Following the reelection of George
W. Bush, it is but natural to ask whether Iran would
be the next target for attack during his second
term. His doctrine of “preemptive attack”
expounded in justification of the invasion of Iraq
has been reprised by him several times during the
election campaign. As recently as October 30, 2004,
he asserted: “We are on the offensive around
the world, because the best way to prevent future
attacks is to go after the enemy”.
In his State of the Union address
of January 20, 2004, he had included Iran as a component
of “the axis of evil”. He had done so
because he said, “Iran aggressively pursues
these (nuclear) weapons and exports terror”.
According to the Newsweek of September
26, 2004, military top brass were “updating
plans for possible US military action in Syria and
Iran”.
Researcher, author and commentator,
Mark Gaffney, has warned that the United States
and its ally Israel will either accede to the existence
of an Iranian nuclear program or take steps to prevent
it.
A word here about US-Iran relations.
Exemplary friendship existed between the two bilaterally,
as well as multilaterally under CENTO, till a group
of revolutionaries led by the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini
overthrew in 1979 the US-backed Pahlavi monarchy.
On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students
invaded the US Embassy in Teheran and took some
55 staff members as hostage. The hostages were released
after 444 days in January 1981 in a give and take
deal. Relations have remained strained till now.
During 1997-98 friendly gestures by President Khatami
of Iran and President Clinton of the US held out
hopeful signs of rapprochement.
Benefits of reconciliation are significant
for both countries. Iran is a preferred pipeline
route for Caspian Sea and Central Asian oil. Better
relations will help augment economic growth of Iran.
Considering the low standing of Iran economically
and militarily, a reconciliation with the US would
have been quite easy. But, Iran is viewed by Israel
as a potential threat to its very existence. And,
Iran is conscious of Israel’s antagonism,
its nuclear arsenal, and the steps it has already
taken in concert with the US, to de-fang, and turn
into rubble, all those neighboring states that do
not cater to its design of a greater Israel overarching
the region.
Iran’s anxiety to go nuclear
appears to emanate from this challenge and apprehension.
And, in view of what Mr. Bush calls “unique
relationship of the US with Israel” any threat
to Israel is regarded as a threat to the US Iraq
was no threat to the US but it certainly was one
to Israel. Saddam was financing the families of
suicide bombers of Palestine.
Iran might not be too far from accomplishing
its nuclear ambitions. Would not Israel persuade
the US to agree to a preemptive strike on Iran’s
nuclear sites before it is too late?
The victory in the elections and the
ensuing euphoria, the pressure of the neo-cons who
passionately support Israel, and the enormous military
might of the U.S., might incite President Bush to
indulge in his doctrine of preemptive strike. But,
certain factors create doubts about his adopting
such a course. To begin with, he is badly entangled
in the Iraqi quagmire. Instead of the cake walk,
flower petals and read carpet, the U.S. finds itself
entangled in an ugly insurgency that is not tapering
off. And, the large military budget expended in
Iraq is already creating fiscal pressures on the
treasury. The economy of the country is not yet
out of the doldrums. The dollar has gone down in
value vis-à-vis the Euro and other currencies.
If the tre nd continues owing to additional war
expenditure in Iran, the Euro might bid to replace
the dollar as the international reserve currency.
One of the reasons for attack on Iraq, some economists
point out, was Saddam’s preference of Euro
over dollar for payment of Iraqi oil.
That brings us back to the possibility
of a negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear
crisis. The Group of Eight industrialized states
are already seeking a negotiated resolution. Iran
has been offered economic aid and assistance for
its civilian nuclear energy program. But, Iran is
equivocal.
The International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, is likely to come
up with some proposals at its November 25 meeting.
The IAEA has not yet found palpable evidence of
Iran working towards nuclear weapons. There is no
smoking gun. It cannot therefore recommend to the
Security Council imposition of sanctions.
As for direct talks between the US
and Iran, the authorities of Iran do not rule them
out but maintain that talks could take place “if
America drops its position of threats”. At
the same time Iran has assured European governments
that Iran would enrich uranium only to the level
required for the use in its nuclear reactors, as
permitted under the NPT - a treaty already signed
by Iran. It has all along maintained that, despite
its vast petroleum reserves, it needs to enrich
uranium to fuel its nuclear power plants. It cannot
rely on offers of fuel from foreign countries either.
President George Bush has many a time
called a nuclear-armed Iran “unacceptable”
to his government. US officials are unwilling to
deal direct with Iranian authorities. They are nevertheless
not advocating any unilateral action. They would
want the Security Council to deal with the matter.
If that body found Iran in noncompliance with the
NPT, the US may press for UN sanctions.
China, Russia and several European
countries have interests in Iran’s oil industry
and would likely oppose sanctions that interfered
with their respective national objectives..
As for the US going it alone or in
concert with Israel, the possibility appears quite
thin. For, the US military is already stretched
too much in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. A venture
in Iran will hardly have any domestic support.
The US or Israel could carry out a
disabling pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear
facilities. But, the Iranians are said to have spread
out their facilities in such a way that a one-time
strike would not throw the entire project out of
gear. It has to be a full-fledged invasion and occupation
like that of Iraq.
For a variety of reasons, Iran is
seeking nuclear weapons. The main reason is its
perception of the hostility of the US and Israel.
The fear is not without foundation, as already mentioned
above. The war in Iraq has diverted the attention
of its antagonists, giving it more time to pursue
its ambitions. As the former President Carter has
said: “We can’t deal with the impulse
to get the bomb, but we can stop them from getting
further”. Let us hope that this is done through
negotiations and not through a preemptive strike
with all its short and long term adverse effects
on the future of this great country.
Arifhussaini@hotmail.com
November 4, 2004
