This piece below was written by Shahir
Shahid-Saless and published on-line by the American Iranian Council
at the end of June under the title "Current Trend U.S-Iran
Relations: A Road to Hell:"
Many experts maintain that Iran’s
current quest for a superior role in the region is to tackle new
security challenges that are caused by the aggressive policies of the
US since 2003, as well as the United States’ heavy military
presence in the immediate proximity of Iran’s borders and in the
region.
The relations between Iran and US have
become increasingly confrontational since the revelation of Iran’s
nuclear program in 2002. However, it would be naïve to conclude that
Iran’s nuclear program has been the root cause of the current
ultra-hostile stance the two countries have adopted against each
other. The reality is that the current stage of the US-Iran conflict
stems mainly from the challenge that Iran poses to the hegemony of
the US in the most important geostrategic region of the world for the
US interests, in particular, given its massive energy resources.
Three major developments, spanning the
last two decades, opened the path for Iran to challenge the U.S.
hegemony in the Middle East: the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991; the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, followed by the fall of the
Taliban and Saddam Hussein, arch enemies to the Iranian government;
and the sudden increase in the price of oil since 2005. Many experts
maintain that Iran’s current quest for a superior role in the
region is to tackle new security challenges that are caused by the
aggressive policies of the US since 2003, as well as the United
States’ heavy military presence in the immediate proximity of
Iran’s borders and in the region.
Since 2002 Tehran has consistently
denied Western claims about potential military ties to its nuclear
development. However, many American experts view Iran’s nuclear
program in the context of its grand strategy, its conflict with the
US, and the new role that it seeks in the region. For instance, Rand
Corporation, a think tank which advises the Pentagon, asserts that
“Iran’s decisions regarding its nuclear program will be shaped
primarily by the external environment, e.g. the US threat, and the
value placed on nuclear weapons in serving its national security
interests”.
However, there is no evidence of an
Iranian nuclear weapons program and the leadership in Tehran has so
far demonstrated no intention of starting one. The 2007 US National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report, which represented the consensus
of 16 US intelligence agencies, confirmed with “high confidence”
the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. In February 2012 the
US spy agencies reconfirmed the findings of the 2007 report. However,
on August 9, the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported that according
to Western and Israeli sources, “President Barack Obama recently
received a new NIE report on the Iranian nuclear program, which
shares Israel’s view that Iran has made surprising, significant
progress toward military nuclear capability.” In March 2012, in a
speech to the pro-Israel lobby, President Obama vowed that he would
be ready to act militarily - with all "elements of American
power" - to prevent the Islamic Republic from building an atomic
bomb. Although Obama did not explicitly mention Iran “acquiring
nuclear capability” as the US government’s red line, since then
there has been a growing tendency in the media to define “seeking”
or “acquiring” ‘nuclear capability” by the Islamic Republic
as the US official red line.
The language of “nuclear capability”
is deeply problematic. Does it mean moving toward acquiring “nuclear
breakout,” or does it mean verifiably obtaining all of the
necessary components to build a bomb? The CIA defines ”nuclear
capability” as: “Knowledge, infrastructure, and materiel, which
usually lie beneath the threshold of suspicion, but which can be
rapidly adapted or reorganized to allow for weaponization processes
to be undertaken. Such capabilities require pre-disposed resources
and often employ dual-use technology, equipment, or knowledge.”
However, the problem is that not everybody in the US government is
willing to apply this definition for the purpose of decision making.
When questioned about the definition of “nuclear capability,“
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said, “I guess everybody will
determine for themselves what that means.”
With Republican presidential contender,
Mitt Romney, accusing the Democrat president of going too easy on
Iran, if the story about the new NEI report is true, Obama will face
immense pressure to get even tougher on Iran. But let us have a quick
look at the latest sanctions to have a better understanding what
tougher policies may mean.
On July 31, 2012, President Obama
issued an Executive Order to strengthen the sanctions on Iran by
further targeting Iran’s oil and petrochemical sectors as well as
its shipping trade. The Order, titled, “Authorizing Additional
Sanctions with Respect to Iran,” authorizes sanctions against
foreign financial institutions (FFIs) who have knowingly conducted or
facilitated transactions for the purchase or acquisition of
petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran.
The order also authorizes the US Treasury Department’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to block the property and interests in
property of any person who materially assists, sponsors, or provides
financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or
services in support of, NIOC (and its subsidiaries) or the Central
Bank of Iran, or the purchase or acquisition of US bank notes or
precious metals by the Government of Iran. OFAC has also warned that
based on this Order, barter arrangements or other non-cash
transactions involving petroleum, petroleum products, or
petrochemical products originating from Iran may be sanctioned.
What this Order simply means is that
not only will Iran be blocked [from selling] oil and oil related
products, but also it would be barred from entering barter deals,
e.g., exchange oil for food and/or medicine. This is a measure which
was not even imposed on the Iraqi government after its invasion of
Kuwait. While millions of Iranians will be punished, one must wonder
what "tougher measures" may mean as advocated by Obama’s
opponents. These sanctions do not target the government of Iran;
neither are they “smart.” They target ordinary Iranian citizens
and will devastate the life of the poor. Shortage of medicines and
food will endanger the lives of the most vulnerable, that is, the
children in the poor household.
Iran will not bow to the pressures and
will not halt its enrichment program while it is under paralyzing
sanctions. Mainly because, a) Ayatollah Khamenei believes that the
nuclear issue is a pretext for regime change in Iran therefore, even
halting the nuclear program will not change the US plan and b)
because he firmly believes that “if the officials of the country
get daunted by the bullying of the arrogant powers and, as a result,
begin to retreat from their own principles and make concessions to
those powers, these concessions will never come to an end!” He
maintains that “Indeed, the end to US pressure and intimidation
will only come when Iranian officials announce they are ready to
compromise Islam and their popular government of the Islamic
Republic.” According to The Wall Street Journal, sanctions
are not aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program any more. Rather,
they serve “as a tool to precipitate the regime's collapse.”
Whether the WSJ’s statement is
true or not, it is a grave mistake to assume that the Iranian
government will stand by as a spectator while it is under paralyzing
sanctions and its survival is threatened. First-hand news confirms
that the Iranian leadership is ready for the worst. An “endangered”
Islamic Republic is ready to take retaliatory actions. The government
has already adopted a policy of “threat for threat” and may adopt
other measures such as destabilizing the Strait of Hormuz. The recent
trend makes an inadvertent or a planned war inevitable. The current
dangerous game that is overplayed, let alone tougher sanctions as
some advocate, also threatens the lives of ordinary Americans. Former
US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, warns that a
confrontation with Iran would be disastrous for the United States,
lasting for years and the economic consequences of any such
confrontation will be devastating for every average American. “High
inflation. Instability. Insecurity,” Brezezinsky says.
No comments:
Post a Comment