The US has rejected a call from the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog for a “timeout” in the showdown with Iran over its nuclear program. The UN Security Council as things stand is unlikely to do much in the way of sanctions, given Russian and Chinese opposition. So would the US agree to enrichment or would it attack? Or would it concentrate on encouraging a change of government and policy in Iran and marshalling its allies into imposing sanctions? However, before answering these questions following facts should be considered.
Behind the scenes
1) Just to be clear, a considerable section of the Iranian political leaders wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons, mostly as a shield to protect itself from the apparent threats.
2) Ahmadinejad wants an attack on Iran nearly as much as Cheney does; (there’s something else that Cheney wants, check that in point 3), to consolidate his power inside the country — something he is nowhere close to at this point. An Israeli or American bombing of its nuclear facilities will kill its top engineering talent and many thousands who happen to be near them at the time of the bombings.
3) Cheney’s desire is to see Iran directly fire a few missiles at their troops in response to aggravation from the U.S., thus firmly establishing a full-fledged American attack against Iran.
4) American provocative stand to Iran is due to Iran’s craftier but highly disruptive ways by providing weapons to Shiite militia, Hezbollah and other agents in Iraq.
5) Iran’s top-level diplomats and political leaders make ‘mutual interest’ trips to Russia and China to offer commercial ‘energy agreements’ that major powers focus on further global supremacy.
What has America ignored here?
1) Given Japan’s and Europe’s direct dependence on Iranian oil exports, as the heat in the region rises and direct military collisions occur, Japanese and European diplomats will attempt to wedge themselves between the conflicting parties.
2) If Iran does not go down the military road, and it says it will not, there will be many governments around the world who will argue that it should be allowed to enrich fuel, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
3) America never engaged in credible diplomatic engagement with Iran over its nuclear program and about its regional misbehavior.
What can go wrong again?
It would be no surprise that both the US and Israel have probably made contingency plans for an attack. This is definitely, what the military can do in such situations. And if the ’suspected’ collisions between US military squads and Special Force operations against ’suspected’ Iranian venture takes place, America may again find itself diplomatically isolated.
In the final analysis, the US might face what is being called the ‘McCain moment.’ This is what Senator John McCain said:
“There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran.”
Surely, no need to buy the line “peaceful use,” but to neglect it altogether without considering the ways to make the “peaceful use” option work is something US is not really trying. While dealing with Iran, US interprets Iran’s program as a ‘threat,’ even though Iran says it will not build a bomb but wants the technology only to make fuel for civil nuclear power. The Manichean approach by the United States is something that most other global powers won’t accept and that will further erode America’s advantage in this process.
Unless America is willing to figure out and pay the diplomatic price desired by China and Russia for uniform action against Iran, then Iran will cultivate these two rising peer competitors and balancers against American power.
Via: BBC
