Will Iran become another Iraq?

---

Syed Fattahul Alim
Is the West with the US in the lead considering bombing out Iran into the Stone Age-to use the threatening phrase president George W. Bush applied to scare Pakistan into toeing his line in the war on terror? The doomsday language the French president or his foreign minister used to describe the Iran crisis exemplifies the present attitude of the West towards Iran. According to the Bush administration and its new allies in the French and British governments, Iran has committed a grave (!) crime on two counts; first, by trying to make nuclear bomb and, second, by supplying deadly explosives to the Shiite guerrillas fighting American forces in Iraq. Iran has, however, on more than one occasion denied the charges saying that it is neither aiding the anti-US militants in Iraq, nor is it enriching uranium to make a nuclear bomb.
On the contrary, its aim is to gain access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, for example, to produce electricity. But the UN and the West are not ready to take the assurance at its face value.
Meanwhile, the UN has already imposed its sanction on Iran for its defiance in the face of West's pressure to abandon its nuclear programme. But Iran in stead of bowing to that pressure has continued in its path of, what US and its allies complain, making the bomb. But what is the wrong if Iran really plans to have access to the nuclear technology, which is already about a seven-decade old technology? There is, however, a strong argument against countries like Iran's and North Korea's having access to nuclear bomb-making technology. For in that case, the West thinks, it may fall into the politically incorrect hands. What is interesting, there was a time when in the West's eye, even China was not a politically correct possessor of nuclear bomb. But when it made one and demonstrated it to the whole world, then it was a fait accompli. The case was not different when it was the turns of India and Pakistan. Though it is not publicly known if Israel possesses any nuclear bomb, the speculation is very strong and rife that it is in possession of nuclear bombs along with the state of the art technology to deliver the nuclear devices.
The present argument of the West against possession of nuclear bomb-making technology by countries like Iran or North Korea, therefore, flies in the face of its stand on India, Pakistan or Israel. The argument against nuclear proliferation, too, does not stand to reason here. Interestingly, none of the aforementioned countries have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
So, why are the USA and its European allies hell-bent on punishing Iran for its effort to possess nuclear technology? If truth be told, it is the same reason that propelled US to attack Iraq, a war in which it is already bogged down. Even then, the US and its allies are ready to take another risk in Iran's case.
The compulsion in this case is that they will not allow the balance of power in the Middle East to tip unfavourably against Israel. So, Iran may have to pay the price, if it does not give up its nuclear ambition taking the lesson from North Korea.
The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, however, alluded to the Iraq debacle to discourage the US and the West against going for such rash action to punish Iran. In a similar vein, Russia has also warned against any further military adventure in the region.
Guardian in its Tuesday issue reports on the crisis brewing in the region and Russia's stand vis-à-vis this development in the following:
'Russia today joined the chorus of concern at the possibility of war in Iran while conflicts continued in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At a news briefing in Moscow, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said: "We are worried by reports that there is serious consideration being given to military action in Iran. That is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan."
His comments, after a meeting with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, followed a stark warning yesterday from the UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector aimed at the US.
"I would not talk about any use of force," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
Fears of a military conflict with Iran rose a notch after comments on Sunday night by Mr Kouchner, who said: "We have to prepare for the worst ... the worst is war."
In addition, reports from Washington indicate that administration hawks led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, are winning the argument for tough action against Tehran.
The US has accused Iran of supplying Shia extremists in Iraq with explosive devices that are taking a deadly toll on American troops.
Another flashpoint is Iran's refusal to stop uranium enrichment, a process that can lead to the development of a nuclear bomb. The US is trying to mobilise international support for further sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council, but can expect Russian and Chinese opposition.
The US suspects that Iran is determined to develop a nuclear weapon under cover of its civilian nuclear programme, a charge Iran denies. While it says it is seeking a diplomatic solution, the US has not ruled out the use of force.
France, under its new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has adopted a much tougher line on Iran, saying that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a dangerous threat to the west.
Mr Sarkozy last month called the Iranian stand-off "the greatest crisis" of current times, saying the world faced "a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".
Mr Kouchner told reporters in Moscow that the world should not shy away from sanctions to put pressure on Iran.
"The worst thing to happen would be a war, and in order to avoid it we need to continue talks and be firm enough regarding sanctions," he said. "We have to work on precise sanctions that would demonstrate the world community's serious approach to this problem."
But Russia is trying to cool down the situation. In an interview published in the Russian magazine Vremya Novostei, the deputy foreign minister, Alexander Losyukov, said any military intervention in Iran would be a "political error" with catastrophic results.
"We are convinced that there is no military solution to the Iranian problem ... besides, it is quite clear that there is no military solution to the Iraqi problem either," he said.
Alarmed at the development the UN's nuclear boss ElBaradei has been trying to convince the West about the danger lurking in such a move by the US and its European allies. Though he exhorted the US not to repeat its mistake in Iraq, the reality is it no more considers him as loyal it.
'The head of the UN's nuclear agency today warned against any increase in "hype" about war with Iran, saying countries should heed the lessons of the build-up to the Iraq conflict.
The strongly worded comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, who runs the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), followed a warning by the French foreign minister that the world should brace itself for a possible war with Iran.
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Bernard Kouchner told French TV and radio.
While talks over Iran's nuclear programme should continue "right to the end", Mr Kouchner said, an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world". France has taken a much harsher line towards Iran since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to succeed Jacques Chirac as president.
In a perceived riposte, Mr ElBaradei urged caution. "We need to be cool," he told reporters at the IAEA's annual conference in Vienna. "We need not to hype the issue.
"I would not talk about any use of force," he said. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
One of the major arguments put forward by the US and UK for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. But nothing was found.
The US has in recent days stepped up accusations of Iranian support for Shia militias fighting American forces in Iraq.
Washington is seeking a third round of UN sanctions against Iran over its refusal to stop uranium enrichment, and has accused the country of working on developing nuclear weapons in secret.
Iran has said its nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity.
France's prime minister, asked about the issue, said Mr Kouchner had been right to warn of the possible dangers, but France was not advocating military action.
"Everything must be done to avoid war," Françlaois Fillon said. "France's role is to lead towards a peaceful solution to a situation that would be extremely dangerous for the rest of the world."
In the meeting in Vienna, Iran's vice-president warned the US and others against provoking a confrontation.
Western nations had "proved that you cannot tolerate the addition of independent states and developing countries to the ongoing movement of those seeking to achieve ownership of modern technology", said Reza Aghazadeh, who also heads Iran's nuclear agency.
Separately, the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said he wanted peace and friendship with Washington, despite mounting speculation over possible US strikes. "Our message to the American nation is a message of peace, friendship, brotherhood and respect for humans," the official IRNA news agency quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying. The remark was aired on the state-owned Jame Jam television network.