Now before examining the issue, it is better to have a look to the recent developments that triggered the problem.

Iran recently tested advanced torpedoes and missiles in the Persian Gulf. It has also successfully tested a new version of its Shahab-3 missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers and also produces tanks, armored personnel carriers and a fighter plane. There were many claims saying that all those efforts were made to beef up political support at home and convince the international community that Iran has ways to push back if the standoff over the nuclear issue becomes an outright confrontation. But according to the explanations came from Iranian diplomats, those tests were made to show that Iran’s conventional weapon technology is advanced enough and she does not need nuclear weapons. 

A few days later Iran’s President Ahmedinejad proudly declared that Iran had enriched uranium to a level used in nuclear power plants (level of %3.5). Actually these were the developments that caused an increased concern in the Western countries, especially U.S.

Upon this explanation, U.S declared that the Security Council shall adopt a tougher measure on Iran’s nuclear dossier. On the other hand Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmedinejad stated that nobody can cause a minute's pause in Iranian nation's motion forward in a speech that was held in Mashad. And warned people not to afraid of the threats come from foreign countries as they are trying to achieving their goal through this way.

But the most interesting point here is the timing of Iran. Iran’s declaration about the achieved uranium enrichment technology was during a period that almost all news were talking about the possible U.S military attack on Iran and this famous report of Seymour Hersh.

According to several accounts taken from the Seymour Hersh’s report published on New Yorker and Washington Post, Bush administration is considering plans for a massive bombing campaign in Iran to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons. There are many remarks of current and former American Military and intelligence officials in that report. Some of these remarks indicate that the Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran secretly, to gather targeting data and to establish contact with anti-regime ethnic minority groups.

As it is mentioned in the report, the nuclear option towards Iran was one of the options but it has created serious misgivings inside the Offices of U.S Joint Chiefs of Staff. Even some officials are talking about the resigning.

After reading the “Iran Plans” Report of Hersh, the disparities and disagreements within the U.S can be seen obviously. There is a general view about the dangerous character of Iran’s nuclear program. But there is a great disagreement regarding the response to be given. Although the report indicates the different military plans and the American combating troops secretly operating in Iran, a military attack option does not look as a strong possibility at least in short term. The point here is the main idea of the White House which is the regime change in Iran. If the existence of the American troops in Iran is true, so that it can be said that they are focusing on creating and triggering the ethnic conflicts through the anti-regime ethnic minorities.  

"I can't tell you, nobody can say what's going to happen in the future. But I can just tell you there are people in the Pentagon and people, our allies, the allies involved with us diplomatically, the French, the Germans and the Brits, who don't really know what the President is thinking," said Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker on CNN's "Late Edition."

In response to the rumors and comments concerning a military attack and the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites, U.S. President George W. Bush interpreted all these reports as "wild speculation" and said his vow to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons doesn't mean force necessarily. According to him In this case it means diplomacy. Iran has evaluated the comments came after as a “psychological warfare."

After the declarations came from Iran concerning the success on low enrichment technology, the Head of IAEA Mohammad El-Baradey visited Iran to provide a common ground between Iran and international community and of course to convince Iran for a full suspension of uranium enrichment activities. El Baradey had stated that there is still time to discuss upon a solution. He also added that the suspension is only to the point that trust is gained and other matters have been successfully solved[2]. It looks like that he does not have any plan at the moment but he emphasized that he will do his best to solve the problem. The inspections will be held upon the NPT Regulations. The latest negotiations were about the method of cooperation to be followed in the future. El Baradey told that the most important issue is the trust building of Iran that is required for Board of Governors. And the method will be determined upon the Iran’s way of negotiating with international community.

Concerning the full suspension of enrichment activities; Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, said that when Iran had a close cooperation with IAEA, when head of IAEA visits Iran and all their cameras are monitoring the nuclear facilities, the demand of suspension of uranium enrichment does not seem logic. He also added that a suggestion should be submitted that will solve Iran’s nuclear issue.

According to Javad Zarif’s explanation, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations; Iran has adopted extensive and costly confidence-building measures, including a voluntary suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of negotiations. Later on Iran volunteered to continue to put in place pending ratification of Additional Protocol that gives the right of sudden and uninformed inspection to the IAEA officials; to permit the continuous on-site presence of atomic agency inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities; to introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons; to cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material; to refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium; to limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry; to convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment; to limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran’s power reactors and future light water reactors; to begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program — like research and development — in order to assure the world about their intentions; to accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program. The mentioned steps were offered within a balanced package, but Iran is stubborn about a full suspension as she thinks that it will be a compulsion comes from the Western countries.

U.S is aware of the fact that Iran is not Iraq. So that the first step will be the creation of a chaotic situation both inside the country and with its neighboring countries and would try to reach agreements with China, the EU and Russia separately, and would make concessions to them and neighboring Arab countries to isolate the Islamic Republic, as preventing Iran from creating nuclear weapons is Washington's key aim.

A growing number of analysts and former top U.S. officials argue that the White House should reconsider the direct talks with Iran. But the administration has rejected this diplomatic initiative so far. According to Cirincione, The nature of Iran's regime is no reason not to hold talks. "We negotiated with Stalin and Mao and Brezhnev and Kim Jong Il and Moammar Gadhafi," he said, citing a list of antagonistic leaders past and present. Some analysts argue that attacking Iran would be even more dangerous than letting it go nuclear. Some of them believe that an American air strike "would be Iran's Pearl Harbor and this war would be catastrophic for U.S. national-security interests[3].

The multiplicity of centers that characterize the decision-making mechanism of the Islamic Republic is too complex. Iran does not speak with one voice or act with one hand. The recent behavior of Iran perceived as she is determined to resist any concessions on its vital interests, risking the worst-case and other unfavorable scenarios to realize as many of its ambitions as possible. But it is the famous “brinkmanship policy”, one of the major diplomacy tools of Iran that waits until the final moment to decide. This policy had worked too many times before, but in this case there are many risks. First of all the opposing side which is Bush Administration is not logic. Despite of the disagreements and opposing voices concerning another military attack and a new chaotic situation in the region even in the U.S, any time suddenly they can decide to attack upon the preemptive policy or another newly born policy / pretext. We should be deeply skeptical about the legitimacy of the Bush administration's “casus belli” as it can be dependent on unknown special criteria.

Apart of this, there are many disagreements inside the Iran too. Yes there is a consensus about the right of peaceful nuclear technology but there is a great disagreement regarding the method. A noteworthy majority do not support aggressive policy of the country in negotiation process. Many others think that Iran could suspend its activities for a short period and find a common ground of talks with western countries, later on she can go on its activities. But of course there is a radical group that support the nuclear right even if means war. At the moment there is a major difference between revolutionary conservatives and supporters of democracy. But hopefully when you talk with Iranian diplomats and read the Iranian news flicker to hopes can be seen that despite of this dispute, there are a majority among decision makers who are aware of the importance of people’s national interest that should not to be harmed by wrong decisions. But again there is the risk of clash between conservative and reformist ideas within Iran too.

As it comes to the EU; so far any military action is definitely out of the question for them. Straw said a military strike on Iran was not on the agenda and the United States was committed to a negotiated solution. But on the other hand, European Union foreign policy Chief Javier Solana, drafted a confidential options paper for the 25 ministers including sanctions for Iran. Some of the sanction types proposed in this paper are travel ban on individuals involved in Iran's nuclear programme, tighter export controls on dual-use technologies, a ban on Iranian students studying sensitive sciences in European universities and, ultimately, a ban on export credit guarantees to companies trading with Iran. However British Foreign Secretary declared that this paper was just a contingency exercise and mentioned sanctions are not imminent. The aim of this paper was explained as being ready in the case that diplomatic efforts will fail[4].

Still EU has important reasons for trying to solve this crisis. First of all, according to the report of Fars News Ageny, EU’s oil dependency on Iran has grown by 165% in the last seven years. 2003 and 2004 oil imports witnessed €6b and €7b, reaching €10.1b all-times high in 2005. The latter increase, at 44%, placed Iran as the top fifth crude exporter to EU, improving its sixth position back in 2004[5]. The second reason is the amount of non-oil trade volume and trade partnerships with Iran. And the final reason is proving the success of Common Foreign and Security Policy /CFSP of the EU. Iran’s nuclear crisis will be the major success or defeat of the CFSP. So that EU would try to prove itself and stabilize the unilateral policy of U.S in the region.   

Iran's trump card is the geopolitical fact that it is a major oil producer bordering other major oil producers. A large-scale war undertaken by the US would almost surely lead to a disruption of world oil supplies and the danger that Iran would use its missiles to attack Saudi or Gulf-state oil complexes.

The Rumors of possible military attack shall be a tactic to ensure the success of the diplomatic efforts. In that manner it can be a kind of psychological warfare to create an atmosphere in which decision makers shall decide quickly without going further to question the situation and giving the impact of red alerts to the people living inside the country. If we take into consideration the diverging domestic views in relation with solving the problems with Western world especially in that critical situation of country, this tactic seems to be successful.

The White House said sanctions against the Islamic regime would certainly be one of the options on the table. As a result it can be said that U.S will test out the scheme for regime change in Iran. So that she will not use the military attack option, as it have a negative side effect for both sides and also the whole region. A military action will also strengthen the regime in Iran which does not serve to her aims. The best way can be chosen will be the economic sanctions and supporting the anti-regime ethnic minorities within the country. These are the weak points that Iran shall be careful about. Iran shall behave more diplomatically to solve this crisis. Legally Iran has the right to enrich uranium and continue the peaceful nuclear activities. But especially in this critical circumstance the best way for defending the rights is not flirting with confrontation.  

The fact is, neither Iranian people can consume the “yellow cake” as a major meal in their daily life, nor they can resist to another conflict within their country. Iranian government has focused on the national pride choice, but the national pride will make no sense in the case of a military attack and more economic sanctions. The current government had promised a better life, welfare state, fair income distribution during the elections and even in the first weeks of their triumph. But it is for sure that the above mentioned promises cannot be realized by the enriched uranium “yellow cake” and further damages cannot be compensate by national pride.

Iran shall be careful not to fall into a trap while defending her rights. There is always a mainstream policy…

International Strategic Research Organization

Middle East Research Centre

celalifer@yahoo.com

18.04.2006