H P March 5, 2006

Tags: Iran , Oil , Nuke , Middle East

Another brewing conflict in the Middle East!

rel="tag" href="/tag/economy">economy was good and it appeared the Shah had absolute control over the country. The opposition was in disarray and political challenges were easily handled. And yet just a few years later, that image was shattered by Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution, whose aftershocks still rumble across the region. It was quite obvious that the elite in Iran actually had become disconnected from its own culture and people in the 70s. Now, after 27 years, the liberals, the upwardly mobile Iranian businessmen, and the Western educated professionals have disappeared from the elite quarters in Tehran and have been replaced by obnoxious men carrying guns, machetes, and AK 47s. They talk in belligerent tones saying things that startle the world.

After 27 years of a hostile relationship with the US, the Arab countries and Israel in the neighborhood, Iran now plans to be a regional power that has some international clout too by acquiring nuclear weapons thus escalating the chances of a nuclear conflict in the region. The region had already seen more bloody conflicts than any other part of the world in the last 30 years.

Iran lives in a nuclear neighborhood. Russia and some former Soviet states, China, Pakistan, and India have known nuclear capabilities. Israel, a rival, reportedly has already acquired nuclear capabilities.

The proliferation of nuclear states in the region and the hostile relations with Israel do provide Iran with a rational for its overt or covert nuclear acquisition. Iran perhaps can argue that Israel has nukes and hates Iran; they are allowed to have the nuke without declaring them, then, why Iran is not allowed to acquire the nuclear weapons without declaring them? Pointing to the hostile US attitude, Iran also feels that nuclear capabilities just might save it from a surprise US military intervention.

Does this strategic rationale account for possible ramifications of Iranian nuclear acquisition? Iran’s attempt to acquire the capabilities might just trigger a chain reaction that could result in a few more nuclear powers in the region. Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey could be intimidated enough to acquire nuclear weapons. The US would certainly increase its nuclear assets in the area and there may be some unpredictable response from Israel to cover for Iran contingencies.

An overview of the area would reveal that most of the nuclear countries in the region are politically –reasonably- stable and have not shown any belligerency or commitment to some cause that can put them in conflict with other neighboring or non neighboring nations.

The Russian or the former Soviet nukes are relics from the cold war days. The former soviet states don’t have an active nuclear weapons acquisition program. Russia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine are not involved in any conflict in the region. Their nukes and the nuclear plants are under effective international control. China’s nuclear program was developed as a deterrent and so far it has remained that way. China has not yet shown any inclination to either promote its ideology or have designs on other countries. Pakistani and Indian nuclear arsenals are country specific. Odds of India or Pakistan using nuclear weapons against any other third country are nonexistent. With the recent India –US nuclear deal, and effective US influence and monitoring of the Pakistan program, chances are that both India and Pakistan could be nuclear weapons-free states within the next five to seven years.

Despite the developing consensus in the world that it fully intends to acquire nuclear weapons, Iran has steadfastly denied that. Iran is a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, which essentially allows signatories to develop a peaceful nuclear program to build nuclear plants to meet the electric and power requirements. Iran claims that it intends to meet at least ten percent of its power requirement through a nuclear program in order to conserve its natural resources for trade in international markets.

The Shah ratified the NPT in 1970 and soon after that started planning a grandiose nuclear power program that at one point included 23 nuclear power plants. It appears though that the Shah had more in mind than generating electricity and he also started a secret nuclear weapons research program at about the same time.

Iran has skillfully exploited the weakness of the NPT. The Treaty does allow separating plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel, or in producing enriched uranium, so long as the facilities are accessible to IAEA inspectors. Since obtaining nuclear explosive material is the most difficult part of making a bomb, this permissiveness allows a would-be bomb-maker to get very close to the goal. Since an illicit bomb design and manufacturing capability is relatively easy to hide, it can be prepared secretly in parallel with overt explosive material production, so that when the material is ready it can almost immediately be put to bomb use. The Light Water Reactor (LWR) that Russia is building for Iran, and of which Iran would like to get additional units, is a copious source of plutonium. This plutonium would not be difficult for Iran to extract.

The Bushehr nuclear power station based on the Russian Light Water Reactor (LWR) is nearing completion and the builders say it will be ready for fueling and testing within months. Once it starts commercial operations, it could produce about 250 kilograms of plutonium a year. The significance of such an amount is obvious when one considers that the amount needed for a bomb is just several kilograms. A recent Livermore report calculated that such a reactor can produce about 300 kilograms of near-weapon-grade plutonium produced by the first refueling in about 15 months after startup.

Based on this information, some agencies in the US and Israel believe that Iran would have nuclear weapons in the next two years. However, there is another set of intelligence and nuclear experts who believe that Iran may not get to that point for another ten years or so. If the estimated range of two to ten years is credible, then why is the US pushing for a quick resolution now instead of allowing the diplomats to resolve the issue with Iran. Some Europeans have mused whether the US is looking for a casus belli in Iran.

No one should be in any doubt that the US would like to remove the current regime in Iran. For more than two decades, the US has maintained an aggressive posture against Iran. It has forced sanctions on Iran and frozen Iran assets in the US. Iranians believe that the frozen assets are now worth billions of dollars. The US estimates that number to be far below the Iranian assumptions.

There are several inconsistencies in the US arguments against Iran. The acrimonious nature of the US-Iran relations makes the US arguments against Iran suspiciously self serving. US had never acted decisively against any nuclear proliferating country. Both India and Pakistan acquired nuclear capacity within the full view and knowledge of the US. The US was fully aware of India and Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions for more than a decade but never really took any forceful steps to deter either country. Israel’s nuclear program is doubtlessly far more advanced than the current Iranian program. The current US deal with India and a quiet acceptance of the Pakistani program also sets up a precedent that could jeopardize the nuclear weapons control and monitoring system.

The US emphasizes that Iran is looking to acquire nuclear devices without any clear reason or strategic rationale. The US argues that unlike Pakistan and Israel, Iran does not have any historical enemy who would welcome an opportunity to wipe the state off the face of the Earth. Iran and Israel face off each other in several areas but are geographically separated and it is not likely that Iran would face the Israel army in some battlefield around Tehran or even on the Iraqi border.

Iran has adroitly tried to counter the US arguments by positioning itself as the main opponent of Israel in the Middle Eastern neighborhood. Iran has reportedly provided military and financial help to Hamas. It has whipped up massive anti-Israel sentiments in its own population and has been forcefully championing the Palestinian cause in international forums. The Iran government has named major squares and streets in all major Iran cities after Palestine and supports regular anti-Israel public demonstrations. All this Pro-Palestine display is to promote the idea that Israel is the enemy that could attempt to destroy the Iranian state. The provocative Iranian statements about the Holocaust and Zionism are to whip up the frenzy in Israel and Israeli supporters in the US and Europe to counter the US argument that Iran really has no mortal enemy. Iran’s continued warlike statements against Israel have certainly weakened its already unconvincing stand that Iran does not wish to acquire nuclear weapons.

The US attack on Iraq has added fuel to an already escalating confrontation between the two countries. The US wanted to establish its presence in Iraq to eventually remove the current Iranian regime. However, US committed several strategic blunders in Iraq allowing Iran to position itself favorably with the Shia majority in Iraq and now it is in a position to challenge the US army and US interests in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. The crisis in Iraq is also forcing the US to look at options that can salvage a dismal situation.

With every passing day, it is becoming clear that the solution in Iraq perhaps lies in a division of the country into Shia, Sunni and Kurd semi-independent states. The breaking up of a central authority in Iraq would allow the US to maintain permanent bases in any one of the sectors or perhaps in all sectors. Currently, the Iraqi insurgency is mainly located in the Sunni areas but it could spread to other parts of Iraq if the country is not administratively divided. The US now believes that it can suppress the insurgency in the Sunni areas if it has to only deal with a small geographic sector. The Iran government, sensing the US predicament, is attempting to escalate the insurgency in the Shia areas too so that US hands are completely tied in Iraq before any division takes place.

The US and Iran both feel the heat in the area and they may have to face each other off militarily somewhere along the Iraq-Iran borders in the near future. If Iraq is divided into three zones or is divided without a moderate government in Iran, possibilities are that the Shia part of Iraq would also become another bastion of fundamentalism in an increasingly sectarian Middle East. Given the difficulties in Iraq, the Iran nuclear weapon acquisitions program sounds a ten fire alarm for the US. On the Iran side, the military stand off with the US could be disastrous and the access to nuclear warheads may make the US blink in an all out confrontation.

A US military strike against Iran could trigger another human disaster in the area after Iraq and Afghanistan. Sensing the enormity of such a situation, Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel prize winning Iranian activist commented in IHT that “Iran is not Iraq: Given the Iranians’ fierce nationalism and the Shiites’ traditions of martyrdom, any military move on Iran would receive a response that would engulf the entire region in fire.”

Nuclear proliferation is not the only issue that has put Iran and the US on the confrontation path. The cornerstone of the US policy in the Persian Gulf is the uninterrupted exploration, development, and transportation of oil and gas to international markets. United States also believes that Iran is the largest sponsor of international terrorism and militant Islam. Human rights violations by the state in Iran are also a major concern of the international community and the US.

The Sea of sadness has no shore...

The removal of the Shah of Iran in 1979 bequeathed the world the first theocracy of the modern age. The Iran constitution is centered on the supremacy of the religion, religious orthodoxy, and religious leaders. There have been many cycles of elections since the revolution but the reality is that the elected President and the elected Assembly have limited executive powers. All powers rest with the theocratic Supreme Council and the Council can override any decision disregarding the popular consensus.

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship that has ruthlessly ruled over its citizens for the last 27 years and perhaps the removal of the theocratic regime would be a welcome respite for the Iranians. The prospects of a peaceful transition to a moderate Iran are not realistic and exogenous events could turn the tide in favor of the moderate Iranians.

The US is keen to resolve the Iran conundrum and the evidence suggests that the US would exert enormous pressure on Iran to soften its position on international terrorism, nuclear ambitions, and the Human rights situation in Iran. But the primary motivating factor for the US is the uninterrupted oil and gas supplies to international markets. The current Iranian regime is fully capable of disrupting the supply lines in the Persian Gulf. The US would like to see a friendly regime in Iran to ensure that the potential of disruption in oil supplies is diminished or eliminated entirely.

The “Roman Effect” is increasingly dominating the US foreign policy decisions. Despite Iran’s desire to acquire the nuclear warheads, it lacks the capabilities to seriously threaten the US militarily, anytime soon or even in the foreseeable future. Yet, even a minor threat could jeopardize the US ambition to control the resources in the area. The Middle East is headed for another confrontation and the countries in and around the area should brace for continued violence for sometime to come.