[Marxism] Nonprolif. Pact terms back Iran in fight with US, EU, Israel

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A BIGGER THREAT THAN THE BOMB
By Martin Woollacott

** The world can live with Iranian nuclear weapons.  But can the US? **

Guardian (UK)
May 13, 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1482877,00.html

How much would it matter if Iran had the bomb?  Merely to pose this
question,
within the Bush administration, would almost be treason.  European
countries,
for their part, consider it indiscreet to raise it -- better to say that
a
nuclear-armed Iran should be avoided if at all possible.  Yet the
question of
how dangerous a development it would be is crucial.

Dangerous enough to justify a war, which is what the United States, and
sometimes Israel, seem to think?  Dangerous enough for major sanctions,
in
addition to the American ones already in place, which both those
countries
certainly would argue?  Or merely regrettable and worrying, but not
worth
making worse by either economic or military action, which is probably
the
underlying position of the three European nations trying to mediate
between
the United States and Iran over the Iranian nuclear program?

These differences, usually hidden by the efforts of the U.S. and the EU
to
"stay on the same page" on Iran, are likely to be wrenched into the open
in
the next few weeks if the Iranians resume fuel-enrichment activities, as
they
have said they will.  First at the International Atomic Energy
Authority, and
then, if the issue goes there, at the U.N. security council, the
Americans and
the Europeans will be trying not only to overcome the indifference or
hostility of many non-western states but to reconcile their own deeply
divergent views.

The Iranians may, of course, retreat or sidestep -- they have done that
before
-- and they might well respond to a proposal for another saving round of

negotiations.  There is certainly a possibility that this crisis is
being
pumped up because of the Iranian presidential elections, perhaps by
supporters
of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who is running for
office
again next month.  They might want relations with western countries to
be in a
temporarily vexed state so as to take advantage of Rafsanjani's
reputation as
a fixer and a pragmatist, someone whom Iranians should vote for because
he
will be able to extricate the country from confrontation.

Even if that is true, manufactured crises can easily get out of hand.
But,
whatever happens this time, it is obvious that Europe and America could
come
to a parting of the ways over Iran, which would be worse and more
complete
than the quarrel over Iraq.  If a confrontation with Iran played out to
the
end, an isolated America would have no European allies for either
serious
sanctions or military action.

That is, first, because the inescapable fact is that Iran would not be
in
breach of its treaty obligations, at least not immediately.  And,
second,
because the Europeans do not see Iranian nuclear weapons capacity as a
catastrophe in the way that the Bush administration does.  Shaped as it
is by
men who want to reverse the defeats of their youth, among which the
Iranian
revolution and the consequent seizure of American diplomatic hostages
stands
high, Bush's men want to see the Tehran regime gone from the world
stage, not
emboldened by the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The Americans have made it clear at the review conference on the
non-proliferation treaty going on in New York that they believe the
treaty
should be revised to reduce the entitlement to enrichment technology.
But
they act as if their mere wish that it should be ought to have the force
of
law, and have alienated the countries conferring in New York, making it
even
less likely that the security council would back serious action against
Iran.

At least there were legal arguments back and forth over Iraq.  But, were
there
to be war over Iran's nuclear activities, it would be war without law,
and
America and Israel, were she foolish enough to join the US or act as its
proxy
in an attack, would be alone in it.  War may be seen as too big a word
for the
aerial attacks on nuclear installations that America and Israel might
conduct.  But the civilian casualties from such strikes might well be
high, and worse
if there were radioactive releases. In any case, there is no doubt that
Iran
would retaliate, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and elsewhere.

If we should ever get to that point it is arguable that the real
disaster
would be that America had truly and finally gone beyond the
international pale
rather than that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.  For, if it is not
doing
so now, it certainly would be in the wake of attacks, or in response to
the
threat of them.

What would an Iranian nuclear weapon, or the achievement of the capacity
to
produce one in short order, actually mean?  The Iranian regime is on the

defensive at home, where it has lost the trust, and even the interest,
of a
large proportion of the people, and in its region, where it fears
Israel, and
has no friends other than Syria.  A long view in Tehran might suggest
that
events in Iraq may work out ultimately in Iran's favor, and then there
are new
economic relationships with China and India that could have useful
political
consequences in the future.

But the overwhelming reality for the Tehran regime is the enmity of
America
and Israel under their present governments, and this is an America
which,
thanks to Iraq, is now on Iran's doorstep.  That, in these
circumstances, an
insecure Iranian government might seek to develop a nuclear weapons
option, a
"bomb in the basement," would not be surprising.  But that once it
possessed
such a capacity it would use it aggressively is hard to credit.  Against

Israel, whose response would be devastating?  Against which other
neighbor?
Against the U.S., except in the event of an American invasion, and then
only
on the invading forces?  The conclusion must be that an Iranian weapon
might
constrain Israel and the U.S. a little in their dealings with Iran, but
it
would not threaten them or anybody else.

It would still, of course, be a bad thing.  Proliferation by its nature
increases the chances of the use of nuclear weapons, multiplying the bad

possibilities of their use by states or by terrorists.  But, if it were
to
attack Iran, the United States would face a world united in its
opposition to
what the leading power was doing.  Israel's chances of peace, if it took
part,
would be terribly damaged.  Iran's possible evolution into a freer
society,
evident in the social, demographic and cultural developments that are
already
leaving the mullahs trailing behind, would be disrupted.  In any sane
ordering
of calamity, an Iranian bomb or "near-bomb" must surely rank well below
the
disaster of a major conflict between the United States and Iran.

m.woollacott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism