Opinion | Columnists
Nuclear sanctions and Iran's neighbours
Isolating the country would tilt its internal politics in favour of its hardline factions.
- By Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:00 December 29, 2006
- Image Credit: Illustration by Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
The UN Security Council has finally adopted a considerably diluted resolution setting out non-military sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear and ballistic missiles programme. A US-led group of nations will seek satisfaction in the possibility of harsher sanctions in future.
A defiant Iran would accelerate the installation of centrifuges to step up uranium enrichment. The protracted tussle over the nuclear issue may vitiate the debate on Iran's emerging role in the region.
A sanctions resolution was the prize that the US sought in getting the Iran case transferred from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Security Council.
At the IAEA, there was always considerable acceptance of the Iranian claim that Iran had by and large abided by its obligations as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and that it was willing to work under IAEA safeguards.
The anti-Iran coalition has all along argued that Iran has a clandestine nuclear military project and, therefore, its nuclear infrastructure should be dismantled.
The Natanz facility in Iran represents a very early stage of the route that Pakistani took to attain nuclear weapon capability. It will need an exponential expansion and a dramatic acquisition of weapon technology to pose any meaningful nuclear threat.
Meir Dagan, the Mossad chief, has just warned the Knesset committee on foreign affairs that in case Iran can add sufficient numbers of centrifuges, it may produce about 25 kgs of enriched uranium by 2009. Many other experts think Iran would take a decade to reach weapon-grade enriched uranium and acquire the more challenging weaponisation technology.
Clearly, the nuclear issue is part of the campaign to prevent the emergence of Iran as a major regional player without first undergoing a pro-Western regime change. Hopes of bringing about this change have receded as the United States has sunk deeper into the Iraq quagmire.
The Baker-Hamiliton report unambiguously acknowledges that Iran (and Syria) would have to be constructively engaged to stabilise the current chaotic situation. The lobby that wrote the "axis of evil" script for US President George W. Bush is still reluctant to swallow this bitter pill.
There are some simple facts about Iran that bear repetition. First, rhetoric apart, Iran still considers itself in a state of siege. Its military posture is defensive and its dominant doctrine is deterrence against external threats.
The dualistic structure of its forces - regular military formations and a 120,000-strong Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - is designed to protect the regime internally as well as retain the capability to fight a defensive war, part conventional and part unconventional, against a superior invading power.
It also sends a strong message to the neighbours that they should not become complicit in an anti-Iran military enterprise. This is why Iran draws attention to its ability to cause major disruptions and dislocations in the normal commerce of the region.
The breakdown of Iran's military spending supports objectives of defence and deterrence. Its army has not achieved any significant offensive capability; its air force has no suppliers of frontline equipment.
The Navy can carry out effective coastal operations backed by the new 400 km per hour under-water "missile" but cannot take to high seas. Iran has, however, committed vast resources to the building up of an impressive missile capability that will take an otherwise defensive battle to hostile territory anywhere in the region.
The Shahab series of Iranian missiles seem to have come of age. Shahab III, which has more than one variant, has a range extending from 1,500 to 2,000km.
Second, Western expectations of an internal upheaval in Iran have turned out to be misconceived but there are undercurrents of restlessness especially in the youth. The Islamic revolutionary creed has a built-in tension between conservatives and reformists.
Recent elections in Iran indicate that the conservative backlash against the "reformist" Khatami era has gone too far and that Iran needs to strike a better internal balance.
Third, Iran has yet another stake in regional peace; it must make long overdue adjustments in its economic policy. Its internal monopolies tend to limit benefits to special groups. Its youth wants more equitable economic opportunities. The key oil and gas sector needs large inputs of money and technology.
Iran's real gain has, however, come from the transformation of the strategic space in its neighbourhood. The IRGC is well trained to take advantage of this change.
It played a significant role in Hezbollah's gallant fight against Israel in August; its links with some powerful militias in Iraq have put the objective of turning Iraq, or a large part of it, into a friendly zone within Iran's grasp.
Epistemological curtain
There has been an epistemological curtain between Iran and its neighbours -Afghanistan and Pakistan on the one side and the arc of Muslim states from the Gulf to Egypt to Turkey on the other.
Syria has been a notable exception and the reasons for Iranian-Syrian entente need to be appreciated better. Meanwhile the putative threat of Iran to the region is again being exaggerated.
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair saw an unbridgeable Manichean divide between Iran and the Arabs during his valedictory visit to it. Israel continues to urge the US to maintain a tough line on Iran. Sensational stories of Saudi concern about the rise of Iranian power grab headlines in the western media.
Iran must intensify the initiatives of Mohammad Khatami, a former Iranian president, to reassure all its neighbours that it seeks cooperation and not confrontation. The neighbours should also carry conviction in Tehran that they are not a part of the siege planned by the US.
Isolating Iran would tilt Iran's internal politics in favour of its hardline factions. The entire region has a tryst with the 21st century but it can keep it only by creating a more harmonious climate of inter-state relations.
Apprehensions about Iran's nuclearisation should not become a reason for an endless conflict.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan is a former Pakistan foreign secretary and ambassador to Iran.
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Threat of German amnesia
By Joschka Fischer, Special to Gulf News
Rarely has the country been as isolated as it is now. Hardly anyone understands its dogmatic austerity policy, which goes against all experience
-
Moral implication of America's security mindset
By Gordon Robison, Special to Gulf News
After a decade in which torture became official government policy, America’s moral standing when it comes to looking at other governments’ human rights failings is much-diminished
-
Europe's salvation lies in euro's demise
By Bruce Anderson
A return to national currencies is the only hope, but it won’t be easy or cost-free
Your turn
