Abdelbari Atwan
The recent outbreak of alarmist warnings by US defence officials regarding Iran's military capabilities – a long range missile able to strike the US homeland by 2015 among them – is reminiscent of the build up to the invasion of Iraq, when Tony Blair assured the British public that Saddam Hussein's missiles could reach them in just 40 minutes. In other words, such claims, however far-fetched, are proven harbingers of war.
It seems that the Obama administration is split with regard to Iran. One side hopes that diplomacy – with or without an accompaniment of sanctions - might yet prove successful. The other is clearly in favour of military action.
Let us consider the possible outcomes of both courses.
When Barack Obama was sworn in he offered Iran an 'unclenched fist', proposed face to face negotiations and has written at least two personal letters to President Ahmadinejad. These overtures met with little enthusiasm from the Iranian side.
In September 2009, the existence of a secret Uranium enrichment plant at Qom forced a new flurry of threats and warnings. The Iranians engaged in some almost playful brinksmanship and prevarication, yielding nothing.
A new proposal followed – that Iran should engage in civil nuclear co-operation with the west. Obama attached a deadline – December 2009 – which passed, ignored.
In January 2010, however, Ahmadinejad seemed to be on the point of agreeing a deal with Russia whereby the bulk of Iran's low-enriched uranium would be exported for further enrichment and converted into fuel rods. This would have reduced the Iranian stockpile to an extent where it would no longer be capable of producing a nuclear weapon.
On 8 February, however, Iran formally announced its intention to open additional nuclear facilities and enrich its own uranium to 20 percent. As if to underline this defiance, Ahmadinejad made an additional statement trumpeting Iran's latest hardware development: laser-guided missiles, 'invisible' to the helicopters they are designed to shoot down.
Although enrichment to 20 percent is a lengthy process, taking at least a year, the next stage – to the 90 percent required for a nuclear warhead – only takes six months.
Many in the international community have concluded that Iran's policy has been, and remains, to stall for time while it gathers the necessary materials to present the world with a nuclear fait accompli – as North Korea did in 2006.
A diplomatic solution then, seems increasingly unlikely.
Sanctions – used to devastating effect in Iraq (accounting for the deaths, over 13 years, of more than a million innocent citizens, the majority children) and Afghanistan – are unlikely to make the same impact in Iran. In fact sanctions in one form or another have been ongoing since the 1979 Islamic Revolution when the US froze around $12 billion worth of Iranian assets held in America.
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is not land-locked, with open sea to the south. Sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan, failed states with porous borders, its imports and exports are difficult to monitor, let alone control. Within Iraq, furthermore, Iran holds more sway then the US due to the long-standing ties it has with many in the ruling elite. Northern neighbours such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are also friendly to Iran.
International solidarity, in the form of UN resolutions to make sanctions more effective, continue to elude the US since Russia and (particularly) China, vigorously oppose them. These emerging superpowers support Iran for pragmatic, largely business, reasons and because they oppose US hegemony in the region.
Hopes that a velvet revolution in Iran would bring about the regime change the US longs for are fading. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi recently suggested that he would stand united with the current regime in the event of a US attack.
Ahmadinejad meanwhile, having blocked all diplomatic channels, seems to be actively courting a military confrontation.
When President Obama recently excluded Iran and North Korea from its new limits for the use of atomic weapons, Ahmadinejad interpreted this as a threat and responded in kind.
This Thursday, Iran's combined naval, air and ground forces started sea-borne exercises in the Strait of Hormuz – 40 percent of the world's sea-borne oil passes through this immensely strategic stretch of water.
In the event of a US strike on Iran, Ahmadinejad says he will close the Strait of Hormuz and may also bomb oil fields in the Gulf, sending oil prices rocketing. He has also threatened to target US interests in the region – easily done in Iraq, for example, where much of the army has been drawn from what were previously private militia formed by Iran-backed Shi'a warlords.
Whilst Obama is understandably hesitant about engaging in yet another war, Israel - the only nuclear power in the Middle East - is banging the drums of war. Capable of launching an atomic weapons attack on Iran itself, or launching unilateral strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, it would prefer that the mighty US dealt a lethal blow to its longstanding foe. Fearing strikes from any or all of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran in the event of a widening conflict, Israeli citizens are already being equipped with gas masks in anticipation of an attack.
With 200,000 troops still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan – not to mention the parlous state of its economy - it seems unlikely that the US would readily engage in a ground war with Iran; if President Obama takes the military option it is likely to be in the form of a massive pre-emptive strike from the air.
Though Iran would certainly lose in terms of conventional warfare, it has other means at its disposal to hurt its adversary with sleeper cells of agents, and alliances with guerrilla armies (like Hezbollah), in several countries. Any attack on Iran would be a green light for Hezbollah to strike Israel. The Pentagon recently accused Syria of arming Hezbollah with Scud missiles and Israel has threatened to wipe Syria off the map if it is attacked.
It is this diabolical cocktail of a rapidly expanding conflict mixed with the threat of nuclear strikes that makes this latest stand-off so frightening – for the region and the world.
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment