Iran’s stabilising role in ME
By Maqbool Ahmed Bhatty
Friday, JUNE 15,2007
WITH the UN Security Council due to consider further sanctions against Iran, the previous consensus among its permanent members may be difficult to maintain as the US justifies its Ballistic Missile Defence installations in Eastern Europe that are being targeted at Iran.
As a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran has not only accepted inspection by the IAEA but has also signed an additional protocol permitting further visits to specific sites. Alarmist opinions aside, the general assessment among experts is that Iran is at least five years away from acquiring military nuclear capability. The only known nuclear power in the region, Israel, not only has its own capability but also enjoys full US guarantees. The basic problem in the current crisis is that the US remains committed to its goal of a regime change in Iran.
The anomaly is that the predominantly young population of Iran would like to see improved relations with the West, but not at the cost of sacrificing their national identity and values. Former presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami reflect a pragmatic approach but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stands for the sovereignty and rights of an ancient land, which cannot be sacrificed. He also symbolises the aspirations of the Muslim world, which must be respected if the West wants security in the region.
While sticking stubbornly to its right to continue uranium enrichment, that is being exercised by many other signatories of NPT for peaceful purposes, Iran has participated in a security dialogue in Baghdad in which the US also took part. Iran has participated in IAEA consultations and is in contact with some EU countries on its nuclear programme. It has refuted allegations that it has sent arms to militants in Palestine or Lebanon and has condemned Israel’s resort to violence against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, where it has arrested many elected representatives belonging to Hamas.
The Israeli attitude shows complete disdain for the peace process and the US has hardly shown any reaction, which bodes ill for durable peace in the region. On his recent tour of Europe, President George Bush tried to strike a conciliatory note with President Vladimir Putin of Russia by suggesting the installation of monitors in Azerbaijan for US and Russian missiles. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US is being changed and a large US naval force has been steaming up and down the Persian Gulf.
The overall US posture in the Middle East is still aggressive, with Syria being accused of provoking conflict in Lebanon, while Iran’s nuclear ambitions are highlighted frequently. Though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice keeps talking to Arab leaders the US is focusing on militants in Sudan and Somalia. The post 9/11 anti-Muslim rhetoric persists, and apart from the US pursuing regime change in Iran, ideas of redrawing the map of the region keep surfacing, and include the creation of Greater Balochistan.
As the election campaign picks up in the US, the Republicans continue to stress commitment to US forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As neighbours of Iran, Tehran would prefer to see foreign forces leave and internal peace and stability return. This does not look probable in the near future as the process of reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan has not gained momentum, and maintaining law and order remains the priority. The Democrats, on the other hand, are urging diplomacy and dialogue.
With Shia militias in Iraq stepping up attacks on Sunnis whom they outnumber three to one, the Arab rulers of adjoining lands to the south, headed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, have made it clear to the US government that they will not remain indifferent if the widespread killing of Sunnis continues.
As Iran is allegedly aiding Shia militias in southern Iraq and supplying weapons to groups hostile to the US, there is increased pressure from Washington on Iran. But then, President Ahmadinejad paid an official visit to Saudi Arabia to assure the monarch that Iran stood for Muslim unity and had no desire to ignite sectarian passions.
Iran has defended its right to carry out uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. But the powerful Jewish lobby in the US, joined by Israel, has stepped up pressure on the Bush administration to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran for the purpose of destroying its nuclear installations and achieving a regime change.
Despite possessing the technical capability to attack Iran, the overall US predicament does not make a decision on the issue an easy one. The US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and its military resources are already overstretched. With the EU favouring a peaceful settlement and China and Russia lukewarm about additional sanctions against Iran, Washington will not only be defying world opinion but also ignoring new trends in the US itself where a majority favours diplomacy over bloodshed.
There are other elements that should make the US consider Iran as a regional power with a long history of a player of global significance. The Iranian empire stretched up to the Mediterranean 2,500 years ago. The country today boasts of a rich culture and a civilisation that influenced Central and South Asia as well as the Middle East. Its geo-strategic situation allows it to play an active role in a large region.
It may be recalled that following the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953, the restored Shah became the most trusted ally of the US until he was toppled by the Islamic revolution in 1979. Except for the first decade when Imam Khomeini was in control, the US and Iran have coexisted without too much acrimony. Analysts point out that their interests have overlapped on many issues. Even now the Iranian attitude towards Iraq and Afghanistan may be harmonised with that of the US.
There is no love lost between the Iranians and the resurgent Taliban. The Iranian attitude over security issues in Iraq did not lead to controversy involving the US representative at the recent conference in Baghdad. Iran’s role as a major producer of oil and gas cannot be ignored. It is certain that if hostilities were launched, the price of these items would shoot up, causing hardship all round.
Any US show of force will further destabilise the region. Pakistan would experience serious disturbances with its substantial Shia population. One hopes that self-restraint prevails over arrogance.
The writer is a former ambassador.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/15/op.htm