Why did French President Jacques Chirac last week threaten to use
non-conventional - that is, nuclear - weapons against terrorist states? And why
did Iran announce that it would shift foreign-exchange reserves out of European
banks (although it has since retracted this warning)? The answer lies in the
nature of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran needs nuclear weapons, I believe,
not to attack Israel, but to support imperial expansion by conventional
military means.
Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic
inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush
its state finances, as I reported in
Demographics and Iran's imperial design (September
13, 2005). Just outside Iran's present frontiers lie the oil resources of Iraq,
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and not far away are the oil concentrations
of eastern Saudi Arabia. Its neighbors are quite as alarmed as Washington about
the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and privately quite happy for Washington
to wipe out this capability.
It is remarkable how quickly an international consensus has emerged for the
eventual use of force against Iran. Chirac's indirect reference to the French
nuclear capability was a warning to Tehran. Mohamed ElBaradei, whose Nobel
Peace Prize last year was awarded to rap the knuckles of the United States,
told Newsweek that in the extreme case, force might be required to stop Iran's
acquiring a nuclear capability. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told
the newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the military option could not be abandoned,
although diplomatic efforts should be tried first. Bild, Germany's
largest-circulation daily, ran Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad's picture
next to Adolf Hitler's, with the headline, "Will Iran plunge the world into the
abyss?"
The same Europeans who excoriated the United States for invading Iraq with
insufficient proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction already have
signed on to a military campaign against Iran, in advance of Iran's gaining
WMD. There are a number of reasons for this sudden lack of squeamishness, and
all of them lead back to oil.
First, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have the most to lose from a
nuclear-equipped Iran. No one can predict when the Saudi kingdom might become
unstable, but whenever it does, Iran will stand ready to support its Shi'ite
co-religionists, who make up a majority in the kingdom's oil-producing east.
At some point the United States will reduce or eliminate its presence in Iraq,
and the result, I believe, will be civil war. Under conditions of chaos Iran
will have a pretext to expand its already substantial presence on the ground in
Iraq, perhaps even to intervene militarily on behalf of its Shi'ite
co-religionists.
What now is Azerbaijan had been for centuries the northern provinces of the
Persian Empire, and a nuclear-armed Iran could revive Persian claims on
southern Azerbaijan. Iran continues to lay claim to a share of Caspian Sea
energy resources under the Iranian-Soviet treaties of 1921 and 1940. [1] For
the time being, Azerbaijani-Iranian relations are the most cordial in years,
with Iran providing natural gas to pockets of Azerbaijani territory blockaded
by Armenia, and
Baku defending Iran's nuclear program. As Iran's oil production
dwindles over the next two decades, though, its historic claims on the Caspian
are likely to re-emerge.
Ahmedinejad's apocalyptic inclinations have inspired considerable comment from
Western analysts, who note that he appears to believe in the early return of
the Mahdi, the 12th Imam. I do not know whether Ahmedinejad is mad or sane, but
even mad people may be sly and calculating. Iran's prospects are grim. Over a
generation it faces demographic decay, economic collapse and cultural
deracination. When reason fails to provide a solution to an inherently
insoluble problem, irrationality well may take hold. Like Hitler, who also was
mad but out-bluffed the West for years before overreaching, Ahmedinejad is
pursuing a rational if loathsome imperial policy.
Given Israel's possession of a large arsenal of fission weapons as well as
thermonuclear capability, it is extremely unlikely that Iran would attack the
Jewish state unless pressed to the wall. Faced with encirclement and ruin, the
Islamic Republic is fully capable of lashing out in a destructive and suicidal
fashion, not only against Israel but against other antagonists. Whatever one
may say about Chirac, he is not remotely stupid, and feels it prudent to warn
Iran that pursuit of its imperial ambitions may lead to a French nuclear
response. French intelligence evidently believes that Iran may express its
frustrations through terrorist actions in the West.
By far the biggest loser in an Iranian confrontation with the West will be
China, the fastest-growing among the world's large economies, but also the
least efficient in energy use. Higher oil prices will harm China's economy more
than any other, and Beijing's reluctance to back Western efforts to encircle
Iran are understandable in this context. It is unclear how China will proceed
if the rest of the international community confronts Iran; in the great scheme
of things it really does not matter.
Washington will initiate military action against Iran only with extreme
reluctance, but it will do so nonetheless, except in the extremely unlikely
event that Ahmedinejad were to stand down. Rather than a legacy of prosperity
and democracy in the Middle East, the administration of US President George W
Bush will exit with an economy weakened by higher oil prices and chaos on the
ground in Iraq and elsewhere. But it really has no other options, except to let
a nuclear-armed spoiler loose in the oil corridor. We have begun the third act
of the tragedy that started on September 11, 2001, and I see no way to prevent
it from proceeding.
Note
1. For a recent summary of the issue,
click here.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
for information on
sales, syndication and
republishing .)
