Has Morsi really discovered Iran?

President Mohammed Morsi uncovered Iran without really discovering it.  He frankly and explicitly described the Syrian regime as "illegitimate” and at the same time considered Iran as a "part of the solution" in Syria – although the Iranian and the Syrian regime as one body with officials clearly stating that the war launched by the regime on the Syrian people is "Iran’s war" as well. Iran cannot be part of the solution in Syria because Iran is a key part and a crux of the problem. It considers itself as an integral part of the Syrian regime or its parents, especially after President Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father in 2000. Whoever seeks for a solution in Syria through Iran is looking for no more than a mirage. It is a rotation in a vicious circle which provides more time for the Syrian regime to continue the war on its own people, destroy more homes, villages, towns, cities and continue to displace more Syrians to areas inside or outside the country. Perhaps, the Egyptian president had a good intention when he talked about the need to involve Iran in a solution for the Syrian crisis; especially since he is a sensitive man who sympathises with the sufferings of the Syrian people and the risks of the crisis in this important Arab country. However, it is also crystal clear that President Morsi contradicts himself. When Morsi delivered a speech which was more than positive towards the Syrian people and their revolution at the Non-Aligned Summit that took place last month in Tehran, he spoke about the solution involving a regime which considers the war against the Syrian people its own war. It should be said that there is an error in the Egyptian presidential logic. This error is based on the illusion that Iran wants a solution in Syria on one hand, and that there is a difference between Iran and the Syrian regime on the other. The Saudi stance towards the Cairo meeting is also justified. During the quartet meeting, which took place at the level of Foreign Ministers and included representatives of Egypt, Turkey and Iran, the Kingdom boycotted the meeting as it adopted a clear position on the solution in Syria. This solution is based on the impossibility of the survival of a regime which is launching a war against its own people with an explicit Iranian participation. Therefore, there is no need for a quartet committee involving Iran or any committees of this kind. What is more important is developing a clear draft of the peaceful transition of power in Syria. All the other attempts are just a waste of time and provide a scope for further massacres that threat the unity of the Syrian territory on the long term. Is this what Tehran is looking for? Tehran insists there is no alternative but the current Syrian regime and its fall will be a blow to it and its regional strategy. The question, which is very confusing, is related to the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey, which wants to avoid a direct confrontation with Iran and at the same time wants to keep pace with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, is not able to reject participating in the Cairo meeting. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, which is fully aware of what is going on in Syria and attempted to rehabilitate the regime even after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and his companions in 2005, is aware that there is no room for wasting more time and it is impossible to separate between the Syrian and Iranian regimes. Saudi Arabia took the right decision when it boycotted the Cairo meeting. It is hoped now that President Morsi knows that the logical complement of his speech at the Non-Aligned summit is to take a strong and clear stance against the Iranian - Syrian axis whose only aim is to enslave the Syrians and humiliate them and trade with Palestine and the Palestinians as well as Lebanon and the Lebanese and to ignite the sectarian strife in Iraq and to directly interfere in Bahrain. Amid such unclear Egyptian position towards the Iranian - Syrian axis, it is easier for Cairo to commit more mistakes in dealing with Gaza and terrorism, which is spreading in Sinai and is basically the "Islamic Emirate" set up by "Hamas" in the Strip and is clearly supported by the Iranian and Syrian regimes and their tools. It seems that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have to choose between the logic of the revolution and the logic of the state. They have achieved unprecedented success in seizing the revolution that overthrew the regime of Hosni Mubarak, and also in taking away the existing military regime since 1952. They were so clever at using the military to face Mubarak and his family, taking advantage of their hostility to inheritance. Currently, the Muslim Brotherhood is in power. They have a President of the Republic in the largest Arab country. Egypt cannot support the Syrian people and their killers at the same time. Egypt cannot back the “Islamic Emirate”, which was set up by Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian national reconciliation and fight terrorism in Sinai at the same time. Egypt has to choose. Is the Muslim Brotherhood's behaviour based on their desire for power, using and justifying all means to achieve this goal, prevents them from choice? --- The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.