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 POWERFollow 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”
