Iran’s Nuclear Programme More Threat to Arabs than to Israel ©
The media coverage of the Iranian’s quest for nuclear weapons and the subsequent threat to regional and world peace seems to fall into an obvious trap of missing a crucial point, namely Iran’s true objectives of obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran’s radical Islamists leaders are not targetting Israel as they say, but they wanted to blackmail Arab neighbours into accepting Iran’s stratgey for the region.
By taking Iran’s rhetoric and threats to Israel at face value, the coverage in the international press and discussions among American and other Western think tanks, focuse on the threats announced by Iranian President Mamoud Ahmadinejad ‘to wipe Israel from the map’ and the threats to regional stability if Israel was to take preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear installations as it did against Iraq’s nuclear reactor some 30 years ago ( and proven to be prudent since history shows that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would have used a nuclear bomb had he had one at his disposal).
This analysis (that if Iran’s nuclear plans was not contained, an Israeli Iranian showdown sucking in other parties and increasing threat of terrorism) is not only naïve, but also dangerous because it shifts focus away from the real danger which the theological Khomeinist tyranny of the Islamic Republic would pose if it succeeds in possessing nuclear weapons, since Tehran already have different platforms able to deliver the bomb several hundred miles beyond Iran’s borders.
In fact, the hardliners among Ayattollahs’ dictatorship, represented by Ahmadinejad and his supporters, not only welcome this analysis but encourage it by rhetoric and action designed to antagonise Israel ( like backing Hezbollah’s and Hamas’s terror against Israel).
In addition to the Israel-Iran confrontation scenario smokescreen to conceal Teheran’s true intentions, escalation with Israel also helps the regime internally.
The phantom battle with ” the Lesser Satan” (the name late Ayatollah Khomeini gave Israel ), and it protector ” The Great Satan” (America ), has been the foundation myth of the Islamic Republic, and this battle is only fought in the realm of propaganda and in the minds of angry young Muslims ( the same like al-Qaeda foundation myth). By provoking a limited battle with Israel ( likely by proxy via Hezbollah in Lebanon like in 2006) hardliners would would help consolidate their position and gain more support from a public that grew up on a daily diet of ‘Israeli-American threats to Islam.’
The more Israelis make threatening noise, and the more international media repeat the threat the more support Ahmadinejad would find on the Iranian streets shifting attention away from his failure to fulfill his election promises and meet the need of his population, at a time of mass unemployment and and economic crisis leading oil producing Iran to import motorcar fuel and refined oil products, not to mention corruption, rigging election, violation of human rights and supporting terrorism.
Although the mental state of Ahmadinejad & co is questionable, Iran’s leaders still possess a minimum survival instinct to be aware of Israel’s military retaliation capability to to bomb Iran to stone age, thus deterring any meaningful Iranian threat to Israel.
In reality Iran plays up the threat to Israel to conceal the real aim from obtaining nuclear weapons, namely blackmailing neighbouring Arab nations in the Gulf, and imposing hegemony on the region to force major players like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Saudi Arabia to cooperate with Tehran on its terms and reduce their commitment to the west. This development is welcomed helps China and Russia, which explains their objection to UN Security Council resolutions under chapter seven against Iran. China wants cheaper oil, and opening of Middle East markets, while Russia, wants Iran’s help in supporting Syria’s Assad regime which plays host to the only naval base the Russian Fleet has in the Mediterranean.
Iran’s nuclear weapons are not weapons designed to deter an existentialist threat of annihilation ( as it is the case of Israel’s nuclear weapons) but a weapon to blackmail neighbors.
There is no easy answer to how to contain the Iranian threat. In the debate that followed his statement to the commons last Wednesday Foreign Secretary William Hague was steadfast against leftist Labour MPs as he refused to rule out the military option ( although saying it is not his preferred one) among several options.
Given many of the 2003 Iraq campaign’s components, like the famous dodgy dossier and Tony Blair misleading statement about the 45 minutes threats from Iraq, western democracies are reluctant to take any military action without UN cover.
Unlike the Iraqi nuclear programme which the Israels took out in one raid (and successfully copied recently against a Syrian reactor), Iran’s nuclear facilities cover a large geographical area and located among civilians, which would deter any western democratic government from ordering a military strike. And since a military strike ( unlikely to totally take out Iran’s facilities) will almost certainly increase the popularity of the totalitarian regime at home as well as among Muslim and Arab nations; Iran’s Ayattollahs would in fact welcome it.
As for obtaining a UN Security Council Resolution under chapter seven, China and Russia made it clear they would use the veto against any draft making the resolution effective. They are taking similar position regarding Assad Baath dictatorship in Syria, bearing in mind that the survival of Assad regime is inseparable from Iran’s regional strategy that includes making nuclear weapons.
The recent lesson from Libya when the west successfully provided support to the people to topple Colonel Gaddafi highlights the unexpected role the League of Arab States can play. Their sponsoring of the move to back the Libyan people and negotiations in the Security Council embarrassed China and Russia into bowing to the international community will; neither used a veto against UNSC resolution 1973.
Hence a wider strategy of regional and international diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations is required to halt Iran’s nuclear project without alienating the Iranian people, while keeping the public pressure and not removing the military option from the equation.
Britain is best placed, among its Arab friends and allies to spearhead this coordination among urging Arabs to give material support to the Syrian people as a first step to halt Iran’s strategy. Defeating the Assad Baath regime which backs Iran will not only be a victory for democracy, but it will also cast a sever blow to Iran’s strategy in the region ( Assad regime has been a bridge for Iran to support terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah).
More important the Gulf Arabs voice concern in private about Iran’s nuclear threat but speak different language in public. Hence Gulf Arab public diplomacy to contain the Iranian threat, which is in the final analysis is directed against them, should be more forceful and put on the top of the Arab League agenda. This is much easier than say, a year ago when traditionally pro Russia Arabs were in stronger position . Syria’s membership frozen, Colonel Gaddafi no more and the pro-Moscow Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen is weakened and his fall is a matter of time. A strong Arab League move on Syria and Iran will force China and Russia, at the very least, to abstain on both Syria and Iran resolutions at the UN. The Iran resolution must include smart sanctions targeting a list of leading members of the Iranian regime, blacklisting companies dealing with Iran on every level, even indirect and and third or fourth party association while imposing, through naval inspection, the sanction regime to make it much tighter than any previous sanctions regime.
This should be combined with practical measures to end Syrian Baath dictatorship ( with western backed Syrian opposition assuring Moscow that once they are in power, the Russian Fleet will not lose naval facilities it currently granted at Syrian ports) build multi-party democracy in Syria to l defeat Ahmadinejad; combined with Arab League-Western move, while encourage all interested to carry out covert operations against Iranian facilities. It is essential for British (as well as US and EU) diplomacy to convince the Arabs to take the initiative in public diplomacy to start the ball rolling as they are very much aware that Iran’s nuclear programme is designed to blackmail them rather than the false assumption that it would be directed against Israel.
© Copyright Adel Darwish, not to be reprinted, reproduced or quoted in whole or in part without the permission of Adel Darwish
By taking Iran’s rhetoric and threats to Israel at face value, the coverage in the international press and discussions among American and other Western think tanks, focuse on the threats announced by Iranian President Mamoud Ahmadinejad ‘to wipe Israel from the map’ and the threats to regional stability if Israel was to take preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear installations as it did against Iraq’s nuclear reactor some 30 years ago ( and proven to be prudent since history shows that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would have used a nuclear bomb had he had one at his disposal).
This analysis (that if Iran’s nuclear plans was not contained, an Israeli Iranian showdown sucking in other parties and increasing threat of terrorism) is not only naïve, but also dangerous because it shifts focus away from the real danger which the theological Khomeinist tyranny of the Islamic Republic would pose if it succeeds in possessing nuclear weapons, since Tehran already have different platforms able to deliver the bomb several hundred miles beyond Iran’s borders.
In fact, the hardliners among Ayattollahs’ dictatorship, represented by Ahmadinejad and his supporters, not only welcome this analysis but encourage it by rhetoric and action designed to antagonise Israel ( like backing Hezbollah’s and Hamas’s terror against Israel).
In addition to the Israel-Iran confrontation scenario smokescreen to conceal Teheran’s true intentions, escalation with Israel also helps the regime internally.
The phantom battle with ” the Lesser Satan” (the name late Ayatollah Khomeini gave Israel ), and it protector ” The Great Satan” (America ), has been the foundation myth of the Islamic Republic, and this battle is only fought in the realm of propaganda and in the minds of angry young Muslims ( the same like al-Qaeda foundation myth). By provoking a limited battle with Israel ( likely by proxy via Hezbollah in Lebanon like in 2006) hardliners would would help consolidate their position and gain more support from a public that grew up on a daily diet of ‘Israeli-American threats to Islam.’
The more Israelis make threatening noise, and the more international media repeat the threat the more support Ahmadinejad would find on the Iranian streets shifting attention away from his failure to fulfill his election promises and meet the need of his population, at a time of mass unemployment and and economic crisis leading oil producing Iran to import motorcar fuel and refined oil products, not to mention corruption, rigging election, violation of human rights and supporting terrorism.
Although the mental state of Ahmadinejad & co is questionable, Iran’s leaders still possess a minimum survival instinct to be aware of Israel’s military retaliation capability to to bomb Iran to stone age, thus deterring any meaningful Iranian threat to Israel.
In reality Iran plays up the threat to Israel to conceal the real aim from obtaining nuclear weapons, namely blackmailing neighbouring Arab nations in the Gulf, and imposing hegemony on the region to force major players like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Saudi Arabia to cooperate with Tehran on its terms and reduce their commitment to the west. This development is welcomed helps China and Russia, which explains their objection to UN Security Council resolutions under chapter seven against Iran. China wants cheaper oil, and opening of Middle East markets, while Russia, wants Iran’s help in supporting Syria’s Assad regime which plays host to the only naval base the Russian Fleet has in the Mediterranean.
Iran’s nuclear weapons are not weapons designed to deter an existentialist threat of annihilation ( as it is the case of Israel’s nuclear weapons) but a weapon to blackmail neighbors.
There is no easy answer to how to contain the Iranian threat. In the debate that followed his statement to the commons last Wednesday Foreign Secretary William Hague was steadfast against leftist Labour MPs as he refused to rule out the military option ( although saying it is not his preferred one) among several options.
Given many of the 2003 Iraq campaign’s components, like the famous dodgy dossier and Tony Blair misleading statement about the 45 minutes threats from Iraq, western democracies are reluctant to take any military action without UN cover.
Unlike the Iraqi nuclear programme which the Israels took out in one raid (and successfully copied recently against a Syrian reactor), Iran’s nuclear facilities cover a large geographical area and located among civilians, which would deter any western democratic government from ordering a military strike. And since a military strike ( unlikely to totally take out Iran’s facilities) will almost certainly increase the popularity of the totalitarian regime at home as well as among Muslim and Arab nations; Iran’s Ayattollahs would in fact welcome it.
As for obtaining a UN Security Council Resolution under chapter seven, China and Russia made it clear they would use the veto against any draft making the resolution effective. They are taking similar position regarding Assad Baath dictatorship in Syria, bearing in mind that the survival of Assad regime is inseparable from Iran’s regional strategy that includes making nuclear weapons.
The recent lesson from Libya when the west successfully provided support to the people to topple Colonel Gaddafi highlights the unexpected role the League of Arab States can play. Their sponsoring of the move to back the Libyan people and negotiations in the Security Council embarrassed China and Russia into bowing to the international community will; neither used a veto against UNSC resolution 1973.
Hence a wider strategy of regional and international diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations is required to halt Iran’s nuclear project without alienating the Iranian people, while keeping the public pressure and not removing the military option from the equation.
Britain is best placed, among its Arab friends and allies to spearhead this coordination among urging Arabs to give material support to the Syrian people as a first step to halt Iran’s strategy. Defeating the Assad Baath regime which backs Iran will not only be a victory for democracy, but it will also cast a sever blow to Iran’s strategy in the region ( Assad regime has been a bridge for Iran to support terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah).
More important the Gulf Arabs voice concern in private about Iran’s nuclear threat but speak different language in public. Hence Gulf Arab public diplomacy to contain the Iranian threat, which is in the final analysis is directed against them, should be more forceful and put on the top of the Arab League agenda. This is much easier than say, a year ago when traditionally pro Russia Arabs were in stronger position . Syria’s membership frozen, Colonel Gaddafi no more and the pro-Moscow Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen is weakened and his fall is a matter of time. A strong Arab League move on Syria and Iran will force China and Russia, at the very least, to abstain on both Syria and Iran resolutions at the UN. The Iran resolution must include smart sanctions targeting a list of leading members of the Iranian regime, blacklisting companies dealing with Iran on every level, even indirect and and third or fourth party association while imposing, through naval inspection, the sanction regime to make it much tighter than any previous sanctions regime.
This should be combined with practical measures to end Syrian Baath dictatorship ( with western backed Syrian opposition assuring Moscow that once they are in power, the Russian Fleet will not lose naval facilities it currently granted at Syrian ports) build multi-party democracy in Syria to l defeat Ahmadinejad; combined with Arab League-Western move, while encourage all interested to carry out covert operations against Iranian facilities. It is essential for British (as well as US and EU) diplomacy to convince the Arabs to take the initiative in public diplomacy to start the ball rolling as they are very much aware that Iran’s nuclear programme is designed to blackmail them rather than the false assumption that it would be directed against Israel.
© Copyright Adel Darwish, not to be reprinted, reproduced or quoted in whole or in part without the permission of Adel Darwish