Iran nuclear row: When diplomacy is warped

A Jerusalem Post report quoting a senior Israeli government source said that if the international community failed to act tough on Iran, Israel would act alone - meaning Israel would attack Iran.

By Ameen Izzadeen

The message in Iran's 23-page response to the United Nations was clear. There will be no suspension of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme. The response sets the stage either for a new diplomatic initiative aimed at forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear programme or a military strike. Israel is pushing for the latter option while the United States's position is ambiguous.

The military strike could have been a more likely option if the Lebanon war had ended in Israel's favour. But it is not totally out of contention. One of the reasons for Israel's attack on Lebanon was to decimate Hezbollah's fire power so that in the event of an Israeli or US attack on Iran's nuclear installations, the threat from the Shiite militia groups would be minimal or non-existent. Although Israel has failed to achieve its objective through military means, it is well set to accomplish its task by other means. Israel hopes that the deployment of a robust international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon will keep Hezbollah in check. The victorious militia of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah won't be able to fire their missiles into Israel when they are surrounded by a 15,000 strong international force backed by 15,000 Lebanese troops. If they try to do that, it will create a violent scenario in southern Lebanon with Hezbollah fighting the international troops instead of Israel. Thus it is clear that UN Resolution 1701 has offered Israel a strategic advantage as far as its possible confrontation with Iran is concerned.

A Jerusalem Post report quoting a senior Israeli government source said that if the international community failed to act tough on Iran, Israel would act alone - meaning Israel would attack Iran. In the face of Israel's failure to tame Hezbollah in its 34-day war, an Israel attack on Iran is a distinct possibility. Ehud Olmert, who is under heavy fire from the Israeli people for his mishandling of the Lebanon war - with some 60 percent of them saying in an opinion poll that he should resign - may once again gamble Israel's security to score political points by attacking Iran. Such a move may draw missile fire from Iran, but Israel is confident that its US-supplied Patriot anti-missile missiles could shoot down Iranian missiles just as it faced Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles during Gulf War 1.

It is only Israel and the United States that are hell bent on preventing Iran from going nuclear? What's wrong in going nuclear? After all nuclear weapons offer a deterrent. In other words they prevent wars. No two nuclear states that have the missile or delivery capability to reach the other's territory will ever think of attacking the other. If Iran's nuclear weapons can act as deterrent to stop a clash between Israel and Iran and check US adventurism, Iran going nuclear is a welcome development, although pro-American Arab nations may feel uncomfortable with a mighty Iran.

But let's assume for the sake of peace that nuclear proliferation is bad and should be stopped. Why should the international community worry about only proliferation? What about total nuclear disarmament? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China - and the two new comers to the club - India and Pakistan - have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire planet. It is also said that Israel possesses some 300 nuclear warheads. Yet there is no talk of sanction or applying pressure on Israel to dismantle its nuclear programme.

The international community's protest over Iran's nuclear enrichment programme is similar to the attempt of a flood-hit man's cry to stop the rising water after the water has risen over his head. Nuclear disarmament should be absolute and those possessing nuclear weapons should disarm themselves first before forcing other nations to abandon their peaceful nuclear programmes. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is eligible to receive international assistance to develop a peaceful nuclear programme. But this fact is lost on the West which refuses to believe Iran's claim that its nuclear programme is essentially for peaceful purposes. Besides, every country must have the right to conduct scientific research and development. If the international community wants to punish Iran, that should come only after Iran tests a nuclear device. Any sanction on Iran, therefore, is unwarranted and premature.

The undercurrent in the controversy surrounding Iran's nuclear programme is global power politics aimed at maintaining the dominance of one superpower - in this case, the Untied States - and its Middle Eastern agent, Israel.

As things stand today, Iran is sitting pretty. With Russia, one of Iran's biggest trading partners, already opposing moves to bring sanctions on Iran and urging the West to see the Iranian response in a positive manner, the US efforts at punishing Iran are likely to come a cropper. Even the French are said to be not in favour of punitive measures.

Iran in its response said it was ready for "serious talks" with the five UN permanent members and Germany and even consider suspension of its nuclear programme but would not accept the suspension as a condition for such talks. It was responding to the joint intensive package which the European trio - Germany, France and Britain - offered after cajoling the United States.

But the US administration rejected the Iranian offer and turned its focus on economic sanctions though the Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme and open up its nuclear facilities for international inspection expires at the end of this month.

An Asia Times article on Thursday claimed that Washington never seriously supported the joint package, refusing to include a US security guarantee in return for a halt to uranium enrichment-one of Iran's key demands. "The US has never been prepared to give such [security] guarantees, and thus ended what appeared on the surface to be a genuine multilateral initiative for negotiations with Iran... the history of the international proposal shows that the Bush administration was determined from the beginning that it would fail...."

Meanwhile, Iran, emboldened by the victory of Hezbollah which it supported, stands firm, refusing to budge from its position that nuclear research and development for peaceful purposes are its sovereign rights. Its Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Friday that no power would be able to take nuclear technology ''for peaceful purposes'' away from Iran. His remarks came ahead of an Iranian statement expected late yesterday that Iran has crossed an important threshold in its enrichment endeavour.