In its lead article, the pan-Arab newspaper Al Quds al Arabi argues that new economic sanctions against Iran might hasten a war for three reasons. First, the consensus on issuing punitive measures implies that Tehran is culpable of violating international law by continuing the enrichment of uranium. This, for many, would provide a legal cover for a potential military strike.
Second, most observers believe such sanctions are in essence futile because they are not likely to affect the regime in Iran. In the long run, they would rather cause the population to greatly suffer as happened in Iraq. Last and most dangerous, one of the terms stipulates the right to inspect Iranian vessels, which may provoke the Iranians. In retaliation, they might act likewise by countering US or other western-flagged ships. If that happens, it could ignite a military confrontation.
Two factors increase this probability.Eleven US and Israeli warships passed through the Suez Canal on their way to the Red Sea and then to the Gulf. Meanwhile, the Iranian government has reiterated that it will never change its stance about its right to enrich uranium to more than 20 per cent. This situation of mutual mistrust and conflict of interests is reminiscent of that preceding the two Gulf wars, which heralds bleaker times in the region.
In an article for the Emirati daily Al Ittihad, Mahjub Othman wrote about the latest developments in Darfur following a report by Agence-France Press stating that last May was the bloodiest month in Darfur this year, with 600 people killed. Doha is hosting peace talks between political parties in Sudan. "Even if the Doha negotiations were to result in an agreement, it wouldn't change much in the situation as the largest insurgent groups in Darfur, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Sudan Liberation Movement, are still boycotting the negotiations and continue to fight against government forces."
The relationship between the JEM leader Khalil Ibrahim and Khartoum has reached a crisis level; Sudan has asked Interpol to arrest him and return him to the country to face charges of attempting to invade the capital two years ago. Interpol didn't respond to Khartoum's request, however, and Mr Ibrahim is still free to travel between Cairo, N'Djamena and Libya. Chad, on a mutual agreement with Sudan, refused to allow him to stay or to pass through into Darfur, which prompted him to travel to Libya. No one expects Libya to deliver Mr Ibrahim to Sudanese authorities, which means the peace talks will be frozen awaiting mediation or a change in positions.
As two Lebanese ships, the Mariam and Naji al Ali, prepare to set sail to Gaza transporting food and medicine in a new attempt to break the four-year blockade on the city, Rajeh Khoury wrote an article for the Lebanese daily Annahar in answer to Israel's explicit threats against the ships and the Lebanese government.
"The statements of Ehud Barak, in addition to being a flagrant threat to the Lebanese government, attempt to create pre-emptive excuses for any criminal and aggressive act that would be directed at the two ships carrying women and journalists and heading to Gaza." Mr Barak held the Lebanese government responsibility for the ships and announced that strong measures would be taken against them in case they attempted to break the siege, basing his threats on the fact that Lebanon is considered an enemy state and that Hizbollah sponsored the two ships.
The Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri strongly stated that Israel's tactics were lies aiming at creating a new opportunity for war. In view of Benjamin Netanyahu's extremism, it is likely that Tel Aviv will be more inclined to aggravate matters than to resign to a settlement. Israel itself is now besieged before the world. "The lies it is weaving against the Lebanese aid ships may be a prelude for future madness and aggression."
It is a strange situation to see Spaniards and Moroccans involved in military exercises at a time when the latter are protesting against a visit by Mariano Rajoy, the leader of Spanish Popular Party, to the two enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, argued Mohammed al Achab in the opinion page of the London-based newspaper al Hayat. It seems that top military officials in both countries have increasingly set for themselves a different agenda independently from politicians and other members of civil society. The military drill in the Mediterranean Sea aims to serve other core key security interests: addressing illegal immigration, countering terrorism, and empowering the intervention capabilities of both countries. In the recent past, both Spanish and Moroccan forces have contributed to peacekeeping efforts in many places, such as Kosovo and Haiti.
Moroccans know that what binds them with their northern neighbour outweighs what could divide them. Although such problems as stalled fishing agreements, the Sahara dispute, and Moroccan sovereignty claim over Ceuta and Melilla persist, they are less likely to develop into direct confrontation. And even though many top Spanish officials have visited the disputed enclaves, Madrid and Rabat are still adopting a rational approach.
* Digest compiled by Racha Makarem rmakarem@thenational.ae