Opinions | Columnists
Consensus in the US is anti-Iran
There is broad American agreement that the Ahmadinejad government is beyond acceptability.
- By Francis Matthew, Editor at Large
- Published: 00:09 May 8, 2008
- Image Credit: Illustration: Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
The Democratic candidates for nomination are so totally focused on their domestic struggle that they are not offering any opposition to what appears to be George W. Bush's renewed plans to either attack Iranian forces, or at the very least mount a serious threat to do so.
Bush's planned assault against Iran's nuclear facilities was rebuffed last year by the UN's International Atomic Energy Authority's declaration that there was no threat, supported by America's own National Intelligence Estimate.
However, Bush's anti-Iran policy did not stop there and recently the US military in Iraq have stated several times that Iranian activities in Iraq are enough reason for the US military to act against the Iranians.
The American briefings now focus on the Quds Force, which is part of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. The Quds Force is described by the Americans as a paramilitary and espionage organisation, headed by General Qasim Sulaimani, and which they say has been active in promoting Iran's interests in Iraq, and maybe elsewhere around the Middle East.
These claims need challenging by politicians in Washington, and by anyone else, in order to force the Bush administration to prove what it says. Its record of false claims in the Middle East has been disastrous, and it needs to offer a high degree of proof to justify whatever it might claim.
But the consensus in Washington is anti-Iran, across both Republicans and Democrats. It has taken many years for the idea of even-handedness between Israel and the Arabs to make it to mainstream American politics, and even now it is still very controversial: while Israeli claims are treated as fact, Palestinian claims are either dismissed or ridiculed.
But on Iran there is broad American agreement that the Ahmadinejad government is beyond acceptability, and this consensus is why Hillary Clinton managed to get herself into an unnecessary mess saying that she would "obliterate" Iran when she answered a hypothetical question about what she would do if she was the American president, if Israel was attacked by nuclear weapons from Iran which would mean the probable destruction of Israel.
Although such an event is extremely unlikely, she chose to answer and she chose to use the word "obliterate". Clearly she knew what she was saying, and she knew that such a word would echo around the Middle East. She could easily have picked another less dramatic word to describe the response she would order.
Her response moves potential US policy in favour of Israel, which does not have a nuclear guarantee from the United States at present. She seems to be offering Israel space under the US's nuclear umbrella, which might be written off as electioneering designed to appeal to the large Jewish vote in the US.
Barak Obama also said he would retaliate (although did not use the word 'obliterate'), so both Democratic candidates agreed that they would attack Iran in the event of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.
But Clinton added that she would offer similar defence guarantees to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This takes her ideas well beyond the simple "nuke Iran" caricature that has emerged from her intemperate language, and offers a much more complete Middle East policy than she has properly spelled out so far.
But if she is ready to expand America's defence guarantees to cover some Gulf states, she would take the nuclear umbrella much wider than is planned at present. Indeed, some of the US's Nato allies are already questioning what their position might be if such a position emerged.
Any Gulf states offered this nuclear umbrella by a future US president would have to agree to accept the offer. It would be a major shift from their present positions on nuclear defence, which are completely against any nuclear weapons.
But the one possible scenario in which they might accept such an offer is if Iran developed nuclear weapons, despite its present denials that it has any such intentions.
The present Iranian government says that it is developing an enrichment process for its civilian nuclear programme, but a future Iranian government could use this process to manufacture the raw material for nuclear weapons.
There is very little that any outside agency can do to stop this, despite the bellicose threats from the Bush administration, Israel, and the US military in Iraq.
Deterrence
In the end, if Iran wants nuclear weapons, it will get them. The technology and ability is available. If this happens, then deterrence would be the only way to contain a possible nuclear-armed Iran and in that scenario Clinton's idea of a nuclear umbrella to the Gulf would make sense.
In addition, it shows a refreshing readiness to be even handed between Israel and the Arab states.
As the Democratic contest grinds on, with Obama drawing closer to winning the nomination and Hillary refusing to give up, the candidates are fighting almost totally on domestic issues.
They know that the next few weeks will decide their fate, and the Democrat voters will not make decision based on their Middle East policies, but on bread and butter issues within the United States.
Therefore it is hard to build up much of an idea of what they think internationally, but the Middle East is very anxious to see what alternatives might emerge to George W. Bush's disastrous presidency, and the question about Iran has opened up some hints of how Democrat candidates might be more inclusive in the Middle East than US governments to date.
Share this article
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: World hunger
Who is responsible for world hunger? Are there any solution?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Parochialism versus India
The idea of India gets defeated if people are governed by domicile considerations
-
Between crime and insanity
Major Hassan's actions debase the universal parlance of the very faith that he professed to embrace so ardently
-
Its time for Karzai to show his mettle
He may have fallen out of favour, but for now there are no other leadership options
