Cat and Mouse Between Iran and America

Last week saw remarkable tension between the Islamic Republic of Iran on one side, and the United States and Israel on the other regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities and its future plans. A British newspaper reported that Iran is equipped with Ballistic missiles capable of targeting the Israeli Dimona reactor in the Negev desert. It also quoted Western media reports on intelligence estimates, which showed that President Bush had endorsed Israel’s connection to the U.S. radar detection system capable of detecting Iranian long-range Shihab missiles seconds after launch.

This leak comes to light because of the information discovered by journalist, Seymour Hersh, that Bush signed an executive order asking for 400 million dollars to fund clandestine activities against Iran. This includes supporting minority, dissident and armed groups as well as the ability to gather information about Iran’s nuclear program. To add to this, the Senator from Wisconsin, David Obay, explained that the White House reneged on its promise to inform Congress about Iran-related issues, pointing out that there has been preparation on the White House’s part, without revealing any clear information.

Analysts and politicians have linked the visit to Israel by the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces, Admiral Michael Mullen, to an attempt to gain the green light for Israel to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear installations. The Admiral clarified last Friday that opening up a third front against Iran (in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan), would put extreme pressure of the American army. This is not to say that the US is incapable, but that it would be quite a difficult task and that it would be hard to predict the consequences of such an action. For his part, the Iranian Defense Minister did not take the matter lightly and reaffirmed his country’s readiness to confront any aggression. He also said that his forces are closely watching all of Israel’s movements and that they would be able to respond quickly.

Despite this statement, and in light of growing tension, there is an active and well-crafted diplomatic effort by Iran, both politically and militarily, which started from the announcement by Iranian leaders that they are beginning to study the new proposal presented to them by the great powers. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said that Iran is studying (both in detail and with optimism) the proposal presented by the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, while Hashemi Rafsanjani, Chairman of the Expediency Council in Iran, said that the new proposals are both more comprehensive and clearer than the proposals presented last year. However, he considered the proposal’s weak point to be the requirement to halt Uranium enrichment, a condition Iran can under no circumstances accept.

And in the context of this respite in hostilities, Admiral Kevin Cosgriff of the Fifth Fleet ruled out the potential of a military confrontation between the United States and Iran. He said that the US and its allies are only interested in protecting shipping lanes and securing the security of this vital region. He also ruled out the possibility of Israel launching an attack against Iran, because he saw no reason for it to do so in the short term.

If we read the comments that I have mentioned, they give us the keys to understanding the game being played between the United States and Iran, which resembles a game of cat and mouse. It also gives us the keys to understanding the diplomatic maneuvers by both sides. Both sides are preparing for confrontation, both sides threaten each other, and at the same time each side rules out the possibility of military action. Israel plays the game by sending the very clear message to the Iranians that it has a superpower in the region on its side, which it can call on at the right moment. Iran threatens to strike Israel’s Dimona reactor in the Negev desert. This shows that Iran will respond at the outbreak of any military confrontation even though Admiral Kevin Cosgriff was precise in his words when he said that he did not see any reason for Israel to launch a strike on Iran in the short term. To this, we can underline the words “short term.”

This makes the American-Iranian conflict over Iran’s nuclear activities no longer impossible to understand. It makes sense of the changing tides between their relationship, the reason for their constant exchanging of roles, and the timing of their escalation and deescalation. This does not mean, however, that the manner in which these “archenemies” should choose to intensify or relax the situation should coincide. There are fundamental differences in the beliefs, goals and in strategies as well as their outlook on the region. Nor does this mean there are not any points of mutual understanding between the two sides or that we have to proceed to conspiracy theories. The questions that are posed are these–how long will this game of cat and mouse last between the United States and Iran, how long will they continue to switch roles and what are the conditions that will lead to a peaceful resolution to this crisis or will lead to a final escalation towards military confrontation?

It seems that the scale of the American-Iranian crisis extends into other geographic and political arenas. Indeed, the crisis extends to such issues as the situation in Iraq, the attempt to bring security and stability for the Iraqi people, the reconciliation with or against the militias (some of which are supported by Iran), the situation in Afghanistan along with both the Taliban and al-Qaida, and the influence of Iran in events there (despite the clear contradiction between the two ideologies and the two camps). Beyond that, there is the situation in Lebanon and at the forefront of this Hezbollah (the organization that heavily influences Lebanese politics), the issue of its extreme enmity towards Israel and the United States, the Syrian regime which does not agree with American policy in the region in addition to the Hamas movement which is aligned strategically if not ideologically with Iran.

The fact is that this situation will continue until the game of cat and mouse ends, and this game will not end until both players obtain their interests, which will take quite a long time. This will be what determines all the other deadlocks in the region for the years to come. It will determine, also, the price of oil and food.

What is most interesting is that the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are unable to contribute positively to solving the crisis even though some of them have cooperated to solve issues like those in Lebanon, the problems between Hamas and the Palestinian authority, etc. We believe that the countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council should take on an even bigger role, in order to minimize the deadlock which threatens their stability and their future.