Libya yesterday, Syria today and Iran tomorrow
abdul naeem September 26, 2004
#12 Posted by ikonoclast on October 1, 2004 1:46:00 pm
Some of the members are of the view that more details should have been provided in this article. Well, am posying the draft of a new article here for their perusal.
Nuclear Iran: US’ conundrum
There is a high probability that the leadership in Tehran is attempting to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. By achieving a nuclear weapons capability, Iran would be better insulated from foreign threats and would help to stabilize its regional power. While a nuclear-armed Iran would assist in securing Iranian interests, it would be a dangerous development for the interests of the United States and Israel.
Because Washington lacks a viable military strategy in dealing with Tehran, it is essential that it continues to garner the support of the European countries of France, Germany and the United Kingdom in order to adequately threaten Tehran with United Nations repercussions; the present U.S. strategy is to threaten Iran with international economic sanctions unless Tehran dismantles its enrichment-related programs.
Iran has many valid justifications for developing a nuclear weapons capability. This status would protect Iran from the United States, which has labeled Iran an ``evil`` state subject to ``regime change``; it would also remove the geopolitical growth restraints that Israel has placed on the countries of the Middle East.
Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would weaken U.S. hopes for external regime change in Tehran, thus protecting the regime, and would also give Iran the opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East and Central Asia without certain fear of U.S. or Israeli reprisals.
Yet, while a nuclear weapons capability favors Iran`s state interests, the opposite is true for U.S. and Israeli state interests. A nuclear-armed Iran would prevent the U.S. from executing a forceful change of government in Tehran, since if faced with regime termination, the Iranian leadership could possibly exercise its nuclear weapons option in a last ditch effort for regime survival. This uncertainty would guarantee a more prudent U.S. response to Iranian policy actions.
For Israel, which has, with the support of the United States, managed to keep the Middle Eastern states weak and disunited, a nuclear-armed Iran would hurt its ability to respond militarily to Iran`s support of destabilizing forces that affect Israel, or to those actions that increase Iran`s regional strength.
Weak U.S. Response
In light of Iran`s potential pursuit of nuclear weapons, both the U.S. and Israel will need to take steps to secure their regional interests at the expense of Iran`s. Due to Iran`s military strength, Israel would prefer to rely on the U.S. to weaken the Islamic republic, for if Washington were to move on Iran, with Israel remaining on the sidelines, it would likely limit Iranian retaliation against Israel. But Washington has less leverage to act since it is bogged down in Iraq and overextended elsewhere due to its involvement in multiple theaters of conflict. Plus, in the midst of an election year, it is not clear how the U.S. public would respond to serious U.S. saber rattling on the issue.
Considering these restraints, Washington must refer the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council so it may threaten Tehran with economic sanctions. This type of threat could cause Tehran to comply with international pressure. However, this route requires the support of France, Germany and the United Kingdom. For these reasons, the U.S. must convince these states to join in efforts of intimidating Iran with punitive sanctions. This is the present course of the White House, with President Bush telling American television, ``We are working our hearts out so that they do not develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.``
Until recently, Paris, Berlin and London have been loath to adopt the U.S. approach to the Iranian nuclear issue. Their motives rest in their heavy trade with Iran and also with the concern that threatening Iran could cause the state to act irrationally and potentially threaten the stability of the Middle East. The Europeans have few qualms about allowing Iran to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but they recognize that a nuclear-armed Iran could destabilize the region.
Destabilizing Forces
A nuclear-armed Iran could pose a great danger to the region`s stability from the US point of view. Presently, the only truly powerful state in the Middle East is Israel, and its power has kept the other regional states weak and disunited. A nuclear-armed Iran would create a new power source that would reduce Israel`s supremacy. A reduction in Israeli power could mean an increase in power for other Middle Eastern states since Israel would not be able to strike surrounding states, such as Syria, with impunity. Any such strike would have to consider the potential for Iranian retaliation, or at least heightened Iranian assistance to states or organizations focused on reducing Israel`s regional power.
If Israel were to make a military move on Iran independently of the U.S., the military response from Iran would be harsh. Indeed, in recent weeks, the Iranian government has gone to extremes to emphasize the retaliatory actions it will take upon attack from Israel.
In the event of a decrease in Israeli power and an increase in the power of other regional states, the region could become a multi-polar mini-system, with each country competing with the other in the regional power balance. This competition would threaten the US concept of regional stability and thus threaten the globe`s oil supply -- a development that could cause oil prices to skyrocket, hurting the economies of oil-dependent countries such as the United States and the European states.
It is this fear of regional instability that is a major factor in why the United States has consistently supported the state of Israel. Israel has managed to keep the power balance tilted in its favor, which has resulted in the Middle Eastern states remaining dependent and weak, a geopolitical status quo that provides stable, cheap oil prices due to little regional development.
Because Iran threatens this geopolitical status quo, the European states have been reconsidering the U.S. approach, and have shown signs of adopting parts of it. Their reconsideration is why Washington needs to capitalize on the opportunity and push the Europeans to adopt a more hard-line course toward Iran. If the Europeans were to follow the U.S. approach, it could delay Iran`s acquisition of nuclear arms.
Avoiding International Condemnation
Despite its potential pursuit of nuclear arms, Iran does not wish to be ostracized by the international community. If Tehran were threatened with international economic sanctions and loss of its European connections, it will prove to be counter-productive to the interests of the Iranian state. Thus, while the pursuit of nuclear weapons is a rational objective for Tehran, it is not rational if it comes at the expense of all other objectives. Tehran has recognized this predicament and has balked when faced with threats of isolation from Europe.
In the past, when threatened with isolation, Tehran has generally complied with European demands, such as by opening up its country to U.N. nuclear inspections, and by freezing the enrichment aspect of its nuclear program. To demonstrate this, upon the latest threat by the Europeans, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman recently enunciated: ``Iran will adjust its policies according to the performance and decision of the [Europeans]. We do not want Iran`s file to be referred to the Security Council, but in case of a referral, the Europeans will be harmed more than us.``
Conclusion
The preceding strategic analysis discusses the conundrum faced by the Bush administration in the context of its interests in the Middle East. After taking a serious hit to its military capability due to the unexpected level of violence found in the Iraq occupation, Washington cannot adequately threaten Iran with force. It must use the skillful art of diplomacy to coax the Europeans to adopt Washington`s position. While there are signs that the Europeans are complying, it is far from certain that they will agree with the U.S. on referring Iran`s nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council; which incidentally is the only pragmatic option available to it.
After all, in the latest rounds of diplomacy, the Europeans did take the step of agreeing with U.S. demands for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, but they did not agree to place a ``trigger mechanism`` into the U.N. draft. Therefore, if, by November, Iran does not comply with U.N. demands, the issue will not be automatically referred to the Security Council. It will merely spark more debate and thus more time for Iran to sprint down the path toward a nuclear weapons capability. All sides in this conflict know what needs to be accomplished -- the foreboding question, however, is which player will find itself in a better position at the end.
Nuclear Iran: US’ conundrum
There is a high probability that the leadership in Tehran is attempting to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. By achieving a nuclear weapons capability, Iran would be better insulated from foreign threats and would help to stabilize its regional power. While a nuclear-armed Iran would assist in securing Iranian interests, it would be a dangerous development for the interests of the United States and Israel.
Because Washington lacks a viable military strategy in dealing with Tehran, it is essential that it continues to garner the support of the European countries of France, Germany and the United Kingdom in order to adequately threaten Tehran with United Nations repercussions; the present U.S. strategy is to threaten Iran with international economic sanctions unless Tehran dismantles its enrichment-related programs.
Iran has many valid justifications for developing a nuclear weapons capability. This status would protect Iran from the United States, which has labeled Iran an ``evil`` state subject to ``regime change``; it would also remove the geopolitical growth restraints that Israel has placed on the countries of the Middle East.
Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would weaken U.S. hopes for external regime change in Tehran, thus protecting the regime, and would also give Iran the opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East and Central Asia without certain fear of U.S. or Israeli reprisals.
Yet, while a nuclear weapons capability favors Iran`s state interests, the opposite is true for U.S. and Israeli state interests. A nuclear-armed Iran would prevent the U.S. from executing a forceful change of government in Tehran, since if faced with regime termination, the Iranian leadership could possibly exercise its nuclear weapons option in a last ditch effort for regime survival. This uncertainty would guarantee a more prudent U.S. response to Iranian policy actions.
For Israel, which has, with the support of the United States, managed to keep the Middle Eastern states weak and disunited, a nuclear-armed Iran would hurt its ability to respond militarily to Iran`s support of destabilizing forces that affect Israel, or to those actions that increase Iran`s regional strength.
Weak U.S. Response
In light of Iran`s potential pursuit of nuclear weapons, both the U.S. and Israel will need to take steps to secure their regional interests at the expense of Iran`s. Due to Iran`s military strength, Israel would prefer to rely on the U.S. to weaken the Islamic republic, for if Washington were to move on Iran, with Israel remaining on the sidelines, it would likely limit Iranian retaliation against Israel. But Washington has less leverage to act since it is bogged down in Iraq and overextended elsewhere due to its involvement in multiple theaters of conflict. Plus, in the midst of an election year, it is not clear how the U.S. public would respond to serious U.S. saber rattling on the issue.
Considering these restraints, Washington must refer the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council so it may threaten Tehran with economic sanctions. This type of threat could cause Tehran to comply with international pressure. However, this route requires the support of France, Germany and the United Kingdom. For these reasons, the U.S. must convince these states to join in efforts of intimidating Iran with punitive sanctions. This is the present course of the White House, with President Bush telling American television, ``We are working our hearts out so that they do not develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.``
Until recently, Paris, Berlin and London have been loath to adopt the U.S. approach to the Iranian nuclear issue. Their motives rest in their heavy trade with Iran and also with the concern that threatening Iran could cause the state to act irrationally and potentially threaten the stability of the Middle East. The Europeans have few qualms about allowing Iran to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but they recognize that a nuclear-armed Iran could destabilize the region.
Destabilizing Forces
A nuclear-armed Iran could pose a great danger to the region`s stability from the US point of view. Presently, the only truly powerful state in the Middle East is Israel, and its power has kept the other regional states weak and disunited. A nuclear-armed Iran would create a new power source that would reduce Israel`s supremacy. A reduction in Israeli power could mean an increase in power for other Middle Eastern states since Israel would not be able to strike surrounding states, such as Syria, with impunity. Any such strike would have to consider the potential for Iranian retaliation, or at least heightened Iranian assistance to states or organizations focused on reducing Israel`s regional power.
If Israel were to make a military move on Iran independently of the U.S., the military response from Iran would be harsh. Indeed, in recent weeks, the Iranian government has gone to extremes to emphasize the retaliatory actions it will take upon attack from Israel.
In the event of a decrease in Israeli power and an increase in the power of other regional states, the region could become a multi-polar mini-system, with each country competing with the other in the regional power balance. This competition would threaten the US concept of regional stability and thus threaten the globe`s oil supply -- a development that could cause oil prices to skyrocket, hurting the economies of oil-dependent countries such as the United States and the European states.
It is this fear of regional instability that is a major factor in why the United States has consistently supported the state of Israel. Israel has managed to keep the power balance tilted in its favor, which has resulted in the Middle Eastern states remaining dependent and weak, a geopolitical status quo that provides stable, cheap oil prices due to little regional development.
Because Iran threatens this geopolitical status quo, the European states have been reconsidering the U.S. approach, and have shown signs of adopting parts of it. Their reconsideration is why Washington needs to capitalize on the opportunity and push the Europeans to adopt a more hard-line course toward Iran. If the Europeans were to follow the U.S. approach, it could delay Iran`s acquisition of nuclear arms.
Avoiding International Condemnation
Despite its potential pursuit of nuclear arms, Iran does not wish to be ostracized by the international community. If Tehran were threatened with international economic sanctions and loss of its European connections, it will prove to be counter-productive to the interests of the Iranian state. Thus, while the pursuit of nuclear weapons is a rational objective for Tehran, it is not rational if it comes at the expense of all other objectives. Tehran has recognized this predicament and has balked when faced with threats of isolation from Europe.
In the past, when threatened with isolation, Tehran has generally complied with European demands, such as by opening up its country to U.N. nuclear inspections, and by freezing the enrichment aspect of its nuclear program. To demonstrate this, upon the latest threat by the Europeans, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman recently enunciated: ``Iran will adjust its policies according to the performance and decision of the [Europeans]. We do not want Iran`s file to be referred to the Security Council, but in case of a referral, the Europeans will be harmed more than us.``
Conclusion
The preceding strategic analysis discusses the conundrum faced by the Bush administration in the context of its interests in the Middle East. After taking a serious hit to its military capability due to the unexpected level of violence found in the Iraq occupation, Washington cannot adequately threaten Iran with force. It must use the skillful art of diplomacy to coax the Europeans to adopt Washington`s position. While there are signs that the Europeans are complying, it is far from certain that they will agree with the U.S. on referring Iran`s nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council; which incidentally is the only pragmatic option available to it.
After all, in the latest rounds of diplomacy, the Europeans did take the step of agreeing with U.S. demands for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, but they did not agree to place a ``trigger mechanism`` into the U.N. draft. Therefore, if, by November, Iran does not comply with U.N. demands, the issue will not be automatically referred to the Security Council. It will merely spark more debate and thus more time for Iran to sprint down the path toward a nuclear weapons capability. All sides in this conflict know what needs to be accomplished -- the foreboding question, however, is which player will find itself in a better position at the end.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#11 Posted by nasah on September 30, 2004 9:58:38 pm
``In Iraq what we are trying to tell the Muslim World that -- you can be a Muslim and you can ALSO be free.... `` (George Bush in Kerry Bush Presidentoial Debate)
Bravo.....
Bravo.....
#10 Posted by aquaris on September 28, 2004 6:46:25 am
LOL there are already articles swamping the Net..... `` a la consipiracy theory ` that there
are massive plans to Rig the comming US election...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00064.htm
and / or
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/voting.shtml
For the World in genereal and Muslims in particular ... it really does not matters..
Who wins or who losess..
... USA has already..... identified an enemy for itself.....
and has taken the so called WAR to the ENEMIES LAND .......
so all Cassualities / colllaterial damage is borne by that ENEMY......of course
a couple of thousands Americans can get Killed .... becoming War Heros....
.... for its future generations to be proud of........ and in the process anihilating...
the whole countries..... which are perceived as ENEMIES..... through....
the Daisy Cutters, cluster Bombs.... etc etc.... that is Through the show of
Real Weapons of Mass Destruction ... of which Uncle Sam is the biggest
broker/supplier/distributor and Ironically USER...
#9 Posted by insatan on September 28, 2004 6:46:24 am
`Christian terrorists kill 2 Iraqis`
When will that heading ever appear in the media? Since its closer to the truth, do muslims ever write to the media?
When will that heading ever appear in the media? Since its closer to the truth, do muslims ever write to the media?
#8 Posted by whiteorchid on September 27, 2004 8:45:27 pm
World oil demand is growing at its fastest pace in 16 years. US is sucking in oil, imports are 20 percent higher than a year ago to power its manufacturing and to make gas for its booming car market and its becoming higher energy costs on America wallets. High oil prices push up inflation through higher energy and transportation costs. A $1 gain in crude oil prices adds $ 280 million per year to US airlines fuel bills.
To search for energy resources, on January, Bush has announced next step in space exploration to use the moon as a base for more ambitious missions in the solar system including human and radiactive material exploration of Mars. Unfortunately reengineering is not simply things, it will be time consuming and costly. The other hand he has to save his money for the next election. And he also could not blame aliens to be terrorist in Mars.
Then he has been pointing out oil countries to be his target. Terrorism and security issues are appeared to cover his real objectives. As a second largest oil producer and second largest natural gas reserves (after Rusia), Iran is the dream’s island for ucle Sam. He creates dependecies of some middle east countries to smooth his way out to oil well. Time is coming, Opec’s member have to prepare new weapon to kick out US troops from their land. Let we start to shake the Dow Jones or the Standard & Poors 500. It will be interesting.
So... we able to predict the next target after tomorrow easily.
To search for energy resources, on January, Bush has announced next step in space exploration to use the moon as a base for more ambitious missions in the solar system including human and radiactive material exploration of Mars. Unfortunately reengineering is not simply things, it will be time consuming and costly. The other hand he has to save his money for the next election. And he also could not blame aliens to be terrorist in Mars.
Then he has been pointing out oil countries to be his target. Terrorism and security issues are appeared to cover his real objectives. As a second largest oil producer and second largest natural gas reserves (after Rusia), Iran is the dream’s island for ucle Sam. He creates dependecies of some middle east countries to smooth his way out to oil well. Time is coming, Opec’s member have to prepare new weapon to kick out US troops from their land. Let we start to shake the Dow Jones or the Standard & Poors 500. It will be interesting.
So... we able to predict the next target after tomorrow easily.
#7 Posted by whiteorchid on September 27, 2004 8:45:27 pm
World oil demand is growing at its fastest pace in 16 years. US is sucking in oil, imports are 20 percent higher than a year ago to power its manufacturing and to make gas for its booming car market and its becoming higher energy costs on America wallets. High oil prices push up inflation through higher energy and transportation costs. A $1 gain in crude oil prices adds $ 280 million per year to US airlines fuel bills.
To search for energy resources, on January, Bush has announced next step in space exploration to use the moon as a base for more ambitious missions in the solar system including human and radiactive material exploration of Mars. Unfortunately reengineering is not simply things, it will be time consuming and costly. The other hand he has to save his money for the next election. And he also could not blame aliens to be terrorist in Mars.
Then he has been pointing out oil countries to be his target. Terrorism and security issues are appeared to cover his real objectives. As a second largest oil producer and second largest natural gas reserves (after Rusia), Iran is the dream’s island for ucle Sam. He creates dependecies of some middle east countries to smooth his way out to oil well. Time is coming, Opec’s members have to prepare new weapon to kick out US troops from their land. Let we start to shake the Dow Jones and Standard &Poor’s 500. It will be interesting.
So….we able to predict the next target after tomorrow easily.
To search for energy resources, on January, Bush has announced next step in space exploration to use the moon as a base for more ambitious missions in the solar system including human and radiactive material exploration of Mars. Unfortunately reengineering is not simply things, it will be time consuming and costly. The other hand he has to save his money for the next election. And he also could not blame aliens to be terrorist in Mars.
Then he has been pointing out oil countries to be his target. Terrorism and security issues are appeared to cover his real objectives. As a second largest oil producer and second largest natural gas reserves (after Rusia), Iran is the dream’s island for ucle Sam. He creates dependecies of some middle east countries to smooth his way out to oil well. Time is coming, Opec’s members have to prepare new weapon to kick out US troops from their land. Let we start to shake the Dow Jones and Standard &Poor’s 500. It will be interesting.
So….we able to predict the next target after tomorrow easily.
#6 Posted by Inquirer on September 27, 2004 2:03:25 pm
Interesting article. The Bush brigade would like it! However, it would be nice if there was some more documentation. Currently, the statements are more speculative than anything else.
I do intend to look at the article referred to in #2.
Who knows, it is not impossible that the Arab States may see the light and try to settle the Palestinian question in cooperation with Sharon of Israel - who is taking on the ultra-conservative Jewish in connection with Gaza Strip withdrawal.
If that happens then inspite of all ``seeming`` misadventure of George Bush some good can accrue for the World.
Looking forward to more substantive contributions from the respondents than so far.
I do intend to look at the article referred to in #2.
Who knows, it is not impossible that the Arab States may see the light and try to settle the Palestinian question in cooperation with Sharon of Israel - who is taking on the ultra-conservative Jewish in connection with Gaza Strip withdrawal.
If that happens then inspite of all ``seeming`` misadventure of George Bush some good can accrue for the World.
Looking forward to more substantive contributions from the respondents than so far.
#5 Posted by wahi_to on September 27, 2004 1:03:51 pm
my take on the situation:
Nov 2 - Bush baba wins the election with huge majority giving him a clear mandate to screw the world further.
Dec. - Friendly state of Israel launches a huge strike on iranian nuclear facilities
iran retaliates with all it has on israel, us bases, even ksa
america is forced to enter the war and it drops lots of cute bombs on iran in the interest of ``peace``
iran retaliates with sweet chemicals and biological weapons
usa nukes iranian cities
finally millions die, dollar crashes, world economy goes into deep recession and oil touches $90 per barrel.
as munna bhai MBBS would say ``sabki waat lag jaayegi``
Nov 2 - Bush baba wins the election with huge majority giving him a clear mandate to screw the world further.
Dec. - Friendly state of Israel launches a huge strike on iranian nuclear facilities
iran retaliates with all it has on israel, us bases, even ksa
america is forced to enter the war and it drops lots of cute bombs on iran in the interest of ``peace``
iran retaliates with sweet chemicals and biological weapons
usa nukes iranian cities
finally millions die, dollar crashes, world economy goes into deep recession and oil touches $90 per barrel.
as munna bhai MBBS would say ``sabki waat lag jaayegi``
#4 Posted by BruceLee on September 27, 2004 7:58:48 am
Naughty children are beginning to behave themselves.
#3 Posted by ikonoclast on September 27, 2004 7:58:47 am
Hi Stuka! Its only a brief analysis on the current developments focusing on Syria; for details about Iran please read my artcle at Chowk: Iran, Making a Bid for Regional Power.
#2 Posted by kaurasach on September 27, 2004 7:58:47 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#1 Posted by stuka on September 27, 2004 5:48:18 am
Not too bad but the article should have brought forth more detail on Iran rather than a review of recent headlines.
Interact Index
Also by abdul naeem
Similar Articles
- MQM - History and Origins Ali Chishti
- Dueling Partners: Pakistan and America Wajahat Ali
- The Only Good Muslim is the Anti-Muslim Junaid LevesqueAlam
- Behind That Voice! Sheharyar Malhi
- A Guantanomized Age Junaid LevesqueAlam
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- KaalChakra: DM ji, we will... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Do... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Problem is... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 104 Quetta will... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 94 Jokingly... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- sadna: OK, thanks d_m, that... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- Cobra: Free Kashmir! I'm putting... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- KaalChakra: ok, dm ji, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
