U.S.
course in Iran
is almost right
By
Jonathan
Power
June 26, 2003
LONDON - It is very difficult to know if the U.S. in
on course or off course with its policy towards Iran.
This is in large measure because Washington hasn't made
up its mind on what course it wants to set.
President George Bush said last weekend that an Iran
with nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated. At the same
time there are no plans afoot to invade Iran and topple
the regime and get rid of the country's alleged
possession of dangerous nuclear facilities and
materials.
Yet no one any longer really doubts that Iran is
trying to build a nuclear bomb. (This column argued as
long as four years ago that this, in all likelihood, was
the Iranian intention.) Surely the U.S. should go into
Iran now and get the whole nasty business of regime
change over. There are indeed a few outspoken Iranians
who say they would welcome this.
Invading Iran would be a p of c. (piece of cake).
American troops are already deployed in the vicinity. The
geography makes it an easy one. And although there is
latent anti-Americanism in Iran, in recent years the
mullahs who call the big shots in Iran have found
themselves less and less able to play that card for lack
of a popular visceral anti-American hatred. When 70% of
the population is under thirty the old memories of the
taking of American hostages and the over-the-top American
response are distant, almost forgotten thoughts.
Nevertheless, we can be happy that Mr. Bush has not
followed the logic of the p of c argument, for the simple
reason it is totally unnecessary, and war always brings
such tremendous grief to a society in terms of human
suffering. Besides, the U.S. has demonstrated beyond a
shadow of a doubt in Afghanistan and Iraq that while it
is excellent at the bombing part it is near to hopeless
at the new governance part.
War is unnecessary for at least three reasons. First,
because beneath the rigorous, anti- American
fundamentalism of a majority of the religious
establishment in Iran, there is a practicing secular
democracy. It does not exactly thrive, but it exists and
it does a number of important things. It is far more
developed than the smaller attempts at local democracy
that China experiments with and which wins accolades from
Washington. If this democracy in Iran is nurtured by the
outside world, rather than hindered, able to show results
rather than an empty plate, its political place within
the Iranian internal political arrangement would rise
many notches. This means Washington should move towards
engaging the government, not only dropping sanctions but
encouraging every field of joint endeavour from academic
exchanges to foreign investment, not least in the oil
industry.
Second, it is unnecessary because Russia is now
helping the U.S. in its attempt to persuade Iran to be
more open. Mr. Bush has done one important thing right-
to engage Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, as a friend
on this issue of nuclear proliferation in Iran rather
than an enemy. The Clinton Administration made the
mistake of trying to arm twist Moscow to cancel all
nuclear cooperation with Iran, even the work on what
would be only a civilian power reactor operating under
the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). The Bush Administration was clever enough to
realize that the Clinton big stick approach had produced
the worst of all worlds- an additional transfer of power
reactors to Iran, continued clandestine and perhaps overt
Russian fuel cycle assistance, and inadequate constraints
on nuclear activities.
Now by working with Russia rather than against it, Mr.
Bush has Mr. Putin's support in the high level debate now
continuing in the IAEA. Moscow is supporting much of the
U.S. argument. Moscow is almost, if not already, at the
point of telling Iran that it will end all nuclear
cooperation unless Iran agrees to allow expanded IAEA
inspections. The rapid toughening of the Russian line has
been nothing less than remarkable.
The third reason for war being unnecessary is that
Washington can well afford to be unhysterical about an
Iranian nuclear bomb. Of course, the world would be
better off if Iran didn't have the bomb. The more nuclear
matches are lying around, the more the chances of them
being used either though political ineptitude in a crisis
or more likely by accident. But the fact is Iran in 200
years has never started a war with anyone. And who
exactly would Iran wage a nuclear war against? Its old
enemy, Saddam Hussein, is gone. Whilst Iran has supported
terrorist activity against Israel it has never deployed
its own soldiers and is unlikely to want to get into a
nuclear confrontation when Israel will always have
nuclear superiority.
U.S. policy on Iran is on a bit of a wobbly course.
Maybe the White House itself isn't quite sure what course
it is exactly on. But, fortuitously or otherwise, it is
more or less heading in the right direction.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2003 By
JONATHAN POWER
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|