The likelihood that Iran will play a major role in the US-instigated coalition to take on ISIL has prompted mixed reactions from commentators in the Arabic-language media.
Monalisa Freiha, in the Beirut-based daily Annahar, remarked: “When Iran ceased supporting Nouri Al Maliki’s government, it seemed as though the Islamic Republic had begun sensing the threat the ISIL posed to its interests and security.
“Its silence when US fighter jets started bombing Jihadists on Iraqi territory led to increased speculations about the new Iranian policy towards Iraq and towards the prospects of a possible new Iranian approach towards the Syrian regime and others.”
She noted that while it is too early to truthfully gauge Tehran’s participation in Washington’s efforts to broaden the international coalition against ISIL, “there are nonetheless quite a few signs of a tacit Iranian-American understanding to face this common enemy”.
“Observers have drawn attention to the siege that has been lifted from Turkmen Shiite city of Emerli and that it would not have been possible without the help of the Shiite militias or volunteer forces trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
“This operation was regarded as the biggest achievement of the counter-attack waged by Washington following ISIL gaining control over vast areas in central and northern Iraq.
“The president of Kurdistan, Massud Barzani, maintained that Iran was the first country to send weapons to Kurdistan after the fall of Mosul. In doing so, it had become a de facto ally of Washington, which rallied to defend Erbil from jihadists, while Iranian conservatives and the media abstained from launching campaigns against the intervention of the United States.”
Iran has also developed ties with Saudi Arabia recently and although no details were disclosed about bilateral talks, “recent trends indicate that the meeting was not simply symbolic and that its timing had significant implication,” she added.
In the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, columnist Basheer Helal stressed that “Tehran cannot unilaterally wage a war against ISIL and Nato is compelled to fight in this long war and within the limits of its interests”.
In other words, Nato does not require military support from Iran but rather requires Tehran to meet it halfway so as to involve a “Sunni minority in Iraq and a majority in Syria” and find partners on the field, according to Obama.
“Khamenei’s Iran is weak and will not impose its conditions,” he added.
“Iran is not necessarily rational enough to shy away from attempting the exact opposite, especially amid the tensions in eastern Ukraine.”
In the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al Awsat, Abdel Rahman Al Rashed addressed Iran’s perception of Sunni extremism and the region’s perception of Shiite extremism, stressing that “both Sunni extremism and Shiite extremism are similar and both bid on one another’s extremism and brutal and sustained repression they each practise on civil intellect”.
He explained that “although we may disagree with Iran about the definition of extremism, we agree on the importance of working hand in hand to fight terrorist groups – ISIL in particular – and that Hizbollah should cease its religious war against Syrians and other Lebanese.
“The world should recognise that combating bilateral extremism and terrorism will require Muslim countries – mainly Saudi Arabia and Iran, who stand as representatives of both sects – to collaborate,” he added.
“We hope Iran will change its policy and cease supporting Sunni and Shiite extremist groups, so we may start a new page of Islamic cooperation, based on moderation and respect of others,” Mr Al Rashed concluded.
Translated by Carla Mirza
cmirza@thenational.ae
