Nuclear Iran

A flurry of visits

US–Iran tensions are once again escalating, comments
Shyam Bhatia

  Iran’s alleged nuclear threat has resurfaced following high-profile visits to Israel during March by US Vice President Dick Cheney, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Republican US presidential candidate John McCain has also issued fiery statements against Iran’s rulers during a surprise visit to Iraq, which was followed by a brief stopover in Jerusalem and Paris. Praising French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s stance on Iran’s nuclear programme he said, ‘President Sarkozy has repeatedly recommended that we join together in imposing sanctions on Iran over the nuclear issue.’
   The Israelis, for their part, appear to be satisfied with what they heard from Cheney, Merkel, Lavrov and McCain with regard to Iran. Israel maintains that many countries, including its allies in Washington and the European Union, are still not fully aware of the threat that Iran poses. Israeli intelligence officials were summoned to each meeting to brief the distinguished visitors on the progress of Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
   Israel’s current strategy is to convince the world that Iran’s government poses a threat not only to Israel but also to the West and many moderate Arab and Islamic countries. The Israelis are also worried about Tehran’s support for radical Islamic groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas.
   The Israelis are especially happy with Merkel who, during her speech before the Knesset, described Iran’s ambitions as a ‘major threat to the world’. Merkel said that ‘it is not the world that has to prove that Iran is building a bomb, rather, Iran has to prove to the world that it does not want the nuclear bomb.’
   The flurry of visits comes amidst fears that US President George W. Bush may go ahead with a massive military strike against Iran before the end of his term in office at the end of the year. Lavrov’s recent visit to the Middle East was aimed at sending a message to Israel and its allies that the Kremlin was concerned about the increased talk about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. ‘Any forceful attempts to resolve this issue by non-peaceful means would undermine all that has been done to bring clarity into the Iranian nuclear programme’, Lavrov said in a press conference with his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni. He also warned against attempts to undermine the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspection of Tehran’s programme. ‘As long as the inspectors report that they have not found that there is some deviation of this programme into the military field I think it would be disastrous for us to undermine this very efficient and important process’, he said.
   Although moderate Arab countries, especially in the Gulf, also feel threatened by Iran, they are unable to side publicly with the US and other western countries for fear of alienating the Arab and Islamic masses. In their public statements, the Arab leaders have been warning against a possible US-led military strike against Tehran. During a mid-March meeting in Riyadh with Cheney Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz is reported to have cautioned the US Vice President against attacking Iran. The king, like most of the Arab leaders, fears that another war in the region would destabilise his regime and embolden the Muslim extremists.
   Arab commentators and political analysts have raised an alarm about a US–Iran confrontation, saying the US has a proxy war with Iran going at the tail end of the Bush administration. The UAE-based newspaper, Gulf News, said that Washington is effectively maintaining low-intensity warfare with Iran and the potential exists to ratchet it up to more open hostilities. It said that the recent visits by Cheney and McCain to Iraq and Israel were a means to ensure that Israel remains fully in the picture for any ‘plans the US could have against Iran’.
   Egypt’s mass-circulation Al-Ahram Weekly described US Admiral William Fallon’s recent resignation as an orchestrated move to remove what it called the only obstacle ‘standing between the administration and their newest war plan’. It said the ‘disaster’ the Bush Administration has created in Iraq is clearly not going well. ‘As a result, the administration may feel that engaging the US militarily in Iran is their only option for seeing a Republican president elected and a staunch military advocate like John McCain fits that bill’, the weekly said.
   Ramzi Baroud, editor of the Palestine Chronicle, wrote that when Admiral Fallon was chosen to replace General John Abizaid as chief of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in March 2007, many analysts did not shy from reaching a seemingly clear-cut conclusion: the Bush administration was preparing for war with Iran and had selected the most suitable man for this job. ‘Almost exactly a year later, as Fallon abruptly resigned over a controversial interview with Esquire magazine, we are left with a less certain analysis’, Baroud said. Fallon, he noted, was the first man from the navy to head CENTCOM. The Bush administration probably saw him as a conformist, in contrast to his predecessor Abizaid who promoted a diplomatic rather than military approach and who even suggested that the US might have to learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb.
   Baroud noted further: ‘In an atmosphere of hyped militancy, Fallon’s resignation might be viewed as a positive sign, showing that the cards are not all stacked in favour of the war party. Nonetheless, it is premature to indulge in optimism. Prior signs have indicated a serious rift among those who once believed that war is the answer to every conflict. Yet that didn’t necessarily hamper the war cheerleaders’ efforts.

top