A dangerous escalation of tensions in the Middle East could produce a
devastating new war there if diplomatic steps are not taken to head it
off. The United States and Israel, with the cooperation of some European
countries, have been stoking a climate of fear to justify a military
attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. At the very least, they seem
determined to refer the matter of Iran's nuclear program to the United
Nations Security Council as a step toward imposing sanctions.
There has been a tsunami of dramatic public statements by prominent
leaders. Vice President Cheney has been darkly hinting for months that a
military attack may be in the offing, either by Israel or the United
States. In January Jacques Chirac made a highly irresponsible statement
that France might resort to nuclear weapons to retaliate for acts of
state-sponsored terrorism, a posture that could only persuade Iran to
deter such nuclear trash-talk by attempting to get the bomb. On January
22 Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told a Jerusalem audience that
"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability, and it
must have the capability to defend itself with all that this implies,
and we are preparing." This thinly veiled threat recalls Israel's 1981
airstrike that destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq, then the core of
the Iraqi program. International reactions to that attack were not very
damaging to Israel and there were no serious regional
repercussions--factors that could encourage Israel, either alone or via
the United States, to consider a strike on Iran.
Iran's recent actions lend the attack scenario added plausibility. In
January it ordered the removal of the International Atomic Energy
Agency's seals on its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, an indication
that Tehran will proceed with its nuclear energy program in such a way
as to retain the possibility of developing weapons. Reassurances of
purely peaceful intentions regarding nuclear energy have never been
reliable. Israel, India and Pakistan all repeatedly made the same
promises before they developed nuclear weapons. Israel has never
officially acknowledged its nuclear capability and has never been called
to international account, although it is generally understood to have an
arsenal of somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, along with
advanced delivery systems capable of targeting any country in the Middle
East, including Iran. In such circumstances, it should not surprise us
that Iranian leaders may be considering acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability.
The atmosphere has been further inflamed by the outrageous fulminations
of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Such hostility would
agitate the security concerns of any state, especially one that has
faced threats throughout its history, as has Israel. Both Israel and the
United States have claimed pre-emptive rights when it comes to the
pursuit of their strategic interests. Israel initiated pre-emptive wars
against its Arab neighbors in 1956 (with Britain and France), 1967 and
1982, and has frequently struck across its borders to destroy or
punish adversaries. So when Ahmadinejad insists that the Holocaust is a
"myth," and that Israel should be "wiped off the map" or perhaps
relocated to Europe, he almost seems to be taunting Israel to respond
militarily, certainly a reckless gambit.
And then there is the American dimension. The United States, bogged down
ever more hopelessly in Iraq, seems to welcome a showdown with Iran as
an opportunity for diversionary diplomacy. Iran, as an original member
of the "axis of evil," was always in the cross hairs of neoconservative
grand strategy for the region, and rather than be daunted by failure in
Iraq, Administration hard-liners are clearly tempted to shift attention
to Iran.
Despite these worrisome concerns, there are many reasons to counteract
this drift toward more violence in the Middle East.
§ First, the Iranian threat is remote; according to most
predictions, should Tehran decide to go nuclear, it would not have
weapons before 2008 at the earliest.
§ Second, the United States, and even Israel, will continue to have
such overwhelming military superiority as to dissuade Iran from
aggressive action unless its leaders are ready to commit national
suicide.
§ Third, unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran's multiple nuclear facilities
are geographically dispersed and much better defended, with many of them
located in underground bunkers, making their destruction, especially by
Israel acting alone, far more difficult.
§ Fourth, Iran has the means to launch a devastating retaliation
with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can
reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy. And Iran has other
military options, including intervention on the Shiite side in Iraq,
which could turn the disastrous US occupation there into a worse
nightmare, with skyrocketing casualties. Iran could also vastly increase
its support to Islamist resistance forces in the Palestinian territories
and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
§ Fifth, as the world's fourth-largest oil producer, Iran could
plunge the world into an immediate deep recession by embargoing its oil
if it is attacked, or if an attack appears imminent.
§ Sixth, an Israeli or US attack on Iran would almost certainly
strengthen Islamist tendencies throughout the region as well as put
intense pressure on Arab governments to react much more strongly against
the United States and Israel. And heightened threats against Iran would
only strengthen the hard-liners there. By all accounts, Iranians--even
those who detest the mullahs--overwhelmingly support their country's
nuclear ambitions.
We can assume that Israel, at least, is well aware of these problems,
which suggests that its policy is not so much to foment an immediate
attack as to foster increased US hostility toward Iran. With Washington
we can't be so sure. After all, one of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's
notorious rules for policy-makers is that if a problem (in this case,
Iraq) proves insoluble, one should enlarge it. If so, Israel may be able
to push Washington to take the lead in confronting Iran. In this vein,
Israel seems to be using its remarkable influence in Congress and with
the Bush Administration to encourage a harder line. Hillary Clinton and
other leading Democrats seem to be playing along, openly criticizing the
Administration for not exerting enough pressure on Tehran.
The uncertainties are great. Saber-rattling on all sides could set off a
chain reaction culminating in a truly intercivilizational war. There is
no Iranian threat that justifies consideration of such a conflict. To
initiate war under these conditions would further weaken both the UN and
international law, which have already been badly damaged by the
unilateral, unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There are also wider issues at stake. Should the Middle East, or for
that matter the world, regard as normal a system of nuclear
apartheid--in which a select group of nations are entitled to such
weapons while others seeking to acquire them are treated as "rogue
states"? What these multiple incendiary trends suggest, above all, is
the practical wisdom of seeking multilateral nuclear disarmament--the
only course that has any prospect of halting proliferation. So long as
sovereign states are the main actors and conflict among them persists,
it is disastrous folly to suppose that some will agree to live forever
beneath a nuclear sword of Damocles without trying to obtain such
weapons themselves. The Iran confrontation is best regarded as one more
wakeup call for the nuclear weapons states.
Richard Falk, chair of the board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, is the author of Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave) and, most recently, The Great Terror War (Olive Branch). He is currently visiting professor of global studies at University of California at Santa Barbara.
© 2006 The Nation
###
