When the deputy head of the Iranian Atomic
Energy Agency, Muhammad Saeedi, said recently that
his country is willing to allow "snap inspections"
by the International Atomic Energy Agency, he
conditioned his country's concession on excluding
the United Nations Security Council from any
involvement in inspecting Iran's nuclear
enrichment facilities.
Quite properly, US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran was
"playing games" with the international community.
Indeed, Iran is playing games - in the
sense that it is repeatedly testing
US
resolve to find out how far the Bush
administration is willing to go to escalate the
conflict.
Ironically, the "games" that
Rice was protesting against are called
"realpolitik", where practical matters are
weighed, considered and taken into account based
exclusively on statistical, cost-effective
analysis, and where ethics and law carry little
weight. It's ironic, because no Middle Eastern
government comes even close to the US and the
so-called EU-3 - Germany, France and Britain - in
exercising realpolitik. After all, the term
Realpolitik ("practical politics") was
coined by a German writer describing the attempt
to balance the powers of European empires in the
19th century.
True, Iran is no empire and
is unlikely to metamorphose into one. Moreover, no
real balance of power is possible between Iran and
its Western nemesis, considering the US military
might, especially if combined with that of its
"willing allies", no matter how hard Iranian
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad labors to build a
fearsome aura around his nation's military force.
But thanks to other factors - precisely President
George W Bush's low ratings at home and his
embattled military in Iraq - Tehran is finding
itself in a much more comfortable position than
that of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein
prior to the US invasion.
Some are
rightfully observing that Washington's rhetoric
concerning the Iranian nuclear-enrichment matter
is almost an exact replica of that employed in the
lead-up to the Iraq war. First, there was the
exaggeration of Iraq's military might, which was
seen as a "threat" to its neighbors - most notably
Israel - and US regional interests. Then came the
sanctions, formidable and suffocating, meant to
"contain" the Iraqi regime and "impede" Saddam's
alleged incessant drive for chemical, biological
and nuclear weapons. Then there was the
muscle-flexing and awesome military deployment.
Finally came the showdown: war, forced regime
change, and occupation.
The Bush
administration and the war enthusiasts in the US
Congress - and they are many - sound equally
gung-ho for another Middle East showdown, with
Tehran its new target. Once again, it's not
respect for the law - since Iran's nuclear
enrichment does not violate its commitments under
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor is it
democracy, for Iran is much closer to having an
actual democratic system than many of the
US-favored, yet corrupt and authoritative, allies.
Nor can it be human rights, since the US, as the
effective ruler of Iraq, is the region's top
human-rights violator. Rather, it's realpolitik.
Iran alone provides 5% of the world's
total oil exports. At a time when access to and
control of energy sources translate into political
power and strategic affluence, and in an age of
uncertain oil supplies and fractious markets, Iran
is an enviable prize.
But realpolitik
alone can hardly justify the seemingly irrational
readiness to expand the battlefield for an already
over-stretched US military. That's where the
infamous pro-Israel, neo-conservative warmongers
are most effective. The same way they managed to
concoct a pro-war discourse prior to the
disastrous war on Iraq - using the ever-willing
mainstream media - they're working diligently to
create another false doomsday scenario required
for a military encroachment on Iran.
If
all of this is true, then why is Iran "playing
games"?
While Iran is no match for an
empire, it also understands that it has great
leverage through its significant influence over
Iraq's Shi'ite population and its leaders. While
the invasion of Iraq has disaffected most of the
country's population - regardless of their
sectarian affiliation - the Shi'ite leadership has
yet to demand a US withdrawal, and for strategic
reasons are not yet ready to join the blazing
insurgency. Using its influence in Iraq, Iran
could significantly alter the equation, a decision
that would not likely suit long-term US interests
in occupied Iraq.
But Iran has even more
cards to play. When the price of a barrel of oil
recently reached US$75, the Group of Eight rich
nations sent out terrible warnings of an impending
global economic crisis. Imagine if the price hit
the $100 mark? Or even $120 according to some
estimates? How will already fractious energy
markets treat such a possibility, keeping in mind
the already vulnerable Nigerian oil production,
the less accommodating - read more independent -
Venezuelan oil supplies? "Unexplained" acts of
sabotage against Iraq's oil production facilities
and export pipelines will likely add fuel to the
fire.
All of these outcomes exclude
entirely the implausible likelihood that the US
military is in fact capable of leading a ground
war or maintaining a long-term occupation of a
country that has not been weakened by years of
debilitating sanctions and is several times the
size of Iraq.
As optimistic as it may
sound, one can, to an extent, allude to the idea
of a "balance of power". Wherever such balance can
be struck, realpolitik and its associated "games"
can also be found in profusion. While the US
wishes to maintain the posture of the
uncompromising, hard-headed party, ready to
execute its many military "options" at the stroke
of an executive order, Iran is calling the bluff
by confidently trumpeting its various options,
notwithstanding military ones.
Iran in
2006 is certainly not the Iraq of 1990-91, or
2003, the year of invasion. Some major changes to
the political map of the Middle East have taken
place, and serious challenges are appearing day
after day to the astonishment of the beleaguered
US government and its president.
Whether
it still genuinely believes in military options as
decisive retorts to its many global challenges,
the Bush administration must learn to deal with
new political realities, and it must also accept
that playing politics is no longer restricted to
empires alone.
Veteran Arab-American
journalist Ramzy Baroud teaches mass
communication at Australia's Curtin University of
Technology, Malaysia Campus. He is the author
of Writings on the Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle
(Pluto Press, London). He is also the
editor-in-chief of PalestineChronicle.com.
