Battlefield: Iran
25/12/11 17:03![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAlthough uninvited, Iran insists to join the club of the nuclear powers. The recent weeks have increased the concerns about that. This is bound to cause a conflict of international proportions. IAEA doesn't rule out the possibility that Iran has renewed its military nuclear program, although Iran keeps claiming their only goal is the peaceful production of energy. The main players in this game are well known: Iran, Israel, the US. Partly China, Russia as well. The international sanctions have been tightened, and Iran responded by kicking out the UK ambassador.
Things started getting out of control when Iranian mobs attacked the UK embassy in Tehran, and UK was forced to close it and cut its relations with the ayatollahs. Meanwhile the US accused Iran of a conspiracy to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Add the captured US drone that fell on Iranian territory, and the ayatollahs' plans to sue 15 people on charges of espionage on behalf of USA and Israel, and the US plans to relocate some of their Iraqi forces to Kuwait; and the battlefield for geopolitical domination that is Syria... And you've got the picture.
EU is also joining the sanctions, planning to follow suit with the US embargo on Iranian oil (Iran is the 2nd largest oil producer from OPEC). In response to that, Russia and China hurled some sharp criticism of the sanctions, claiming they'd curb any chances of a peaceful dialogue between Iran and the West. All of this is getting interpreted by some analysts as a sign that whatever traces of dialogue had remained, are now gone. And open all-out confrontation now looks more likely than ever. And that's pretty dangerous.
The common wisdom is that every US president (of the last years) should have waged at least one war of their own. Clinton had Serbia; GWB even had two: Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama (if he's to serve another term) should have two, by the same logic: we could count Libya as the first one, although no US troops were committed there; and what about Iran? A viable scenario?
It's a fact that increased sanctions are very unlikely to have an effect on Iran. The ayatollahs are aware that having nukes means having a huge prestige and geopolitical leverage, in a region where Iran is encircled by enemies, and with the constant US presence breathing down their neck. Granted, getting the nukes doesn't automatically mean Iran will attack somebody, even despite all the "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric (which I suspect is mostly for domestic consumption, to rally the mobs into submission and praise of dear leaders).
It's a fact also that the nuclear energy industry enjoys a wide support in Iran itself, even by those who are concerned that it might grow into building nuclear weapons and those who don't want a confrontation with the West. In a sense the nuclear program is seen in Iran as a sign of modernization, and that in a 4000+ year old civilization is deemed a very important thing.
The regime also sees the nuclear program as a keystone for its survival. Obviously they've decided that the goal is worth taking all the pain and effort, and all the risks. In a way, Iran's nuclear program is seen as an expression of their resistance to Western domination and what Ahmadinejad so eagerly preaches about - the unjust world order (in his opinion and that of the ayatollahs, obviously).
So, it's not like all options aren't on the table really. Including a military solution. But still, is an air strike on Iran likely in the next months? Not so fast. The price could be too steep, and the short-term implications too unpredictable. Besides, seeking for a military solution could fuel the Iranian sentiment that the West wants the destruction of Iran, no less; therefore it would give them further justification to pursue their nuclear program even more vigorously. And would convince powers like Russia and China that the West doesn't want a peaceful solution, and this would make them withdraw whatever support they had for the international sanctions. Which leaves Europe and the US alone in this, and that's not what they want.
And what about Israel? The speculations about a possible air strike on Iran is subject #1 in the Israeli press right now. Israel has said it many times that they deem Iran the primary threat for their security, a threat they won't tolerate.
Obama himself has said that the US would do all in its powers to prevent the nuclear armament of the Islamic state. But while he doesn't look so prone to a military intervention, his Republican opponents are more than ready to put "all options on the table", including (or maybe first and foremost) the sabre-rattling option.
The big question is, would Israel dare to act on their own, and how would the US react to that. When asked if Tel Aviv would warn the US before striking on Iran, Gen. Dempsey, the highest ranking in the US military, said "I just don't know". That says a lot. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that Israel would act preemptively without asking anybody, and then rely that the US would be compelled to follow suit and throw their support behind them as a knee-jerk course of action. On the other hand, many are still hoping that Netanyahu hasn't completely lost his mind (yet) and he wouldn't do anything without consulting with the US first.
The stakes are very high indeed. Iran could retaliate and threaten the entire oil supply in the Gulf, poke various Shia rebel groups to do attacks around Iraq, urge Hezbollah and Hamas to strike Israel, and launch missiles at Israel itself, and at the US bases in the region.
Exactly how useless such a war would be, becomes clear from the words of Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, who said that a military strike on Iran would hardly curb its nuclear ambitions, and would only delay their program a bit. Maybe with 1 or 2 years in the best case. The targets that should be attacked are very difficult to reach. Most of them are deep underground, and the Iranians are very secretive about the scales of the whole thing.
In fact the main reason for not wanting a military strike on Iran is not the nuclear program, it's the concern that any wars in the region would only increase the geopolitical weight of Tehran, as became visible in Bahrain, and especially Iraq. Ironically, the US invasion has resulted in an increased influence of Iran in Iraq. And Iran may've influenced Iraq to ask for a quicker US withdrawal from there. And the US is not stupid, all the symbolic and heroic rituals about the "end of the war" regardless, that'll most probably not really be a withdrawal, but rather a relocation to another place in the region, from where they'll keep watching things closely.
Israel has its own problems to deal with (Palestine), and actually the IAEA report didn't tell us anything new about the nuclear program itself (Iran accuses the UN that they've written the report under pressure from the US, which is not entirely implausible when you think about it; especially when we take in consideration the recent Wikileaks leaks that the US is in very warm relations with the IAEA chairman Amano).
Granted, that's just Wikileaks and The Guardian (duh). But even if that speculation is not proven true, the risks from a military intervention against Iran are just too high. The nuclear facilities are very dispersed across its territory, and though the US insists that their military operations would have "surgical precision", still the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties as a result of a so-called "dirty bomb" are not to be under-estimated. In result, the whole region could be engulfed in flames, and an all-out conflict between the supporters and enemies of Iran and Israel could quickly devolve into something like a mini-word-war. Armageddon, anyone!?
And that's not the only problem - the oil prices would skyrocket, and that would be the final nail in the coffin of world economy. If attacked, Iran could use oil for blackmail and devastate the entire OPEC trade. It has already started military maneuvers in the Hormuz strait, from where 2/3 of the world oil is transported. All the Gulf countries depend on the peace in that tiny chunk of sea.
The confirmation for this is that the major oil traders and big oil companies are seriously concerned with a possible strike on Iran. 2/3 of Iran's export goes to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and 1/5 goes to EU. Some projections point to a $ 175+ per barrel price, if a war breaks out.
On the other hand, an attack on Iran would only consolidate the Iranian people around the regime, just when there've been some minor signs of the emergence of internal opposition...
Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center proposes that the West should get over the fact that Iran will continue to enrich small amounts of Uranium. In return, they should increase the IAEA inspections to guarantee that the purposes of the program remain peaceful.
And Mark Gopin of the Centre for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution (wow, what a name) proposes something unheard of - namely, offering Iran the establishment of diplomatic relations and signing a non-aggression pact between USA and Iran, plus a secret non-aggression agreement between Israel / Iran / Saudi Arabia. This way, instead of confrontation, the road to stability could be paved and a new chapter in the relations between Iran and the West could be initiated. That's not to say that the struggle for geopolitical supremacy in the region (mostly between Iran and Saudi Arabia) wouldn't continue, especially using proxies (in Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, etc). But at least a direct confrontation between the big players could be avoided.
Sir Richard Dalton has a similar proposal. He says the main players should listen to China and Russia's advice and find new ways for negotiation, based on more flexible positions. Right now the positions of all sides involved are too firm, even stubborn. While he agrees that the negotiating sides should be united in their position (right now some support the sanctions, others don't, some want the renewal of the negotiations, and others don't), he insists that the options for a peaceful solution are still far from exhausted. It's never easy to negotiate, especially with someone like Iran, but the dialogue has to be renewed nonetheless, and new ideas be put on the table. Even if it's difficult, it deserves the effort, particularly if the alternative is huge violence. Going to war looks just too easy. The consequences are long-term, and much harder to overcome.
Things started getting out of control when Iranian mobs attacked the UK embassy in Tehran, and UK was forced to close it and cut its relations with the ayatollahs. Meanwhile the US accused Iran of a conspiracy to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Add the captured US drone that fell on Iranian territory, and the ayatollahs' plans to sue 15 people on charges of espionage on behalf of USA and Israel, and the US plans to relocate some of their Iraqi forces to Kuwait; and the battlefield for geopolitical domination that is Syria... And you've got the picture.
EU is also joining the sanctions, planning to follow suit with the US embargo on Iranian oil (Iran is the 2nd largest oil producer from OPEC). In response to that, Russia and China hurled some sharp criticism of the sanctions, claiming they'd curb any chances of a peaceful dialogue between Iran and the West. All of this is getting interpreted by some analysts as a sign that whatever traces of dialogue had remained, are now gone. And open all-out confrontation now looks more likely than ever. And that's pretty dangerous.
The common wisdom is that every US president (of the last years) should have waged at least one war of their own. Clinton had Serbia; GWB even had two: Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama (if he's to serve another term) should have two, by the same logic: we could count Libya as the first one, although no US troops were committed there; and what about Iran? A viable scenario?
It's a fact that increased sanctions are very unlikely to have an effect on Iran. The ayatollahs are aware that having nukes means having a huge prestige and geopolitical leverage, in a region where Iran is encircled by enemies, and with the constant US presence breathing down their neck. Granted, getting the nukes doesn't automatically mean Iran will attack somebody, even despite all the "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric (which I suspect is mostly for domestic consumption, to rally the mobs into submission and praise of dear leaders).
It's a fact also that the nuclear energy industry enjoys a wide support in Iran itself, even by those who are concerned that it might grow into building nuclear weapons and those who don't want a confrontation with the West. In a sense the nuclear program is seen in Iran as a sign of modernization, and that in a 4000+ year old civilization is deemed a very important thing.
The regime also sees the nuclear program as a keystone for its survival. Obviously they've decided that the goal is worth taking all the pain and effort, and all the risks. In a way, Iran's nuclear program is seen as an expression of their resistance to Western domination and what Ahmadinejad so eagerly preaches about - the unjust world order (in his opinion and that of the ayatollahs, obviously).
So, it's not like all options aren't on the table really. Including a military solution. But still, is an air strike on Iran likely in the next months? Not so fast. The price could be too steep, and the short-term implications too unpredictable. Besides, seeking for a military solution could fuel the Iranian sentiment that the West wants the destruction of Iran, no less; therefore it would give them further justification to pursue their nuclear program even more vigorously. And would convince powers like Russia and China that the West doesn't want a peaceful solution, and this would make them withdraw whatever support they had for the international sanctions. Which leaves Europe and the US alone in this, and that's not what they want.
And what about Israel? The speculations about a possible air strike on Iran is subject #1 in the Israeli press right now. Israel has said it many times that they deem Iran the primary threat for their security, a threat they won't tolerate.
Obama himself has said that the US would do all in its powers to prevent the nuclear armament of the Islamic state. But while he doesn't look so prone to a military intervention, his Republican opponents are more than ready to put "all options on the table", including (or maybe first and foremost) the sabre-rattling option.
The big question is, would Israel dare to act on their own, and how would the US react to that. When asked if Tel Aviv would warn the US before striking on Iran, Gen. Dempsey, the highest ranking in the US military, said "I just don't know". That says a lot. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that Israel would act preemptively without asking anybody, and then rely that the US would be compelled to follow suit and throw their support behind them as a knee-jerk course of action. On the other hand, many are still hoping that Netanyahu hasn't completely lost his mind (yet) and he wouldn't do anything without consulting with the US first.
The stakes are very high indeed. Iran could retaliate and threaten the entire oil supply in the Gulf, poke various Shia rebel groups to do attacks around Iraq, urge Hezbollah and Hamas to strike Israel, and launch missiles at Israel itself, and at the US bases in the region.
Exactly how useless such a war would be, becomes clear from the words of Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, who said that a military strike on Iran would hardly curb its nuclear ambitions, and would only delay their program a bit. Maybe with 1 or 2 years in the best case. The targets that should be attacked are very difficult to reach. Most of them are deep underground, and the Iranians are very secretive about the scales of the whole thing.
In fact the main reason for not wanting a military strike on Iran is not the nuclear program, it's the concern that any wars in the region would only increase the geopolitical weight of Tehran, as became visible in Bahrain, and especially Iraq. Ironically, the US invasion has resulted in an increased influence of Iran in Iraq. And Iran may've influenced Iraq to ask for a quicker US withdrawal from there. And the US is not stupid, all the symbolic and heroic rituals about the "end of the war" regardless, that'll most probably not really be a withdrawal, but rather a relocation to another place in the region, from where they'll keep watching things closely.
Israel has its own problems to deal with (Palestine), and actually the IAEA report didn't tell us anything new about the nuclear program itself (Iran accuses the UN that they've written the report under pressure from the US, which is not entirely implausible when you think about it; especially when we take in consideration the recent Wikileaks leaks that the US is in very warm relations with the IAEA chairman Amano).
Granted, that's just Wikileaks and The Guardian (duh). But even if that speculation is not proven true, the risks from a military intervention against Iran are just too high. The nuclear facilities are very dispersed across its territory, and though the US insists that their military operations would have "surgical precision", still the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties as a result of a so-called "dirty bomb" are not to be under-estimated. In result, the whole region could be engulfed in flames, and an all-out conflict between the supporters and enemies of Iran and Israel could quickly devolve into something like a mini-word-war. Armageddon, anyone!?
And that's not the only problem - the oil prices would skyrocket, and that would be the final nail in the coffin of world economy. If attacked, Iran could use oil for blackmail and devastate the entire OPEC trade. It has already started military maneuvers in the Hormuz strait, from where 2/3 of the world oil is transported. All the Gulf countries depend on the peace in that tiny chunk of sea.
The confirmation for this is that the major oil traders and big oil companies are seriously concerned with a possible strike on Iran. 2/3 of Iran's export goes to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and 1/5 goes to EU. Some projections point to a $ 175+ per barrel price, if a war breaks out.
On the other hand, an attack on Iran would only consolidate the Iranian people around the regime, just when there've been some minor signs of the emergence of internal opposition...
Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center proposes that the West should get over the fact that Iran will continue to enrich small amounts of Uranium. In return, they should increase the IAEA inspections to guarantee that the purposes of the program remain peaceful.
And Mark Gopin of the Centre for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution (wow, what a name) proposes something unheard of - namely, offering Iran the establishment of diplomatic relations and signing a non-aggression pact between USA and Iran, plus a secret non-aggression agreement between Israel / Iran / Saudi Arabia. This way, instead of confrontation, the road to stability could be paved and a new chapter in the relations between Iran and the West could be initiated. That's not to say that the struggle for geopolitical supremacy in the region (mostly between Iran and Saudi Arabia) wouldn't continue, especially using proxies (in Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, etc). But at least a direct confrontation between the big players could be avoided.
Sir Richard Dalton has a similar proposal. He says the main players should listen to China and Russia's advice and find new ways for negotiation, based on more flexible positions. Right now the positions of all sides involved are too firm, even stubborn. While he agrees that the negotiating sides should be united in their position (right now some support the sanctions, others don't, some want the renewal of the negotiations, and others don't), he insists that the options for a peaceful solution are still far from exhausted. It's never easy to negotiate, especially with someone like Iran, but the dialogue has to be renewed nonetheless, and new ideas be put on the table. Even if it's difficult, it deserves the effort, particularly if the alternative is huge violence. Going to war looks just too easy. The consequences are long-term, and much harder to overcome.
