| |
COMMENTARY
US dusts off nuclear
card
By Ehsan Ahrari
The
United States' strategy of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq ran
into a sobering phase of "Shock of Pause" when Iraqis
started to show the power of a fledgling democracy by
demanding the establishment of an Iran-style Islamic
government, an option that was nightmarish for the
administration of President George W Bush and his
neo-conservatives inside and outside the government. But
this period of pause - a duration when the US was
attempting to reconstitute its policy regarding regime
change - had to come to an end. The rationale of regime
change has to be reformulated for the next targets, or a
determination has to be made whether regime change
should be shelved indefinitely as the US attempts to
bring stability to two countries - Afghanistan and Iraq
- where regime change has brought no high promises of
stability or legitimacy for what replaced the previous
governments.
In Afghanistan, al-Qaeda is
gathering strength and the authority and legitimacy of
President Hamid Karzai has remained under grave
challenge. Iraq continues to pose an equally somber
challenge in terms of establishing law and order. The US
occupiers remain highly unpopular and demands for their
ouster continue to echo in the streets of Baghdad,
Faluja, Najaf and Karbala. The creation of an interim
government appears to have been pushed back by a few
more weeks or even months.
But the Bush
administration remains neither fazed nor disheartened.
Washington is a world unto itself. Discussions of
strategic realities in this city, more often than not,
do not reflect the realities on the ground in
Afghanistan, Iraq or any other city that becomes the
focal point of America's foreign policy at any given
time.
Now there is widespread talk in Washington
about putting pressure on the Iranian government, or
even bringing about regime change in that country. The
troubling part of this "talk" is that it is not just
empty chatter. Palpable policy changes are in the air.
The back-channel diplomatic dialogue between Tehran and
Washington has been discontinued, a disconcerting
development indeed. The strongest reason was the
unsubstantiated accusation that Iran was involved in the
al-Qaeda suicide attacks in Riyadh on May 12. The US has
ratcheted up the anti-Iran rhetoric, suggesting that
al-Qaeda terrorists are hiding in that country. Iran
strongly denies both accusations. More to the point, the
US has increased its pressure on the International
Atomic Energy Agency to issue a critical report on
Iran's nuclear programs. This measure was taken after
Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected another
attempt - this time by Secretary of State Colin Powell -
to get Russia to stop assisting Iran in its nuclear
program.
But simply lumping Iran in the
so-called "axis of evil" category with Iraq and North
Korea will not become a sound enough rationale for
invading that country. After encountering the strongest
opposition from its closest allies prior to the invasion
of Iraq, the Bush administration knows that it has to do
a lot of groundwork before preparing for any semblance
of regime change in Iran. Incidentally, regime change
for Iran is not limited to a military campaign. Other
options, such as an intense propaganda war, also are
being considered, given the already noticeable degree of
tensions inside Iran. The thinking in Washington is -
wishful to be sure - that merely calling on Iranian
youth to overthrow the existing government will result
in another implosion in Iran a la the Islamic
Revolution of 1978. Even if such a development were to
materialize, no one is thinking about its implications
for regional stability, especially with no governmental
authority in neighboring Iraq.
The usual
tensions between the Department of State (DOS) and the
Department of Defense (DOD) already have resurfaced
involving Iran. The DOS has listed the Mujahideen-e
Khalq (MEK) as a terrorist organization. Thus, it was
scheduled to be targeted by the United States. However,
the DOD started envisaging it as a military force to be
used against Iran in a potential military campaign, much
like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. But the DOS
was winning that argument and the White House ordered
the Pentagon to disarm the MEK this month.
Representatives of the Iranian government were also
informed of that decision on May 3. However, the suicide
attacks in Riyadh on May 12 seem to have strengthened
the DOD's perspectives on the potential use of the MEK
in the future.
As the Bush administration starts
its focus on the roadmap for peace between the
Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel, Iran's
support of Hezbollah and other violent groups in the
occupied territories have also become another source of
tension between Washington and Tehran.
Needless
to say, Iran is in an entirely different category from
Iraq. But that reality is not likely to constrain the
Bush administration. The most contentious part of
differences between Iran and the United States is the
former's nuclear and missile development programs, about
which Israel has consistently produced alarming
analyses, and the neo-conservatives in the US have
bought those analyses lock, stock and barrel. In the
aftermath of September 11, 2001, the US has gradually
established a muscular policy of denying all previous
so-called "rogue" nations, and now nations of the "axis
of evil", any weapons of mass destruction. So Iran's
choices in this regard are rather stark. It should
either abandon its nuclear program - regardless of its
assurance that it has no plans of developing nuclear
weapons - or face preemption and/or regime change. It is
only a matter of time before such a clear-cut demand is
made on the ayatollahs.
Ehsan Ahrari,
PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent
strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2003 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
