Antoine Hayek, dans An-Nashra, interprète la position de l’ambassadeur saoudien dans le cadre d’un remodelage régional de l’influence saoudienne et iranienne. L’anecdote de la tour Khalifa, détruite par un seul missile iranien, vise à montrer que les pays du Golfe ne peuvent se permettre le moindre début d’hostilité avec l’Iran et que l’heure est venue, sous le patronage américain et russe, de se répartir mieux les rôles : à l’Arabie le leadership sunnite, pourvu que les chiites soient reconnus comme une composante importante dans la région.
“An Arab diplomat who has been working at the United Nations for decades, said that while he was accompanying a senior American diplomat on an official visit to the Dubai Emirate to meet with a senior Gulf prince – whose opinion is valued in his country – and during a very secret meeting held in a hotel overlooking Burj al-Arab, the American official, and after praising the construction wave in the Emirate, expressed his admiration towards the aforementioned tower for showing signs of economic growth. After a period of silence, the Arab prince responded by saying: “You see this great tower, it would take one Iranian missile to destroy it to the ground and bring back the image of the barren desert.”
“The statements of the Arab prince did not go down easily, considering that the veteran American diplomat relayed in the report he raised to his country’s Department of State the opinion of the Gulf prince. Therefore, this comment was deeply debated and discussed by the Department of State, which eventually reached the conclusion that the Arab and Gulf states did not want any military war with Iran, in order to protect their economic and oil interests, considering that any miscalculation could take the Gulf and oil states decades backward. Indeed, this is true in light of the Iranian missile capability which exceeds the military capabilities of all the Gulf states combined. Hence, the ongoing maneuvers between Iran on one hand and Washington on the other, should not exceed the point of exerting pressures to earn the largest possible concessions.
“The Arab-UN diplomat said that what pushed him to reveal this incident was to confirm that the developments witnessed on the Lebanese arena during the past weeks was the result of an Iranian-Saudi understanding which saw the light under joint American-Russian tutelage, after the American-Iranian talks went beyond the limits of the nuclear file by far, i.e. tackled the nature of the Iranian role as the policemen of the Gulf and the guarantor of its security, that of its neighbors and the Strait of Hormuz, in parallel to the progress along the course of the American-Russian talks over the Syrian crisis. Speaking of Lebanon, the diplomat considered that nothing drastic will be achieved in the few coming days or weeks, indicating that the solutions were awaiting the advancement of the Saudi-Iranian understanding.
“At a time when the first is trying to strip its “frenemy” Qatar of the Sunni card…, the second is stressing the necessity of maintaining the Iranian Shi’i branch throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, including in Lebanon. Consequently, Tehran does not mind the Saudi step or seeing Hezbollah contacting the Kingdom, as long as the Saudi demand is limited to the Sunni card and not the Islamic one in general… However, what concerns the diplomat is the mystery surrounding the Qatari position which is refusing to relinquish this Sunni card, even if in favor of the interests of the largest and richest Gulf state. Hence, the regional and international focus is now on Doha’s reaction, especially after it burned many of its cards in the fire of the Syrian crisis, which has been ablaze for more than two years.”
