December 23, 2011
War on Iran: A Risky Option
The ever-increasing rhetoric by several Republican Presidential hopefuls, by neo-cons with deep commitment to Israel, by a section of the conservative media, and by pro-Israel lobbies to launch a war against Iran has posed a serious challenge to the Obama administration.
Under Obama’s watch, the US has pursued a policy of peace and settlement of international conflicts through negotiations. The war in Iraq has ended and the last American soldier will be out of that country by the end of this month – Dec. 31, 2011. A firm decision has been taken to pull out all foreign soldiers from Afghanistan before the end of 2014.
President Obama was awarded Nobel Peace Prize early in his tenure for his firm commitment to peace in the world. His speech accepting the award lays down his doctrine: pursuit of peace through patience and resort to force only after complete exhaustion of all options. His overtures for peace and conflict resolution, earned him in Iran the sobriquet “OO BA MA”. It means in Farsi ‘he is with us’.
Mr. Obama had offered, during his election campaign, unconditional talks with Iran. Iranian leadership welcomed this enthusiastically. International talks on Iran’s nuclear program were held in Geneva on July 19, 2008. The second round took place in December 2010. These marked the engagement of Iran instead of confrontation that might have led to armed conflict. The talks were attended by Iran on one side and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany on the other. Although Iran refused to abandon its nuclear enrichment program since it claimed it was for production of electric power only, there was some progress on the inspection regime of its nuclear installations. Iran’s complaint about the assassinations of its nuclear scientists was noted with regret by the Western participants.
The belligerent posture of President Bush had, on the other hand, categorized Iran as one the three countries of the world constituting the Axis of Evil –the other two being Iraq and North Korea. This was an unbearable affront to the self-respecting Iranians who still remember the golden period of their empire that ruled over the then civilized world.
It is Mr. Obama’s conviction that an economically hit America has to pare down its foreign commitments. He refuses to set goals “that go beyond our responsibility, our means and our interests”. The decision to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be viewed in this perspective also, apart from his principled stand on the resolution of major international issues.
Some recent incidents have, however, roiled further the disconcerting situation over Iran’s nuclear program. Last month, UN inspectors released a report alleging, “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device”. Iranian President called it an “American fabrication”. A few days later the United States and other major Western powers took significant steps to cut Iran off from the international financial system. The measures
tightened the chokehold on Iran’s banking and finance. The US also imposed sanctions on companies involved in Iran’s nuclear industry.
Iranian authorities focused much of their ire on Britain. On November 29, 2011, radical youths of Iran stormed the British embassy in Teheran to protest the tightened economic sanctions against Iran. London recalled its entire staff and closed its mission in Teheran. Consequently, Iranian mission in London was also closed down. The incident reminds one of the Iranian youth’s attacks on the US embassy in Teheran in November 1979 in which 53 members of the mission were taken hostage and detained for 444 days.
Also in November, a huge explosion destroyed a major missile-testing site near Teheran. It was the central testing site for advanced solid-fuel missiles. This kind of fuel is said to be better suited than older liquid-fuel designs for carrying warheads long distance. Also, they can be launched instantly.
By far the most significant recent development has been the capture by Iran early this month (December) of a CIA’s stealth drone, RQ-170 Sentinel. Iran announced the event on December 4, 2011.
Iranian defense forces claim to have captured the batwing, unmanned aircraft with radar-evading technology, through a digital attack on the craft’s avionics, which caused it to land safely inside northern Iran. American officials have attributed the episode to a technical malfunction of the craft, rather than any innovative digital technology and electronic ambush as claimed by the Iranians.
The robotic surveillance aircraft was being used as part of intensified efforts to monitor suspect nuclear sites in Iran.
The Iranian Parliament passed a resolution calling the drone incursion “evidence of international terrorism and a blatant violation of international law by the aggressor, America”. It said Iran might seek reparation from Washington.
Diplomatic ties between Iran and the US have remained broken since the sacking of the American embassy in Teheran 32 years ago. Pakistan’s Embassy in Washington has since been looking after the Iranian interests in the US, while the Swiss mission in Teheran has been attending to US interests in Iran.
President Obama’s offer of unconditional talks with Iran to restore normalcy in mutual relations and the international talks in Geneva have been disrupted by the incidents mentioned above and by intensive lobbying that Iran had reached the threshold of acquiring nuclear capability and that its nuclear installations should be destroyed before it builds the technology to convert enriched uranium into nuclear weapons.
That is where the dilemma of the Obama administration lies. Should it succumb to the jingoistic pressure and enter into the third war in Muslim countries, or maintain and reinforce its efforts to engage Iran in peace and normalcy talks.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have badly damaged the economies and potentials of both; but it has also taken a heavy toll of the thriving, throbbing American socio-economic structure. Globalization, the ultimate stage of capitalism and Adam Smith’s free trade theory, have shifted a good portion of US manufacturing to China, benefiting only the greedy, profit-seeking multinational corporations and giving rise to the ‘Occupation Wall St.” movement. The war in Iraq, viewed objectively and from the national interest of the US, was a totally wasteful exercise. There was some justification in the war against Afghanistan/Al Qaeda. But the cost/benefit ratio was tilted against the American people, irrespective of what people like Dick Cheney say. Iraq had no WMDs and was not a “gathering threat to America”. It was indeed a continuing threat to Israel.
Almost similar is the case of Iran. To Israel it may be an “existential threat” but to the US it is but an irritation that can be removed through negotiations. The United States has, in the words of George Bush, a “unique relationship” with Israel. True. But would that justify another war and another dent into an economy that has barely started recovering from the ill-conceived policies of the Bush era? The impact on world economy would be disastrous if Iran carries out the threat to close the Gulf.
It is for President Obama and his administration to decide. He is likely to elect for a place in history by sticking to his principled stand than give in to the pressures of the myopic warmongers. That way he will avoid a risky option and also uphold the trust placed in him by the world community in the grant of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Arifsyedhussaini@Gmail.com
