As a
number of public opinion polls show a sustained, if not
growing, lead that US President George W Bush enjoys over
his Democratic Party opponent John Kerry, the
neo-conservatives have started a whisper campaign of
possible regime change in Iran after the November
presidential election. The element of hubris for which
the neo-cons have been notorious is being applied
cavalierly about the almost inevitability of Bush's
re-election, even though much can happen before polling
day. If Bush is indeed re-elected, the world is likely to
encounter, if not a US military invasion of Iran,
believing the whisper campaign, then most likely a
preemptive neutralizing of all of its nuclear reactors.
Undoubtedly, Iran has intensified
the conflict by declaring on Tuesday that it had begun
"converting tons of uranium [oxide] into [uranium
hexafluoride] gas", a crucial step in making fuel for a
nuclear reactor - or a nuclear bomb. This was in
defiance to a recent call by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) for Iran to suspend all such
activities. President Mohammad Khatami added a rather
strange wrinkle to this episode by stating that the
world must recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium for
power stations, as if that right was as "natural" as the
right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. He
added, "Then the way will be open for further
cooperation. Iran is ready to continue its activities
under full IAEA supervision and convince the world it is
not considering atomic weapons." At least from its
public statements, Iran does not want to recognize the
linkages between its enrichment of uranium and possible
development of nuclear weapons. The US, on the other
hand, has concluded that Iran is well on its way to
developing nuclear weapons.
Iran now has a
full-blown credibility problem vis-a-vis the
international community. Last October it announced that
it would freeze all activities related to uranium
enrichment. That was a reasonable position, and many
countries - certainly a number of European states -
believed it. Within a matter of less than a year, its
government made a radical volte-face and depicted
uranium enrichment as a matter of "right".
Iran might be drawing the wrong lessons from the
ongoing US-North Korea nuclear weapons-related conflict.
Since Kim Jong-il is being intransigent about unraveling
his nuclear-weapons program, Iran seems to be operating from
the premise that it, too, can get away by adopting a
similar posture regarding its own nuclear program. It
doesn't realize that circumstances surrounding North
Korea's nuclear weapons program are starkly dissimilar
from its own program for several reasons.
First, North Korea is understood to possess nuclear
weapons. Such a reality makes it difficult for the US
seriously to consider implementing preemption. That is
not to say, however, that diplomatic pressure on North
Korea will lessen in the coming months, regardless of who
is sitting in the White House come January. Second,
the six-nation forum on the US-North Korea nuclear
weapons conflict might still pull off a negotiated solution
of that conflict, especially if China envisages high
enough payoffs stemming from its pressure on its ally.
Third, recent reports of South Korea's development of
highly enriched uranium, and even plutonium, was a setback
for the United States' hardnosed position that Pyongyang
unravel its nuclear-weapons program. Finally, the very nature
of threats related to even a nuclear North Korea are
not that grave, considering that its three neighbors
- Japan, Taiwan and South Korea - also
possess significantly sophisticated nuclear capabilities.
So even if North Korea becomes a nuclear power - or if
it already is in that category - those countries have
not couched their security-related threats in stark
terms. All three are protected under the US security
arrangements.
On the other hand, the
prospects of a nuclear Iran have already been portrayed by the
US and Israel as inherently threatening to the region,
and Israel in particular. One has to read some of
the published top national-security-related documents - such
as the National Security Strategy, the National Military
Strategy and the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review - to
grasp how serious the US is regarding the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, especially among the
so-called "axis of evil" states - Iraq, Iran and North
Korea. Most important, there is no great power that
would risk a serious rift with the US by even pretending
to come to the rescue of Iran.
It must be stated
that such grim portrayals notwithstanding, there is
still ample room for negotiations. However, the sole
purpose of such negotiations, at least from the US side,
is for Iran to cease imminently its enrichment of
uranium and, more to the point, be willing to cooperate
fully with the IAEA in future intrusive inspections.
Unfortunately from the point of view of Iran, in the
environment post-September 11, 2001, its nuclear programs
are clashing head-on with the overall US determination
to unravel such programs wherever it finds them: Libya,
North Korea and Iran. Of course, Libya is identified as
the shining success of America's nuclear
non-proliferation endeavor. North Korea's nuclear status
might have become a fait accompli , but it
is still not regarded as such in Washington. The
chief focus of the six-nations dialogue is to unravel it,
no matter what. That is why Washington is so
persistently and resolutely insisting that Iran stop all its
uranium-enrichment activities before they continue for too long.
What is also hurting Iran is the fact that the EU-3 (Germany,
France and the United Kingdom), which are negotiating
with it, are also demonstrating almost no patience. They
have couched Iran's choices quite brusquely: either it
cease its enriching of uranium, or the matter will be
referred to the United Nations Security Council. There
is a slight chance that either Russia or China would
exercise their veto, if any stringent resolution were
passed sanctioning Iran. However, even such a
development is not likely to save Iran from a preemptive
attack, if Bush wins his second term. Iran's neighbor
Iraq regularly reminds the Islamic Republic how far Bush
can go in terms of imposing his will.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria,
Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
