My Views on News

The central role fell to Saudi Arabia. That is not a surprise: the influence of "The Kingdom," as its diplomats like to refer to their own country, was decisive in bringing to a close the Lebanese Civil War (with the Taif Accords ) in 1991; and helping achieve agreements between Israelis and the Palestinians known as the Oslo accords (1995 ); and in 2002 for proposing a lasting agreement with Israel about the essential questions (the status of Jerusalem, refugees and the Palestinian State).

Saudi Arabia is trying to bring Syria back to the negotiating table (along with Lebanon and Israel), and is seeking some kind of understanding with Iran - a few days ago President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made an important visit to Riyadh . The Saudi influence even extends to Pakistan (old connections that have existed since the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan), and it has a huge moderating influence on the decisions of OPEC.

The biggest frustration of the Saudis, however, is named George W. Bush. Despite old ties between the Bush family and the Saudis, King Abdullah feels that he hasn't been listened to on any vital question of recent times - especially the invasion of Iraq. And worse: not even his warnings were taken into account. The King spoke freely and in full during a blunt speech full of acid criticism of the Americans - amongst them, that the occupation of Iraq is illegal.

Most curiously, in part the Israeli diplomats fully agree with the Saudis. "The Iranians should build a monument in honor of Bush, due to the gifts that Iran has received due to American policy in the Middle East," said a senior Israeli diplomat that recently passed through São Paulo. But unlike the Saudis (who also have always seen Iran as one of the greatest threats), the Israelis see no possibility for negotiation with the Iranians. On the contrary, they speak with a certain naturalness about the moment an air campaign will be mounted to destroy Iran's nuclear installations and defense systems (about three weeks of bombardment, according to the Israelis).

The diplomatic offensive of the Saudis has thrown the Israelis into a defensive position. The Saudis have revived a peace plan that includes participation of the European Union and Russia. But the E.U. and Russia have said that they would only participate with the Israelis in a major global peace conference on the Middle East if the Israelis first agree to serious talks with the Palestinian National Authority.

For now, and even in the face of strong American pressure, the Israeli government considers the new Palestinian unity government a mere facade for Hamas (it's important to remember that the unity government came after a meeting in Saudi Arabia between Hamas and Fatah). But in truth, this is merely an Israeli pretext not enter, since the government doesn’t seem to know what it wants.

It's curious to speak of a "window of opportunity" given the present situation in the Middle East, but that is how the Arabs and Europeans refer to the crisis. The "opportunity" in this case is more or less the expressed desire of the American government to find a way out of the Iraqi disaster. In that sense, for the Arabs it has always been clear that the Iraqi question will have to be resolved in conjunction with the Arab-Israeli conflict - a posture that even if out of necessity,  Condoleezza Rice seems to have adopted. It is in this context that one should understand American pressure on the Israelis to at least maintain regular meetings with representatives of the Palestinian Authority.

Then there is the enormous sense of expectation created by the capture by Iran of 15 British soldiers. Today there is no way to isolate any focus of conflict in the Middle East. If tackling wide-ranging problems all at once has advantages, it also creates a serious danger: any "small" episode can contaminate the larger effort."