THE recent surge in rhetoric over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, combined with a concerted effort to dislodge the Assad regime in Syria, suggests the Middle East’s volatility, fuelled since the turn of the year by popular rebellions across the region as well as the western military intervention in Libya, will acquire new dimensions in the months ahead.

The Arab League’s initiatives in relation to Syria could, on the face of it, be viewed as a relatively positive phenomenon, given that in such circumstances regional diplomacy is invariably preferable to neocolonial belligerence.

It would be unwise, however, to ignore the implications of the fact that whereas neighbouring nations that have lately experienced civil wars of varying intensity — notably Iraq, Lebanon and Algeria — were singularly unenthusiastic about the hawkish stance, the League’s ultimatums were propelled by absolute monarchies whose fortunes are intricately enmeshed with western strategic interests.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has long viewed the Islamic Republic of Iran as a threat, and the opportunity to rupture the alliance between Tehran and Damascus obviously could not be taken lightly. There isn’t much of a contradiction between its direct role in repressing the largely peaceful rebellion in Bahrain and supporting the violent opposition to Bashar al-Assad: after all, Bahrain is a Shia-majority state under Sunni rule, whereas in Syria it’s the other way around.

Meanwhile, tiny Qatar, which was disproportionately influential in instigating hostilities against the Qadhafi regime in Libya, has been keen to embark on a comparable course in Syria. Its Al Jazeera channel, enthusiastically covering the revolutionary wave in the Arab world, was considerably more reticent when it came to Bahrain. It clearly couldn’t be a coincidence that Qatari forces participated in the Saudi-led intervention to quell the Bahraini uprising.

Qatar’s broader regional aims are the subject of speculation, but its own commitment to the democracy it wishes on others is demonstrated by the announcement earlier this month that two-thirds of a presumably toothless royal advisory committee would be popularly elected two years hence. Wow. How impressive.

On the Iranian front, the WikiLeaks cables made it clear that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies were as keen as Israel on an American military attack — and there have been troubling indications this month on that score, beginning with leaks about Israeli and British war preparations, conveniently followed by an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report suggesting that Tehran may indeed be on the verge of obtaining critical mass.

Although Israel purportedly views this prospect as an existential threat, and is able to cite some of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s outrageous statements as supporting evidence, it is highly interesting that information about Israel’s readiness for a unilateral strike is believed to have been leaked by former heads of Shin Bet, Mossad and the Israeli army, who are convinced that such action would produce disastrous consequences.

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, a former head of the CIA, has publicly indicated that he shares this opinion.

It has been suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are engaged primarily in a psychological crusade, hoping that the threat of obliteration will suffice to deter Iran from weaponising its missiles.

There is also evidently an ongoing campaign of sabotage, ranging from defective parts and computer worms to a blast earlier this month in the Alghadir missile base 30 miles from Tehran which claimed the life of Hassan Moghaddam, who has been described as the architect of Iran’s missile programme. The Iranians insist it was an accident, but published reports cite the likelihood of a Mossad plot — by no means the first of its kind.

Iran has consistently denied that it plans to manufacture nuclear weapons and hardly anybody believes it — although a number of commentators have pertinently pointed out that the myth about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction was also widely accepted ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the IAEA report has failed to highlight anything that could be construed as a smoking gun.

Others have made the point that while Iran may well be effectively nuclear-capable, this is a situation that the world will have to learn to live with. It would indeed be a violation of its commitments as a signatory (unlike Israel, India and Pakistan) to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but then other signatories too could be deemed guilty of violating its stated aims by refusing to make any discernible progress towards nuclear disarmament.

There are, no doubt, serious dangers inherent in proliferation, but Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East is surely as indefensible and reprehensible as the prospect of nuclearisation by Iran or, for that matter the threat by Saudi Arabia to follow suit.

A nuclear-free Middle East would indeed be desirable (as, for that matter, would be a world free of nuclear weapons), but hypocrisy — both within the region and on the part of the West — will get us nowhere.

Likewise, democratic pluralism would be most welcome in Syria and Libya — as it would in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Not to mention Egypt, where the renewed congregations at Tahrir Square testify to an unfinished revolution, amid indications that elections might be put off by the junta that succeeded Hosni Mubarak.

As US forces prepare to leave Iraq after almost a decade of havoc, the need to avoid further bloodshed in the region must be paramount. Chances are, though, that it will be trumped by the determination to retain control over its natural resources as well as to prop up Israel’s military dominance.

A number of Barack Obama’s would-be Republican challengers have voiced absurdly belligerent opinions on the Iranian front, albeit as part of a generally lunatic outlook on affairs in general.

Notwithstanding his relatively firmer grasp of reality, Obama has frequently acted unwisely during his incumbency and may do so again. The US has thus far sought to deter Israel from aggression against Iran without consultation. As on so many other fronts, it may need to do better than that.

mahir.dawn@gmail.com