Time Is On Iran’s Side
Published in die Zeit
(Germany) on 1 October 2009
by Michael Thumann (link to original)
(Germany) on 1 October 2009
by Michael Thumann (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Jessica Boesl.
Iran is meeting with the world’s most powerful nations. Its nuclear program will be on the agenda. Tehran will make no concessions.
Imagine two people who yearned to speak to one another for a long time and then, just before they get their wish, they slander, insult and threaten each other with great abandon. It wouldn’t do much to ensure a successful dialogue, but this seems to be the case as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, prepare to meet with Iran on Thursday in Geneva.
Shortly before the meeting, Iran publicly admitted it has been constructing another nuclear fuel enrichment facility. As if that weren’t enough, Iran also suddenly test fired a couple of missiles with a range of 1,600 miles, putting them into the long-range category. The United States, France and Great Britain fired back with new threats of tough, painful sanctions. Then they all departed for the Geneva coffee klatch carrying their plastic document protectors.
Iran would prefer to discuss major issues like Middle Eastern peace initiatives, cooperation benefiting all mankind and a better world. It’s nice, but it misses the point. The emissaries from the West primarily want to discuss Iran’s nuclear programs, a discussion in which Iran has thus far shown little interest. Because time is on the Iranian government's side, Iran can afford to wait. It makes little difference what explanations the diplomats take with them when they depart Geneva; there will be nothing really concrete. The participants’ goals are far too divergent: Iran wants to keep the centrifuges turning so it can build a nuclear bomb – or at least the option of someday doing so - and that’s precisely what the West wants to prevent. But can it?
There has been a great deal of talk about war against Iran, and Israel is naturally considering its military options. An attack on Iran, however, doesn’t fit well with President Obama’s overall concept; Obama already seems to be losing the war in Afghanistan. An attack on Iran would no doubt do damage to the country, but little to halt its nuclear program. While the surface might lie in smoky ruins, the centrifuges would continue turning underground or even at new locations. In short, war would accomplish nothing.
That’s why western politicians prefer to talk of drastic (or, as Hillary Clinton says, “damaging”) sanctions against Iran. That’s certainly a good diplomatic placebo and perhaps even a half-way intelligent policy for face-saving purposes, but it will do nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Traffic in Iran might come to a standstill for lack of gasoline; all foreign assets might be frozen and all foreign air travel halted; all commercial transactions might be stopped and Iranians may be forced to suffer a catastrophic crisis. The one thing they would still have, however, would be progress in their nuclear program. Becoming a nuclear power has taken on near religious significance in Iran, and, unlike a return of the Mahdi, the Iranian Islamist regime can work with that.
Let’s not deceive ourselves. If Iran wants to become a nuclear power, nobody can prevent it. That’s why it’s high time to start thinking in terms of a world and a Middle East in which Iran takes part in the game as a nuclear power. It’s also time to begin preparing for action on three different playing fields: militarily, politically and through peace initiatives.
The mention of a nuclear Iran causes many to immediately think in terms of the threat to Israel’s existence. Oh, really? Israel has its own nuclear arsenal and, in terms of technology, is decades ahead of Iran. This is where the natural laws of deterrence apply. Those really in peril are the non-nuclear Gulf states, Turkey, Egypt and even several European nations. These countries could build missile defense shields piecemeal, but it would be better to learn from NATO’s Cold War experiences and build alliances. Such alliances, however, would hardly be possible without American leadership. Hillary Clinton has already hinted at an American missile shield for several of the Arab states and Israel already has one. However, the Gulf states especially need such security because they’re facing Iran unprotected, much as western Europe faced the Soviet Union in the fifties. Such alliances take time to develop; now would be a good time to begin.
Beneath this protective umbrella, the United States and Europe should help to develop new regional powers in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Tigers from Qatar to Dubai and Turkey have all long since surpassed Iran economically and technologically. Sanctions against Iran would make that divide even wider. On that note, if Iran went for supremacy, the West could help its competitors. Iran’s nuclear advantage could be neutralized by a surge in developmental assistance to its neighbors.
In the end, what will be decisive is whether Iran is allowed maneuvering room in the Middle East. The confrontations of the Bush era following 9/11 created the perfect climate for Iran to sow discontent and expand its influence. Defusing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the blood feuds in Iraq is therefore just as important as developing counter-measures and missile shields against Iranian ambitions. If the West sticks doggedly to these three approaches, the atmosphere will eventually improve to allow more relaxed dialogue with Iran. Nuclear weapons alone don’t make a regional superpower. Anyone who doesn’t believe that need only take a trip to North Korea.
Imagine two people who yearned to speak to one another for a long time and then, just before they get their wish, they slander, insult and threaten each other with great abandon. It wouldn’t do much to ensure a successful dialogue, but this seems to be the case as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, prepare to meet with Iran on Thursday in Geneva.
Shortly before the meeting, Iran publicly admitted it has been constructing another nuclear fuel enrichment facility. As if that weren’t enough, Iran also suddenly test fired a couple of missiles with a range of 1,600 miles, putting them into the long-range category. The United States, France and Great Britain fired back with new threats of tough, painful sanctions. Then they all departed for the Geneva coffee klatch carrying their plastic document protectors.
Iran would prefer to discuss major issues like Middle Eastern peace initiatives, cooperation benefiting all mankind and a better world. It’s nice, but it misses the point. The emissaries from the West primarily want to discuss Iran’s nuclear programs, a discussion in which Iran has thus far shown little interest. Because time is on the Iranian government's side, Iran can afford to wait. It makes little difference what explanations the diplomats take with them when they depart Geneva; there will be nothing really concrete. The participants’ goals are far too divergent: Iran wants to keep the centrifuges turning so it can build a nuclear bomb – or at least the option of someday doing so - and that’s precisely what the West wants to prevent. But can it?
There has been a great deal of talk about war against Iran, and Israel is naturally considering its military options. An attack on Iran, however, doesn’t fit well with President Obama’s overall concept; Obama already seems to be losing the war in Afghanistan. An attack on Iran would no doubt do damage to the country, but little to halt its nuclear program. While the surface might lie in smoky ruins, the centrifuges would continue turning underground or even at new locations. In short, war would accomplish nothing.
That’s why western politicians prefer to talk of drastic (or, as Hillary Clinton says, “damaging”) sanctions against Iran. That’s certainly a good diplomatic placebo and perhaps even a half-way intelligent policy for face-saving purposes, but it will do nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Traffic in Iran might come to a standstill for lack of gasoline; all foreign assets might be frozen and all foreign air travel halted; all commercial transactions might be stopped and Iranians may be forced to suffer a catastrophic crisis. The one thing they would still have, however, would be progress in their nuclear program. Becoming a nuclear power has taken on near religious significance in Iran, and, unlike a return of the Mahdi, the Iranian Islamist regime can work with that.
Let’s not deceive ourselves. If Iran wants to become a nuclear power, nobody can prevent it. That’s why it’s high time to start thinking in terms of a world and a Middle East in which Iran takes part in the game as a nuclear power. It’s also time to begin preparing for action on three different playing fields: militarily, politically and through peace initiatives.
The mention of a nuclear Iran causes many to immediately think in terms of the threat to Israel’s existence. Oh, really? Israel has its own nuclear arsenal and, in terms of technology, is decades ahead of Iran. This is where the natural laws of deterrence apply. Those really in peril are the non-nuclear Gulf states, Turkey, Egypt and even several European nations. These countries could build missile defense shields piecemeal, but it would be better to learn from NATO’s Cold War experiences and build alliances. Such alliances, however, would hardly be possible without American leadership. Hillary Clinton has already hinted at an American missile shield for several of the Arab states and Israel already has one. However, the Gulf states especially need such security because they’re facing Iran unprotected, much as western Europe faced the Soviet Union in the fifties. Such alliances take time to develop; now would be a good time to begin.
Beneath this protective umbrella, the United States and Europe should help to develop new regional powers in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Tigers from Qatar to Dubai and Turkey have all long since surpassed Iran economically and technologically. Sanctions against Iran would make that divide even wider. On that note, if Iran went for supremacy, the West could help its competitors. Iran’s nuclear advantage could be neutralized by a surge in developmental assistance to its neighbors.
In the end, what will be decisive is whether Iran is allowed maneuvering room in the Middle East. The confrontations of the Bush era following 9/11 created the perfect climate for Iran to sow discontent and expand its influence. Defusing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the blood feuds in Iraq is therefore just as important as developing counter-measures and missile shields against Iranian ambitions. If the West sticks doggedly to these three approaches, the atmosphere will eventually improve to allow more relaxed dialogue with Iran. Nuclear weapons alone don’t make a regional superpower. Anyone who doesn’t believe that need only take a trip to North Korea.
Previous article![]( "The Republican Party Is Guided by Spite")
