Regime change or nuclear setback?

US-Iran tug of war
'Regime change' or nuclear setback?


AMIDST the intense diplomatic activities purportedly aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis with the West and reports that the US-Israeli combine has already planned and even set a timeframe for military action against Iran, the key question that comes up is: Does the US simply want to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions by decades through military action or is Washington determined to bring about a "regime change" in Iran? The course of events will depend on that. It is known that US President George W Bush has made a commitment to his hawkish neoconservative camp that a "regime change" in Tehran would be one of his priorities in the second term at the White House. However, under the present situation — in terms of both domestic considerations and the geopolitical and military equation in the Middle East, Bush might it tough to deliver on that promise. PV Vivekanand takes a close look.



THERE IS indeed a superficiality in the spiralling crisis between the West and Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme with the Middle East region being aware that it would have to bear the brunt of the fallout of the crisis either way. If Tehran defies the US-led Western effort to pressure it into abandoning its nuclear programme and goes ahead with resuming sensitive fuel cycle work and blocking international inspections, then a "military option" is indeed in the cards, as the US has clearly stated. On the other hand, if a compromise — although unlikely — is worked out for the time being, then the Middle East has to worry out the consequences of having nuclear plants in full steam in the neighbourhood.
One thing is clear: The crisis is not as much about Iran possessing nuclear weapons as it is about the US quest to remove all possibilities of any country posing a challenge to its global supremacy. In Iran's case, Washington has an added incentive: Pre-empting an Iranian-engineered nuclear balance in the region that would set back Israel's grand designs.
Bush on Wednesday his commitment to Israelby vowing that the US would defend Israel militarily if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "menacing talk" against Israel.
"I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.
"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added. Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defecse militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

Time for climbdowns

NOTWITHSTANDING the diplomatic action that the US and allied European countries are following in order to pre-empt an Iranian nuclear bomb, there is little the world community could actually do to prevent Tehran from going ahead with its plans.
There is little doubt that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would report Iran to the UN Security Council as asked for by the US-led coalition. This could be followed by Security Council sanctions against Iran, but only after IAEA Director-General Mohammed Al Baradei presents his final report in March.
In the meantime, the only prospect of a compromise is contained in a Russian proposal under which Tehran would be allowed the use of nuclear energy to produce power on condition that the spent weapon-grade fuel would be taken away to another country.
Iran seem to keeping that option open and has said it has found the Russian compromise interesting.
Failure to work out a solution has far-reaching consequences, including the worry that oil prices could shoot up immediately in the event of UN sanctions against Iran.
However, these concerns move to the secondary slot in the broader perspective of failure of diplomacy and the US and its ally Israel choosing to exercise the "military option."
The world could not and brush aside the steady flow of reports from various quarters that the US and Israel have already decided to launch military action against Iran. Israel is said to have set a March date for unilateral action against Iran, with or without the US going along with it. However, it would be the US which would bear the brunt of Iranian retaliation just as the US military is waging an Israeli war in Iraq.
The key to solving the crisis lies in acceptance of certain realities on both sides. There is little prospect of the US and Iran becoming good friends. The Americans do not trust the Iranians and vice-versa. Period.
At the same time, Iran is not posing a military threat to the US, and Washington should also realise that Tehran is only rattling its sabres when it issues warnings to Israel.
Instead of allowing the crisis to fester through a continued war of words, all sides involved in the crisis should come up with something beyond the Russian proposal — a common ground where the genuine concerns of the key parties could be addressed. It requires heavy climbdowns from the high horses that they occupy and an acceptance of the reality that while Israel and Iran could not be expected to send each other Christmas cakes or new year flowers, they could be persuaded not to go for each other's jugular at the first given opportunity. That responsibility rests with the US and European powers.