In all probability, if it has not already happened, Iran will turn down what the EU is describing as a new package “full of opportunities” being offered in return for halting its nuclear enrichment program. On the surface, the proposal sounds enticing enough. The six powers are ready to help develop Iran’s nuclear energy program for peaceful purposes. The deal also involves trade benefits. The six are ready to fully recognize Iran’s right to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and to construct nuclear power plants. Iran is also offered legally binding fuel supply guarantees.
However, two problems get in the way. Assuming the offer is conditional on Iran halting its uranium enrichment, which it is, the deal is likely dead on arrival.
Point No. 2: The offer is nothing but a refreshed version of a 2006 package that Iran rejected.
What is the point of offering a deal previously submitted and previously turned down, and that is close to certain to being turned down again? Is it to show the world that by holding out the promise of economic, technological, educational and political rewards, the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China are being as generous as possible and are doing everything they can to avoid a confrontation and that Iran is not, thus painting Iran as the obstinate party and thus deserving of punishment? And is this stubbornness to be penalized by way of yet more loosely enforced sanctions that have not done the job, and which the six are certain will invariably be ineffective and hence and ultimately, the arrival of the last resort, a military strike on Iran, because Tehran has left the world with no other choice?
A military onslaught is not, as far as we know, on the cards, but Iran has been dominating George Bush’s discussions this week with leaders as he travels through Europe on his last swing as president. Even if he wanted, Bush does not have enough time in his term for a military attack on Iran. However, the two presidential hopefuls do. And while John McCain appears the maverick who would go all the way, Barack Obama, who initially said he would talk with Iranian leaders without preconditions, is now right behind, sounding just as tough as McCain in an attempt not to appear soft on “national security”. There is also Israel whose highest officials, past and present, have not minced words on a possible strike.
None of this means an attack on Iran is imminent. Despite all the talk that Iran will not concur with the latest proposal, in Paris Bush did not repeat his strongest rhetoric on Tehran, which he has repeatedly threatened with new sanctions or even the last-resort possibility of a military strike if it remains defiant. But if the basic attitude of the US and the EU remain, that Iran is entitled to civilian nuclear power but it cannot be trusted to enrich, such a stalemate can only furnish the fuel for a lethal confrontation.
An attack on Iran would have consequences no less disastrous than the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Surely those espousing such thoughts understand this. But the very idea that military force is being discussed openly, while at the same time diplomatic efforts are ostensibly being touted as gestures aimed at peace but look sinisterly like being ultimately directed toward a war effort, is as significant as it is scary.
