I must confess that until recently I was a relative hawk on Iran’s influence in various Arab countries and its unwavering support to the bloody regime of Bashar Assad.
Then, following a joke by US Secretary of State John Kerry at a press conference, in which he said the United States would hold off on attacking Syria if that country gave up all of its chemical weapons. US President Barack Obama hesitated and decided not to launch Tomahawk missiles against Damascus despite the fact that the Syrian regime had crossed his metaphorical red line several times following the nerve gas attacks that it unleashed against its own people in Ghouta.
At first blush, Obama’s decision not to attack Syria seemed like weakness and the start of a strategic American withdrawal from further involvement in the deadly mess that is the Middle East. But upon closer inspection it seemed like the right thing to do when all the cards were stacked against him. Russia and China repeatedly blocked any action by the UN Security Council on the civil war in Syria, and the American public and Congress were sending clear and loud signals that they did not want any more American lives or wealth lost in the region.
At around the same time, new Iranian President Hassan Rowhani was sending out a message of moderation and a willingness to cooperate with the West to find a solution in order to lift the severe economic sanctions that the West had imposed on Iran because of suspicions that its nuclear program has a military component. This has been a refreshing and much needed change from the hawkish stance of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But is that enough to rebuild trust in Iran’s intentions in the Middle East? Will Iran keep funding the Assad regime and Hezbollah in Lebanon? These are all serious questions that demand to be asked of the Iranians publicly and repeatedly, and to which satisfactory answers need to be found to calm the fears of Arab states that Iran is bent on dominating the region.
On the nuclear front, the Iranians have left much of the world with suspicions of what they are really after. Is it only nuclear energy to produce electricity so that more of its oil can be freed up for export where it can be sold for more gain, or are they trying to have enough enriched uranium at 90 percent to produce nuclear bombs? Power plants need uranium enriched to only 3.5 percent, so one wonders as to why Iran has ended up with 196 kilos of enriched uranium at 20 percent.
And it would take only a few more spins in its 10,000 centrifuges already in operation, and 54 more kilos of the stuff, to achieve enough uranium enriched at 90 percent to manufacture nuclear bombs. They have committed themselves to neutralizing their stock of uranium enriched to 20 percent, and to stick to enriching uranium to a maximum of 5 percent. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors will have to certify through their daily inspections that this in fact is happening.
Parallel to these nuclear measures, the US and other Western powers would do well to ensure that Arab fears of Iranian domination get addressed at the Geneva 2 talks. To show goodwill toward Gulf countries, Iran could substantially curb its financial and military support to Hezbollah and the Syrian regime. This would go a long way in assuaging the fears of the Gulf.
