by Bilal Hamade
It might be sheer coincidence that the last two prosecutors in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) are Canadians. Daniel Bellemare, who held the position since 2009, is now being replaced by Norman Farrell. Nevertheless, this “coincidence” is particularly telling of the increased Canadian interest and involvement in the Hariri assassination case and the politics of the Middle East at large.
Throughout the past decade, we’ve seen consistent spikes in the news coverage over Iran’s nuclear program. Yes, it has been a decade since the “full extent” of Iran’s nuclear program was disclosed to the world by an exiled opposition group known as National Council of Resistance of Iran. Tens years later, the truth about Iran’s nuclear program still remains opinionated. Currently, there’s a suggestion that neoconservatives and their media machine are pushing U.S. President Barak Obama’s administration to act against Iran before it’s too late. On the other hand, Obama seems determined to stay put and ensure Israel is restrained from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. What is less discussed are the political risks Iran and Israel face in pursuing what many see as their national interests. In other words, would a nuclear weapon really be beneficial for the Islamic Republic? Would the consequences of an Israeli strike improve its security and safeguard its future?
Perhaps it is all a coincidence; the attacks on Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia and a failed bomb plot in Thailand by Iranian nationals. Add to this the tensions between Iran, Israel and the West, the presence of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Straits of Hormuz and Iran’s latest nuclear advancements, perhaps it’s not a coincidence at all.
The past few weeks have seen a rapid escalation in rhetoric and action between Iran and the U.S. lead Western alliance. The latter is hoping to contain Iran’s nuclear progress through the use of sanctions and political pressure. Iran’s response, particularly their threat to close off the Straits of Hormuz, has many commentators believing that Western sanctions are starting to bite.
Despite such grave threats by a regime known for its mastery of vitriolic rhetoric, the Islamic Republic of Iran has rarely confronted their adversaries directly. Iran’s preference has always been to use its various proxies to inflict damage at a low cost to itself. This is true mostly with regards to its regional competitor Israel. Through groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, Iran has been able to punish Israel indirectly with little cost. Some cite the recent attacks as responses to suspected Israeli assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. The most recent attacks also coincided with the anniversary of Israel’s assassination of former Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyah, which would strengthen the case that these attacks were carried out with some level of Iranian compliance. Hezbollah for their part deny any involvement. If Tehran is ruled as the perpetrator, it would not be the first time the regime has targeted Israeli interests abroad; the most popular case being the Israeli embassy bombings in Argentina.
