Tension is high between Iran and the western powers as talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme resume this week in Geneva. The US has ratcheted up economic sanctions. An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed and another wounded in attacks blamed by Tehran on Israeli or western agents. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukia Amano, criticised Iran for failing to cooperate fully with the agency in order to prove that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
Finally, Wikileaks published secret US diplomatic correspondence revealing that the Obama administration is not serious about engaging in dialogue with Iran.
The Wikileaks release of the cables is, potentially, the most damaging development and the most likely to undermine the current round of discussions involving the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. According to Gary Sick, former adviser on Iran to the Carter administration, Obama was never sincere about engagement or dialogue. In Sick’s view, the administration was, in fact, determined that engagement would fail.
No change
Instead of honouring President Obama’s pledge to ‘change’ US policy, his administration has followed the line adopted by George W Bush. This meant maintaining a ‘carrot and stick’ approach which was bound to fail because it has been all stick and no carrot. The policy was to escalate sanctions until Iran did Washington’s bidding.
Washington hopes that if this does not work, Obama could opt for regime change, either by subversion or force. In this respect, it is interesting that US experts on Iran point out that the focus on the 2,50,000 cables released by Wikileaks has been material on Iran.
Washington has homed in on comments made by Arab leaders about the dangers Iran poses to the region. Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Gulf emirs apparently told US diplomats and visiting lawmakers that the Arabs want to see Iran contained and humbled.
However, Arab rulers speaking to senior US diplomats are likely to tell them what they want to hear. This is a deeply ingrained Arab cultural tradition when dealing with ‘guests’ and with representatives of great powers. Arab rulers understand full well that military action against Tehran’s nuclear facilities would be met with Iranian retaliation.
While Sunni Arab rulers may express their dislike of Shia Iran, Arab citizens generally admire Iran for standing up to the US, which they regard as an enemy, and for supporting the Lebanese Hizbollah and Palestinian Hamas movements resisting Israeli occupation. Recent opinion polls revealed that the overwhelming majority of Arabs not only support Iran but also argue that it has a right to develop nuclear weapons.
By giving a disproportionate amount of attention to the Wikileaks documents featuring Iran, the hawks in the US seek to build the case for US or Israeli military action against Iran. They also seek to deflect international attention from Israel’s drive to colonise the occupied Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem. The objective of the Iran-focus campaign is to project the notion that Iran not Israel is the main destabilising force in West Asia. The chief threat to the region, say the hawks, is Iran's quest for ‘The Bomb’ rather than Israeli colonies on land designated for a Palestinian state.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems to be going along with the hawks. US Iran experts hold that it should instead adopt a new approach to Tehran.
First, the US should sign onto the Turkish-Brazilian deal under which Iran would pause its enrichment activities and send the bulk of its low enriched nuclear material abroad in exchange for medical isotopes needed to treat cancer and, eventually, for fuel rods to power nuclear reactors.
Second, if there is substantial agreement on a pause in enrichment, the US should go for the ‘grand bargain’ proposed some years ago involving an effort to resolve the other issues which create friction between Iran and the West. These issues would include Iraq, the Afghan-Pakistan conflict, regional security, and the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Despite deep mutual mistrust and hostility, understandings have been reached between Tehran and Washington over Iraq and the Af-Pak conflict.
Wider regional security should not be a major problem as destabisation is not in the interests of either the US or Iran. Tehran has cultivated popularity with the Arabs by confronting Israel verbally and backing Arab resistance to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory. US diplomats fully understand what must be done.
Stephen Beecroft, the US ambassador in Jordan, asserted in a cable released by Wikileaks, “The best way to counter Iran’s ambitions is to weaken the salience of its radicalism on the Arab street by fulfilling the promise of ‘a two-state solution’ in Palestine.”
Deccan Herald is on WhatsApp Channels| Join now for Breaking News & Editor's Picks