|
|
|
|
Iran, US: Fissures within fissures
By Safa Haeri
PARIS -
As international pressure increases over Iran's
controversial nuclear ambitions, analysts say both
the Iranian and United States leadership are
divided on exactly which policy to implement as a
means to address the problem.
According to
analysts, top Iranian decision-makers are split
into two distinct, but opposing, factions. On the
one side there are those who push for the
production of the atomic weapon at any cost. And
for the time being, this faction, led by some
senior clerics and high-ranking military
commanders from the Revolutionary Guards, appears
to have the upper hand. On the other side are
those who insist on compromising with the
Europeans, who are at the forefront of
negotiations.
In the view of the
"pro-bomb" group, once the Islamic Republic is
equipped with the ultimate weapon, the world, and
above all Washington, confronted with a fait
accompli, would have to change attitude toward
Tehran, admit it to the atomic club and talk with
the Iranians on an equal basis, "as they do now
with Pyongyang".
Hence, the efforts of
this group to adopt the Korean model, end all
talks with the Europeans, and withdraw from both
the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Vienna-based
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "If
Saddam [Hussein] would have [had] the [nuclear]
arm, America would never ever dare to attack it.
If the Americans talk so politely with the North
Koreans, if they never talk about attack, it is
just because they have the bomb," spokesmen for
the faction tell anyone who will listen to them.
On the advice of their own experts on
international affairs, this faction is convinced
that the US cannot attack Iran because of its huge
military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq .
"With most of its forces engaged in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Bush does not have enough resources
to launch another military adventure in Iran, a
country much bigger, more populated and more
powerful than its neighbors," the experts and
advisors point out.
The atomic bomb is
also both a life guarantee and an item of great
prestige for the ruling ayatollahs. "The clerics
want the atomic bomb as an immunity against
foreign interventions in the one hand and to
better crack down on the dissidents at home," said
Dr Qasem Sho'leh Sa'di, a prominent political
activist and lawyer.
On the other side
sits the "pro-Europeans", led by Hojjatoleslam
Hasan Rohani, the influential secretary of Iran's
Supreme Council for National Security and his team
of highly educated, efficient and dedicated
technicians-politicians which conduct the thorny,
complicated and complex negotiations with the
European so-called Big Three - Britain, France and
Germany.
"Either we satisfy the Big Three
and save our nuclear technology and installations,
or we create an international consensus against
ourselves, give the United States free hands in
destroying all our nuclear and military
facilities," warn spokesmen for this group.
"If we want the world to believe that we
are not after nuclear weapons, if we want real
confidence-building, we have to provide
international nuclear inspectors full access to
any site, military or atomic, they want to visit.
We cannot continue with our present nuclear policy
that consists on insisting that our atomic
projects are for civilian use only, but at the
same time, thanks to statements made by some top
officials, both clerics and military, give the
world the net impression that we are lying," they
point out, speaking privately and on condition of
anonymity. They refer to repeated anti-Israeli,
anti-American and anti-Western declarations made
by some leading clerics, provoking the fear that
Iran might attack the Jewish state once it has the
nuclear arm.
In fact, to most Iranians,
they may be aware the ruling clerics are after an
atomic weapon, but they are not sure if it is for
attacking Israel. "Our main enemy is not Israel,
but Iraq first and other Arabs," is the general
feeling of the average Iranian who thinks that the
other reason the clerics are keen to acquire the
nuclear weapon is to consolidate Iranian hegemony
over the strategic Persian Gulf and the whole of
the Middle East and Central Asia.
But at
the same time, the majority of Iranians are of the
view that while a democratic and secular Iran
joining the international community and enjoying
friendly relations with all other nations is
entitled to have a nuclear right, the present
Islamic Republic, accused of harboring and
supporting terrorist groups, opposing the Middle
East peace process, violating human rights,
segregating women and other religious minorities,
must be deprived of this arm.
The argument
of the anti-bomb clan is that Iran does not need
such a weapon, for the simple reason that none of
the nuclear powers, including Pakistan, India and
Israel have ever used this devastating weapon and
Pakistan's nuclear power is to deter the Indian
threat, but if Iran become nuclear, it would
immediately trigger a nuclear race in the whole of
the region, with nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Syria, Egypt and Turkey all trying to balance the
equation.
There are also other
considerations, like why should Iran bother to
seek nuclear power to generate electricity when it
has the world's second largest reserve of natural
gas - after Russia - a form of energy much
cheaper, cleaner, less dangerous and easier to
use.
The rivalry and antagonism between
the pros and cons of the nuclear weapon is so
fierce that it is visible even during crucial
meetings of the Iranian negotiators with the IAEA,
where the briefings of even the senior negotiators
to Iranian journalists are immediately countered
with another one by the opponents.
"The
pressure from the hardliners on the moderates
about the nuclear issue within Iran is so strong
and some times so dangerous that it places the
negotiators in a very difficult situation, as in
order to escape accusations of being sold to the
Europeans, if not working hand-in-hand with them
or bowing to American menaces, they are forced to
become more Catholic than the Pope by taking an
uncompromising statement about enriching uranium
or other nuclear-related activities on the one
hand and explaining their delicate position to the
European diplomats on the other," one insider
explained to Asia Times Online.
But while
the Europeans understand the dilemma facing their
Iranian counterparts and do their best to
accommodate, the hardliners in both the US and
Israeli establishments use the statements to
increase their pressure on Iran in international
forums like the IAEA.
Under previous
agreements signed between Iran and the foreign
affairs ministers of Britain, France and Germany
in Tehran on October 21, 2003 and in Paris on
November 15, 2004, Iran would suspend its uranium
enriching activities and sign the Additional
Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty against
pledges by the EU Big Three to help Tehran enter
the World Trade Organization (WTO), sign a trade
and cooperation agreement with the European Union,
sell it a half dozen Airbus passenger planes and
above all, provide Iran with advanced nuclear
technologies for civilian use, mostly
nuclear-powered electricity plants.
But
not only were none of these promises respected,
but as the talks were dragging on, the Europeans
changed the rules by demanding that Iran's
voluntary suspension of uranium enriching become
permanent, if not dismantled. "Is it possible that
the Europeans cannot sell us a plane that is made
90% of European parts just because the remaining
10% is American?," asked Rohani during a press
conference.
"The problem is that members
of each side are looking over their shoulders, for
the victory of one side is tantamount of, to say
the least, disgrace for the other," the insider
said.
All this said, the "pragmatists"
stress that if Iran does not show flexibility in
satisfying demands formulated by the IAEA and the
Big Three, one might expect the whole issue of
Iranian nuclear activity to be referred to the
United Nations Security Council for economic
sanctions, including an international ban on the
purchase of oil from Iran, as demanded by the
Americans.
However, the balance between
the two warring factions in Iran about the nuclear
issue is in the hands of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
who, as the leader of the Islamic Republic, has
the last word on every major domestic and foreign
matter.
"The same [Grand Ayatollah
Ruhollah] Khomeini drank the cup of poison by
accepting the ceasefire, stating that preserving
the interests of the regime is above any other
considerations, the same, the ruling clerics can
drink their own cup of poison and accept
indefinite suspension of uranium enriching in
order to save the Islamic Republic," said Sho'leh
Sa'di, the dissident who first coined the phrase
"defunct reforms" and foresaw the sad end of
President Mohammad Khatami and the so-called
"official reformers" more than five years ago.
Another analyst who didn't want be named
said if the leaders of the Islamic Republic can
survive the first two years of the current Bush
administration, then they would be in for quite a
long time. To survive, they will be prepared to
swallow any humiliation, "even that of engaging in
direct and open negotiations with the United
States, a demand by Washington that not only Mr
Khamenei rejected, but also banned Iranian media,
state officials and lawmakers to even discuss it".
In one of his latest speeches, President
George W Bush had some nice words for the Iranian
people, saying, "I believe that the Iranian people
ought to be allowed to freely discuss opinions,
read a free press, have free votes and be able to
choose among political parties. I believe Iran
should adopt democracy, that's what I believe,"
the president said, and added that "the handful of
people" who run Iran "must permanently abandon any
enrichment activities to make sure it does not get
nuclear weapon".
So far, Ayatollah
Khamenei has been able to keep both sides under
tight control, helping the negotiators to continue
the talks with the European Big Three in order to
keep Washington's threats of a possible military
action at bay while satisfying the hardliners by
letting them raise the stakes via the
majlis (Iranian parliament) where they warn
about rejecting the protocol or urge the
government to consider the construction of at
least 20 nuclear reactors instead of the seven
that were the norm until now, etc.
The
situation in Washington about the issue of Iranian
atomic activities in particular and relations with
Iran in general is not much better and this even
under Bush's second administration, one that
appears to be more coherent between key centers of
decision-makers like the State Department, the
Defense Department, the National Security Council
and the Central Intelligence Agency.
"The
population in Iran, mostly the young generation
that is very intelligent, well educated and thanks
to the Internet, aware of what is going in the
world, is ready to stand up to the regime provided
it feels the international community would support
its uprising, but the signals it gets are both
confusing and bewildering," one analyst asserted,
referring to the latest declaration from Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice that Washington is ready
to give the mullahs economic incentives, including
an end to opposition to Iran's entry into the WTO,
provided they renounce the development of nuclear
weapons.
But she expressed Washington's
opposition to the US$4.5 billion
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project to deliver
Iranian natural gas to energy hungry India. "We
have communicated to the Indian government our
concerns about the gas pipeline cooperation
between Iran and India," Rice told reporters this
week after meeting Indian Foreign Affairs Minister
Natwar Singh during the first leg of her first
tour of six Asian nations.
After having
placed the Islamic Republic in the basket of "evil
states", and described the regime of the
ayatollahs as the "most tyrannical", Bush suddenly
sided with the European Big Three, stating that
talks "are the best way to convince Iran to
abandon its nuclear projects".
"Our
diplomatic objective is to continue working with
our friends to make it clear to Iran we speak with
a single voice," Bush said, but added that if Iran
refused this latest package, its nuclear case
would be taken to the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions.
But Iran immediately
rejected the incentives, with Khatami stating that
no incentives would be enough to convince the
Islamic republic to renounce its nuclear program.
"We will not give up our nuclear
technology in return for any incentives. We will
not accept any incentives. And we will make every
effort to convince the world that what we have is
peaceful," the embattled and powerless Khatami
told a news conference held in the Central Asian
city of Esfahan on the sidelines of the 135th
meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries this week.
Earlier on the same
day, Rohani had openly said that Iran has
definitively and officially told Europeans that
Iran will never accept a permanent halt to its
enrichment program.
But Morteza Negahi, an
Iranian analyst based in the US, said Tehran would
be wise to drop its hardline rhetoric, "By
rejecting all advantages and calls from the
Europeans and Americans to stop enriching uranium,
the Islamic Republic has started a very dangerous
game. Enriching uranium is an activity that is
necessary for making atomic weapons. If the
Iranian clerical leaders are serious that they
want the nuclear power for producing electricity,
they should have accepted proposals by the
Europeans to provide them with the fuel necessary
for the Bushehr nuclear plant [now under
construction with the help of Russia in the
Persian Gulf port of the same name], but the fact
is that the ruling ayatollahs, drunk with the
money they get from the oil, are doing their best
to be equipped with the nuclear arm in order to
consolidate their power at home and their hegemony
over the region.
"And what if they present
bombing Israel with a nuclear arm as a heroic and
martyr-seeking action, as they explain in their
media the terrorist actions of radical
Palestinians?," he asked. "A nuclear technology
that would serve military purposes cannot be for
welfare, but for absolute evil and a den of
terror."
Safa Haeri is a
Paris-based Iranian journalist covering the Middle
East and Central Asia.
(Copyright 2005
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
