The great powers’ diplomatic efforts to solve the Iranian nuclear issue are becoming increasingly similar to their sterile attempts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The world’s most powerful rulers know everything; they are all eager to suggest different plans and they all put in a great deal of effort. Yet, no one can fix anything.
The negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are stuck in a vicious circle, regardless of whether they take place on neutral ground or at the initiative of U.S.-appointed mediators. No one should expect Israelis and Palestinians to resume negotiations, nor see one single moment of peace, for that matter, as long as both claim Jerusalem as their own, indivisible capital.
This is just one of many issues in the region. Someone must also deal with the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the scandal involving the security wall, the issue of Palestinian prisoners, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. For each side of the war, negotiations depend on the other side’s compliance to their terms - compliance that is impossible to obtain.
U.S. President Barack Obama sends his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to the Middle East in vain with hopes of receiving some good news. No matter how competent and experienced Hillary may be as a diplomat, there is no solution to the crisis. This happens because the approach to the issue, on a global scale, is incorrect: it is as if they were trying to solve a math problem backwards.
If one analyzes the actual chances of resolving the issue (and not only these chances), the whole fuss over the supposed Iranian nuclear threat seems to follow a pattern similar to the one in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: negotiation, resolution, and disillusion. The Iranians are not currently at war with anyone. Yet, former U.S. President George W. Bush did a great job causing mass panic about Tehran’s intentions to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, not only did Bush, Jr., see weapons all over the place, apparently he could also predict who intended to build them. All of this is in spite of the fact that he failed to locate Saddam Hussein’s and bin Laden’s weapons of mass destruction. Tough luck!
The gentleman that he was, George W. Bush passed on to his successor, Barack Obama, a legacy of worries about the Iranian atomic bomb. The poor guy had little else to leave Obama beside a budget deficit, a broken and bloody Iraq, and an Afghanistan war where American soldiers lose their lives almost every day. Barack Obama took the worries (it is not nice to say no), the unprecedented deficit, and the sickly Iraq, as well as the Afghan problem, and went into battle. The financial situation, though, is more difficult to handle now that the global economic crisis is in full swing; the issue of Iraq is too delicate, and Congress finds the issue of Afghanistan too sensitive.
In order to preserve the U.S.’s position as world leader, Obama has plunged into the Iranian nuclear-file scandal alongside France, Italy, Great Britain, China, and Germany. Things are stalling in this department, as well. The six great powers have set and reset deadlines. They suggested that the U.N. impose sanctions against Iran, and they pressed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to conduct thorough inspections of plants where they thought Iranians were producing enriched uranium. The result: nothing but frustration aplenty.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, without doubt, an imperfect and eccentric individual. However, he is neither an idiot nor a coward. He has claimed throughout the scandal that Iranian nuclear technologies are used strictly for economic purposes. His statement is highly credible if one bears in mind the fact that Iran’s uranium is generally enriched only to 3.5 percent. In order to be able to use it as a nuclear weapon, uranium should be enriched to approximately 90 percent. Obama, however, does not seem to understand this. And, as long as he fails to understand, the issue of the Iranian nuclear threat will be revisited again and again, just like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Un zero barat si multi nervi
Demersurile diplomatice ale marilor puteri mondiale pentru solutionarea dosarului nuclear iranian seamana, din ce in ce mai mult, cu agitatia sterila in care se zbat aceleasi mari puteri in privinta stingerii conflictului israeliano-palestinian. Toti potentatii lumii stiu tot, toti propun diverse planuri, toti fac eforturi. Si nu se rezolva nimic.
Negocierile purtate de israelieni si palestinieni, cand pe teren neutru, cand prin mediatorii, mandatati, de obicei, de catre SUA s-au derulat, pana acum, intr-un cerc vicios. Nimeni nu trebuie sa se astepte la vreun pas in directia reluarii negocierilor si la nici macar un milimetru de progres pe linia pacii, atat timp cat si israelienii, si palestinienii revendica Israelul drept capitala indivizibila. Si aceasta, pe langa problemele legate de colonizarea israeliana a Cisiordaniei, pe langa scandalul legat de zidul de securitate, pe langa chestiunea prizonierilor palestinieni si cea a soartei refugiatilor palestinieni. Partile beligerante conditioneaza negocierile de conformarea taberei opuse la aceste conditii. Ceea ce nu este posibil.
Degeaba, presedintele SUA, Barack Obama, isi va pune pe drumuri secretarul de Stat, Hillary Clinton, cu speranta de a auzi, dinspre Orientul Mijlociu, vesti bune. Oricat de competenta si experimentata intr-ale diplomatiei ar fi Hillary, trebuie semnalat ca situatia nu se va rezolva, intrucat, la nivel mondial, gasirea unei solutii in cazul acesta este similara tentativei de a rezolva o problema de matematica, incepand cu sfarsitul.
Prin prisma sanselor de normalizare a situatiei (si numai prin aceasta prisma), tot tam-tamul in jurul presupusului pericol nuclear iranian prinde, prin comparatie cu amalgamul israeliano-palestinian, o alura de deja-vu: discutia, rezolutia, deceptia. Doar ca iranienii nu sunt, deocamdata, in razboi cu nimeni. Dar ex-seful Casei Albe, George W. Bush s-a descurcat stralucit pe post de focar al pandemiei de panica in legatura cu intentiile Teheranului de a fabrica arma nucleara. De fapt, Bush Jr. nu numai ca vedea arme peste tot, dar mai si intuia cam cine ar fi dorit sa se inarmeze. E drept ca nu a gasit arsenalul de distrugere in masa al lui Saddam Hussein si nici pe ben Laden. Ghinion.
Ca un domn ce s-a crezut, George W. Bush i-a lasat mostenire succesorului sau in functie, Barack Obama, spaima fata de bomba atomica iraniana. N-avea, saracul altceva, in afara deficitului bugetar, a unui Irak ciopartit si insangerat si a Afganistanului unde mor militari americani aproape zilnic. Barack Obama si-a luat spaima (nu-i frumos sa refuzi), si-a luat deficitul record si Irakul bolnav, plus problema afgana si a trecut la lupta. Cu situatia financiara, insa, e mai greu de luptat acum, in plina criza economica mondiala; cu Irakul e mai delicat; cu Afganistanul, se supara Congresul.
Ca sa nu-si piarda SUA aureola de prima putere a lumii, Obama s-a angajat cu toate fortele in scandalul dosarului iranian, alaturi de Franta, Italia, Marea Britanie, China si Germania. Si la acest capitol, se cam bate pasul pe loc. Cele sase puteri au stabilit si restabilit termene. Au propus sanctiuni la ONU, au presat Agentia Internationala de energie Atomica (AIEA) sa intreprinda inspectii riguroase la obiectivele iraniene susceptibile de producerea uraniului imbogatit. Rezultatul: un zero si multi nervi.
Presedintele iranian, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, este, fara indoiala, un cumul de defecte si ciudatenii, dar nu e nici prost, nici las. El isi mentine de la debutul scandalului declaratia ca scopul produselor sale nucleare este strict economic. Afirmatia e foarte credibila, avand in vedere ca uraniul iranian are, in general, puritate 3,5%. Pentru arma nucleara, uraniul ar trebui imbunatatit pana la aproximativ 90%. Obama, insa, nu intelege. Atata timp cat nu va intelege, dosarul iranian va mai fi frunzarit de multe ori, asemenea celui israeliano-palestinian.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
Time will tell whether the strategic ambitions of the French-German alliance, including those regarding the European army, will jeopardize the EU's cohesiveness, and especially how much longer they can work together within NATO.