct," Asefi said. However, that Hizbullah has autonomy, analysts believe, is not inconsistent with its maintaining close ties to Iran and Syria. "It sometimes does act on its own," Wayne White, who was a senior official in the State Department's intelligence arm until last year, was quoted as saying. Even the State Department's annual report on terrorism notes that while: "Hizbullah is closely allied with Iran and often acts at its behest, it also can and does act independently." US officials declined to offer specific evidence of Iranian or Syrian involvement in Wednesday's operation. Despite Israel's statements days after its bloody attacks on Lebanon that it has no plans "at this present moment" to attack Iran and Syria, insisting that, "at this present moment we are focussed on Lebanon," Iran fears that Israel may decide soon to widen its aggression, perhaps as an excuse to direct a military strike at the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities. According to Iranian sources, the next phase may well witness a move by European countries in support of Israel to put an end to the Hamas government and disarm Hizbullah. In preparation, Iranians have reacted on two levels. On the one hand, they were quick to announce their support of both Hamas and Hizbullah with Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, publicly praising Hizbullah, saying it was winning its fight against Israel. Iranians were also quick to contact Lebanese officials, promising to rebuild all the infrastructure and buildings demolished by Israel. At the same time Iran presented itself as a peace mediator. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki visited many countries including Saudi Arabia and Syria to "discuss the situation in Palestine and Lebanon." Following a meeting with Syria's Vice- President Farouk Al-Sharaa, Mottaki offered what he saw as "an acceptable and fair [way] to resolve this." Mottaki suggested a ceasefire and a prisoner exchange could end the conflict. Indeed, prominent Iranian intellectual Mashallah Shamsolvaezin suggests that Tehran's next step, far from making war, will be to present itself as a peacemaker. "This will present another opportunity to show its regional power," he told Al-Jazeera television.
