Iran And Balancing The Case For
War On The Middle EastBy Dr Marwan Asmar
12 November, 2007
Countercurrents.org
If you had asked me if the United States would have attacked Iran in the pre-September 11 days, I would have given a flat no.Today I am not so sure. The world has vastly changed in the post-September 11 era. The globe led by the United States has become so belligerent, in fact much more so than the days of the Cold War when there was at least some kind of bio-polarity where mutually assured destructive balanced the views of the superpowers.
Today there are pernicious thinking as to who should be entitled to have the nuclear bomb. America has adopted a high-handed approach to its security where countries like Iran, North Korea and even Pakistan and India who are nuclear states already are not supposed to be in the same league as the United States, Britain, France, possibly Russia, and of course Israel.
The conventional wisdom is that lesser states like Iran certainly should not have a nuclear capability simply because they are seen as a threat. Israel, with over 200 nuclear war heads to its name, and having consistently refused to admit ever having them, are allowed to go Scott free while bombing the day light out of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
The Americans, Israelis and possibly the Europeans, have long lamented that the Iranian nuclear file would become the destructive lynch pin in the area. While today there is a renewed talk of wars in the Middle East and pre-emptive strikes on Iran the weighing of such possibilities can be divided into two main schools of thought.
Judging from America’s obtrusive stand in the post-September 11, her war in Afghanistan and her subsequent occupation of Iraq, many believe Washington would just be willing to take a long, hard military swipe against Iran to deter her from achieving nuclear capability under the mantra of protecting world peace.
Even though this would set a dangerous precedence for the area, including American interest in the Gulf, many analyst believe the USA would have no compunction in unleashing a destructive military strike or strikes to end Iran’s military and nuclear capability, weaken the country, possibly isolate it through international sanctions, scare it of and more importantly send a signal to other powers in the Gulf, including America’s friends like Saudi Arabia and Egypt not to go down the nuclear road, even for peaceful reasons which is what Iran is doing.
The other school of thought is slightly more sophisticated and argues for the use of politics as an instrument to solve troublesome disputes. This school may suggest that the United States is not really interested in opening another military front since it already has enough on its plate with its mud-slinging tactics on the streets of Baghdad and in its embroilment in different Iraqi towns and cities. Experts say what the American military establishment is really doing is employing bullying tactics vis-à-vis Iran and raising the ante in an attempt to keep up the pressure on the Iranian state and people so that they either submit or fall.
According to this line of thinking Washington will in the end opt out for a policy of appeasement or constructive engagement with Tehran as it did with North Korea just before and after its US allied-led war in Iraq in 2003.
Such appeasement continues even today, simply because the Americans know in their heart of hearts that North Korea has reached the stage of nuclear capability, have raised the predictability stakes and the US is not about to indulge on a course of adventure politics whose risks would be too great to contemplate and where its effectively fighting a war in Iraq it had willingly got itself into.
The issue with the nuclear option is once you get your toe on the ladder you are half way up there, regardless of the deterrence which in the end becomes largely in effective unless you are really be prepared to use it. And the prevailing view becomes whilst you may not like it, there is practically nothing much you can do without creating extensive damage, so the Americans will probably leave Iran on its own and more likely to engage it in a dialogue against nuclear proliferation which it is already a party to since it has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty back in 1968.
But the problem with Iran lies in its geographical location vis-à-vis Israel that has been building its nuclear capability as late as the 1950s. Leaving aside Iran’s allies of Syria and Hizbollah which are virtually on her doorstep, a nuclear-strapped Iran would pose a direct threat to Israel, a threat to her power in the region and a direct threat to her international relations, so her reasoning goes.
This is why today, Israel is seen to be more trigger happy than the United States even though the United States coined the phrase of the axis of evil of lumping North Korea, Iran and Syria together. It is Israel that is now in the driving seat for a quick deterrent attack against Iran, to circumvent the country ever becoming a fully-blown nuclear power. But this is a short-term parochial thinking on the part of Israel that forces the allocation and use of greater military strength to deter Iran.
If Israel strikes, it might possibly lead to a nuclear conflagration within the region because Iran is not likely to sit back and watch, and other nuclear powers in the region bordering Iran may be drawn in and lead to World War III. This can certainly happens if Israel sticks to its myopic view and decides to attack which it may, and the Americans might be dragged into this thinking if they continue to hold on to the fact there is a terrorist in every cupboard view.
Or oppositely, and because deterrence has over-played its usefulness, both the United States and Israel are likely and reluctantly to go for what can be called a rationalist approach and live with Iran’s nuclear option while aiming at behind-the-scenes containment—in another world to needle nuclear powers such as Iran while living with them at the same time. Israel has always been good at this game, as was frequently the case in Lebanon when it would always keep the country below the military boil even when it wasn’t at full scale wars and occupation of the country.
Just on the regional situation, International politics in the Middle East is complicated not least of all because of the Palestinian issue. The United States and Israel has long been weary of Iran’s triangle with Syria and Hizbollah, they have always been weary of these developing alliances but they have not been able to do much about that, mainly because of Washington’s quagmire situation in Iraq.
Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon in a bid to destroy Hizbollah, even the blessed by the USA which it saw as legitimate to fight her wars on Islamic global terrorism, had badly damaged the credibility of both countries not only in the region but in the world. America especially lost much Arab friends, and this may be while it is taking a less strident role on Iran because of her predicament in Iraq.
This is not be the case with Israel, a country that may now be looking for other options. But the problem with Tel Aviv is it has its own internal troubles to contend with. It has only recently began to put the Israeli house in order after her unexpected bloody nose in Lebanon. The long-winded Intifada, now in its seventh year is also having its toll on the Israeli military machine and Iran is not Iraq which one could bomb its territory and come back is it did in 1982 when Israel bombed the Osreiq nuclear reactor in Iraq.
Things are slowly changing in the region and the area but nobody, including the Israelis, are willing to recognize the fact. Predicting the next global moves in the Middle East is especially difficult. Is war on our doorstep, what are the stakes and who is first likely to take the plunge?
The author is a writer based in Amman
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Syndicate CC Headlines On Your Blog
