Following the extremely dangerous remark of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, on Oct. 26, that Israel should be “wiped of the map”, Prime Minister Tony Blair told a European Union summit that there would be talks with the United States and other allies on how best to respond. I am sure such talks have taken place, and will continue, because the election of this unworldly and hard-line president in June, and his subsequent speeches and behavior, have certainly raised the problem of Iran high up the list of global issues.
The international community has reached the conclusion that the clerics who control Iran, since the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini, intend to acquire nuclear weapons. The clerics have carefully noted the arguments that countries like Britain and France have used for decades to justify having a nuclear deterrent. No doubt, they have seen that, although the Cold War is well and truly over, Britain seems to be about to update its own deterrent at a cost of over £20 billion.
Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons to prevent Israel from attacking it. Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, but is thought to have some 200 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them. Many Iranians believe that if Saddam Hussein had had nuclear weapons the United States and the United Kingdom would not have invaded Iraq. Iran has watched Pakistan develop a nuclear capacity without too much difficulty or international action against it. It would like to do the same — possibly with Russian help, official or more likely unofficial.
Much of the global community led by the United States and Israel is determined to stop this happening. The case put forward is weakened by the fact that Israel was allowed to develop its nuclear capacity, with help from France, and the United States turned a blind eye. The case is also weakened by the fact that a growing number of countries, such as China, have obtained nuclear weapons and show no signs whatsoever of setting an example in the disarmament field by giving them up. South Africa is the glowing exception, and in her case reasons relating to the end of apartheid came into play.
Britain, Germany and France have been actively involved in talks with Iran seeking to persuade it to stop its controversial nuclear program, which, of course, Iran claims is not related to defense. They acted on behalf of the 25 members of the European Union, who all believed that offering carrots and not sticks represented the best way forward, and one that most certainly must be tried first. The EU had hoped Iran might be removed from the Axis of Evil and that the Americans might be persuaded to make other diplomatic moves toward Tehran in tandem with the EU’s talks.
We now have to face the extremely unpleasant fact that Britain, German and France have failed in their mission. Rightly, this matter is now being taken on to the United Nations Security Council. The Iranian response is to continue with the nuclear program and to threaten Israel with obliteration — presumably with nuclear weapons.
The carrot having failed, the advice of the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency becomes crucial. The Security Council may decide on the stick of punitive sanctions if Russia and China do not oppose them. A nation of the gigantic size of Iran, with so many neighbors and porous borders, and a decent supply of oil, is in a strong position to withstand the pressure of sanctions for years.
I am sure the Pentagon has carefully considered the use of force against this strategically important nation with a population of 68 million. But the most short-sighted neoconservative must realize by now that the United States is dangerously overstretched in Iraq, facing trouble in Afghanistan, and being forced to rely far too heavily on its reservists.
For years I have regarded Israeli military action against Iran as a distinct possibility. Israelis are proud of the bombing of the Osirak facility in Iraq in 1981 which held back Saddam Hussein’s atomic ambitions. In September 2004 it was reported that America was about to sell Israel some “bunker buster” bombs.
These are precision-guided and designed to penetrate and destroy underground targets. Israel has a fighter-bomber squadron trained for such a role. Iran, well aware of such facts, is supposed to have key installations linked to its nuclear program both well dispersed and deep underground.
America might regard an Israeli strike — strictly illegal under international law — as a risky last throw. We should realize that American and Israeli foreign policies have almost merged for this region. But Washington must be alarmed that Iran could retaliate by flooding Iraq with well trained and equipped guerrilla forces to fight American troops.
