By: Claude Salhani – Middle East Times

Is the Arab-Israeli peace process salvageable? That question was raised Tuesday at a luncheon discussion hosted by the Nixon Center in Washington. The speaker was Aaron David Miller, a man who has advised six U.S. secretaries of state and a former Arab-Israeli peace negotiator.

A young Jewish settler girl dressed as a princess and holding a wand stands before an Israeli guard tower during the Jewish holiday of Purim in the divided West Bank town of Hebron on March 10. The festival of Purim commemorates the rescue of Jews from genocide in ancient Persia. (Sipa Photo via Newscom)

Indeed, the situation in the Middle East today renders that question, posed in that way, no longer pertinent. Rather the question should be framed in the following manner: “Is there still an Arab-Israeli peace process? Or perhaps that process should be renamed ‘the broader Middle East peace process,’ assuming peace talks involving all the new actors in the extended conflict ever gets back on track.

Why? Because what used to be known as the Arab-Israeli dispute has now morphed into the Arab-Israeli-Persian dispute.

What used to be a relatively straightforward conflict over real estate has become a complicated war of religion, natural resources, and of course real estate – but with one more explosive ingredient, if you will excuse the pun: nuclear weapons.

Until now Israel was the only country in the region armed with nuclear bombs and the technology and capability to deliver those bombs. No one, including American presidents, liked to talk about Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Enter Iran into the fold, a non-Arab country and one that does not border on Israel; a country that has no contention with Israel, no land dispute, and no bad history. Until now.

Until now because the crisis in the Middle East has split into multiple crises, like regenerating cells, each forming a new crisis. Today we can no longer talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather we need to differentiate between the Israeli-Palestinian disputes – plural. The one between Israel and the West Bankers; the Israeli-Hamas dispute, the Israeli-Hezbollah dispute, the Israeli-Syrian dispute, and maybe even an internal Israeli-Israeli conflict.

“Rarely have I seen a situation more dysfunctional and complex,” said Miller, now a senior fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and author of “The Much Too Promised Land.”

The ever-expanding complexity of the Middle East crisis is making it all the more difficult to resolve. One of the difficulties lies in the fact that all these emerging sub-conflicts are interrelated, making the solution of one unrealistic without the solution of the others.

“In Palestine you have Humpty Dumpty that has fallen off the wall,” said Miller. “You have two polities, two sets of how to approach the problem with Israel. Unity between the Palestinians is unlikely. That in turn renders peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians unlikely.

Then, as Miller pointed out, “You have Syria with one foot inside the peacemaking tent and one foot inside the trouble-making tent.”

And Israel, says the former adviser, is undergoing a transition. But at the same time, the country is more dysfunctional than it ever was in its history, with a “weak and non-authoritative government.”

And if that were not enough, the Iranian element is added to the mix. As Miller pointed out, “There will be no Israeli-Syrian agreement until the Iranian nuclear dossier is solved.”

But just how do you solve that dossier?

There are two ways out of the Iranian nuclear impasse. And neither is very likely to lead to a conclusive peace agreement in the Middle East.

The first is if Iran voluntarily reneges on its nuclear aspirations. The chances of that happening are about as good as an ayatollah becoming pope.

The second option is if Israel destroys some of Iran’s nuclear making capability. That would only amplify the crisis and augment the level of animosity between Iran and Israel.

But oh yes, there is a third alternative: accept a nuclear powered Iran. This would not only make Israel very nervous, but many Arab nations too, and it could kick off a nuclear proliferation race in the Middle East.

Only two weeks ago Iran stated that Bahrain, the smallest Arab country, belonged to Tehran. A problem which began at one end of the broader Middle East, in the Gulf, has suddenly reached the other end of the region with Morocco breaking off diplomatic relations with the Islamic republic over its statements regarding Bahrain.

Why is that worth a mention? Because the last time a leader in the same region (Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein) claimed a smaller neighbor (Kuwait) as his, it led to a major war.

There are no indications that Iran is about to invade Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, but as Miller pointed out, “If you ignore the past, the past becomes a cruel and unforgivable teacher.”