Share this story!            

EDITORIAL: Ahmadinejad’s visit to Riyadh was fruitless

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Saudi Arabia for the day to talk with Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and came away saying the two counties had agreed to “work together to thwart ‘enemy’ plots seeking to divide the Islamic world”. After landing in Tehran his message was nicely packaged: “Fortunately we and the Saudis were fully aware of the threats of our enemies and we condemn them. We ask all Muslims to be aware of the enemy plots and be alert”.

The reference is to the sectarian war in Iraq and the blame is squarely placed on the United States. Mr Ahmadinejad packed a lot of messages in his statement at home. Not only was the Sunni-Shia conflict a creation of the ‘enemy’ of the Muslims, he said, the enemy had to be driven out of the region too: “We came up with a plan to preserve the rights of the Islamic nations and safeguard the rights of the people of the region.” But he made no reference to Lebanon where the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora is supported by Saudi Arabia but opposed by Iran through Hezbollah. He also made no reference to Israel because on this issue, too, Iran toes a different line from the Saudi-led Arab League: King Abdullah’s offer is that if Israel withdraws to the 1967 boundaries the Arab world would recognise it; Iran rejects that and will not recognise Israel at any price.

The Saudi side revealed a little bit more. It saw the visit as a sign that the two countries were pooling efforts “to ease the explosive regional crises”, the two leaders stressing the need to preserve Iraq’s “independence, national unity and equality between its citizens”. It saw Ahmadinejad endorsing Riyadh’s efforts to resolve the political crisis in Lebanon. Most significantly, a Saudi official has said that “the kingdom would try to convince Tehran to comply with UN resolutions and suspend enrichment”.

Actually the meeting was an important one on many counts. It was a meeting of the two representatives of the Islamic schism: the Shia and the Sunni. A dangerous period of non-communication had intervened in which Saudi Arabian sources had voiced concern about the spread of Shia and Iranian influence in the region. Jordan, which stands close to Saudi Arabia, had said things that Iran did not relish at all. It was therefore not easy to begin talking after a period of hostile non-communication.

According to reports, Mr Ali Larijani, the chief negotiator of Iran’s nuclear programme and special assistant to President Ahmadinejad, visited Riyadh twice to prepare the ground for the visit. He and not anyone else went because earlier the third-ranking Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had visited Tehran and clarified the agenda, which must have concerned Iran’s nuclear programme. Prince Bandar’s father, Sultan, is next in line to the King. Prince Bandar looks after the security agency and is in charge of matters linked to possible dangers of a sectarian outbreak in the country. He also inherits his father’s position.

It is reported that a great feast was prepared for the Iranian president. When the talks began, King Abdullah sat close to Mr Ahmadinejad. This was unusual. He talked of nothing else but Iran’s nuclear programme that the UN Security Council was going to discuss with a view to imposing tough sanctions on Iran. Saudi Arabia itself is greatly worried about Iran’s nuclear posture and the American military build-up in the Gulf, but the King acted as if he was offering himself as a mediator between Iran and the United States.

It is said that the Iranian president with his quicksilver disposition did not like what he heard. The discussion broke up and everyone went for dinner. After dinner there was more deadlock over the nuclear issue. After the meeting, it was expected that the Iranian delegation would stay the night but just after midnight President Ahmadinejad decided to head home. No joint statement was issued which means nothing was decided and each side was to issue its own version of what happened.

If this is what happened, then it does not bode well for the Sunni-Shia world conference together with the Security Council Big Five that Iraq is planning to hold and to which Iran has agreed only tentatively after objecting to including too many extra-regional entities. There is no doubt that some sections of the Iranian ruling elite are worried about President Ahmadinejad’s ‘train without a brake’, but Iran’s pride and sense of honour at being challenged is something that the president can use successfully against all opponents.

Internationally, America’s strategy of threatening Iran is being seen as the latest Washington move, although Washington denies it. Even the Jandullah attacks across the Pakistan-Iran border are seen in this context. If the Riyadh meeting was a testing of the waters to see how Iran was reacting to these moves, it has proved fruitless. *

SECOND EDITORIAL: PML’s ‘landslide’ in Punjab spells trouble

While receiving the loyalty or ‘party-witch’ of the PPP MPA from Rahimyar Khan, Malik Saeed Manzar, Punjab Chief Minister Mr Pervaiz Elahi said on Sunday that “the founder party of Pakistan would gain a landslide victory in the next elections”. He pointed out that Bahawalpur and Rahimyar Khan had the distinction that three MPAs and one MNA belonging to PPP “had been re-elected as PML candidates with historic majorities from the same constituencies by following the manifesto of PML”.

While there is agreement that Punjab under Mr Pervaiz Elahi has done better in terns of governance than the other the provinces — the World Bank is witness to that — it is rather embarrassing that a “landslide” victory should already be forecast while the opposition is alleging all kinds of planned rigging in the 2007 general election. What was the need for the PPP politicians to cross over if the PML’s own candidates had been able to win? Now the grand opposition says that the local bodies too have to be scrapped before holding the elections. This means that the ‘landslide’ elections are foredoomed through the usual opposition’s refusal to accept the ‘landslide’ results of the party in power. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!