The date: October 23, 1983
The location: Beirut
An explosion tore through the city at around 6 am. Ambulances raced to the scene. A suicide bomber had driven his truck into the US marines barracks in the Lebanese capital. The place was turned into rubble and scores of soldiers of the world’s mightiest army were killed.
Soon after, another explosion was heard in the city. This time, the taregt was the French contingent in the Multinational Force in Lebanon that had been deployed in Beirut to help authorities counter the impact of Israel’s 1982 invasion of the capital.
The “Islamic Jihad” declared its responsibility for the attacks, claiming it was seeking the expulsion of the multinational forces. Hezbollah had not been officially established at the time.
Little was known about the suicide-bomber. He was reportedly called Abou Zeinab and debate had focused on whether he was Lebanese or Iranian. However, the message he carried before his body was blown to bits became clear later.
Iran is demanding a seat on the shores of the Mediterranean. It is insisting that it alone occupy this seat. It will not allow any other international or regional power to book a place for itself there. This is indeed what happened.
When the multinational force quit Lebanon, Iran managed to consolidate its seat on the Mediterranean after a wide segment of the Lebanese people revolted in protest against the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The pullout of the Syrian forces from Lebanon allowed Iran to establish a firm seat on the Mediterranean that it used to help save the Damascus regime with Russia’s help.
Abou Zeinab’s operation was the first suicide or “martyrdom” attack of that era. It took place years before Hamas and the “Jihad” would launch similar operations in the Palestinian territories to kill the Oslo Accords. By signing the accords, Yasser Arafat agreed to return the Palestinian cause back to its soil. This was one way of allowing the Palestinians to independently make their own decisions. Arafat was adamant on this even during the Israeli invasion of Beirut.
The accords would prevent countries that had exploited the Palestinian cause from continuing these practices and effectively would have prevented Iran from booking its permanent seat on the Palestinian train.
Another date. This time 15 years ago in Sanaa. After a long talk, President Ali Abdullah Saleh asked me: “What does Lebanon seek to gain from some of the practices that are taking place on its soil?” I asked him to elaborate, so he explained that groups of Houthi youths are heading to Damascus under the excuse of tourism. But they are actually being allowed to enter Lebanon illegally. He said Yemeni intelligence found out that Hezbollah was training the Houthis in the Bekaa region.
Saleh was trying to convince himself that the Hezbollah experience in Lebanon would not be replicated in Yemen given the differences in the country’s sectarian fabric and regional location. He also wondered what Bashar al-Assad was seeking to gain by dedicating himself completely to the Iranian agenda.
Later, Iran would approach the American invasion of Iraq with unusual realism. It banked on its geographic location and several other common factors. In March 2008, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad visited Baghdad that was still occupied by the Americans. The Americans later withdrew, and Iran booked in Baghdad an influential seat in the formation of governments, presidents and policies.
The Syrian regime cracked under the “Arab Spring” and consolidated Tehran’s influential and decisive position in Damascus. Iran would book its seat in Sanaa through the Houthis.
When Israel launched its barbaric and destructive war on the Gaza Strip in retaliation to the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation, questions arose over what cards Iran can play in countering Israel’s attempt to destroy its ally Hamas and the “Jihad”.
Hezbollah in Lebanon became involved in a battle of pestering the Israeli army, but it soon became evident that the party was reluctant about dragging a beleaguered Lebanon into a destructive war. Involving Syria also appeared unlikely due to several factors, including the Russian military deployment and the several armies and militias active there.
So, Iran had to use its Houthi card and target trade in the Red Sea.
The move created a major crisis. Twelve percent of global trade passes through this vital waterway and it accounts for 40 percent of trade between Asia and Europe. If trade in the Red Sea is affected, then vessels would have to take the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope to reach their destinations. This means an increase in costs.
If the threat were to expand to the Arabian Sea, where a third of global oil supplies transit, then the economic cost would be much greater. Of course, we mustn’t forget the impact the crisis will have on the Suez Canal and the revenues it generates to Egypt.
The Houthis’ repeated attacks on trade vessels prompted the US to declare the launch of Operation Prosperity Guardian and formation of a multinational coalition to secure marine navigation in the Red Sea. Washington went beyond accusing Iran of ordering the Houthis to carry out the attacks by directly blaming it for attacks on the vessels.
So now, the Red Sea has become a front line in the conflict between Iran and the US, which had for decades avoided sliding into a direct confrontation with Iran. Washington had been so keen on avoiding this clash that it had turned a blind eye to the role the Houthis are playing in Yemen and Iran’s permanent seat there.
On the practical level, Iran is demanding that the US prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from taking out Hamas and “Jihad” from the Gaza equation. In return, it will stop the Red Sea attacks. The questions here are: Where is the Gaza battle headed? Can the US succumb to the demand and allow Iran to book a permanent seat and hold the keys to freedom of navigation in such a vital international waterway in the Red Sea?
