The Lebanese conflict has reportedly strengthened the Bush Administration's resolve to stop Iran's nuclear program, but, nonetheless, Iran shows no sign that it may be ready to change course and halt its uranium enrichment.
A European diplomat told EurasiaNet recently that the current war between Israel and Hezbollah has engendered two different sets of interpretations among the so-called Five-Plus-One states (Russia, the United States, China, Britain, France and Germany) on how to tackle the question of Iran's nuclear program.
"On the one side stands [German Chancellor] Angela Merkle who points to this conflict and warns of even greater dangers to world peace if the Security Council opts to bring too much pressure on Iran," the diplomat told EurasiaNet. China and Russia evidently subscribe to this position. "On the other side is [US President] George Bush who is saying that the conflict simply shows how serious a threat Iran is, and how important it is to check its ambitions."
Jon Wolfsthal, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, believes that Bush's resolve in standing up to Iran has been further fortified by the Lebanon conflict.
"Basically, they have debated this in the White House and while there are different views as to how closely coordinated Hezbollah's provocation with Iran has been, the consensus is that Iran wants to use a nuclear shield in future to project its power to the whole Middle East," Wolfsthal said. "Major Security Council action" could occur shortly if Iran's nuclear development continues, he added. In line with this reasoning, other experts believe that President Bush wants to be seen before the November mid-term congressional elections as a strong president who gets tough with US adversaries.
Another Washington, DC-based analyst, Patrick Clawson of the conservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy, added that US diplomats at the UN are hard at work trying to introduce a binding resolution at the Security Council against Iran before the August 22 deadline Tehran has set for its response to the latest set of Western incentives to stop uranium enrichment. The deadline, Clawson added, is seen as part of a time-buying tactic by Tehran.
Under the resolution, Clawson continued, if Iran does not fully halt its enrichment activities, "the Security Council would order Iran first to reinstate its suspended protocols [on compliance issues], and then demand that Iran gives new access to various military or nuclear sites."
Iran, however, shows no signs that it is ready to jettison its nuclear program. Most Iranian officials and commentators insist that the Islamic Republic is fully entitled to enrich uranium. Stopping this process, they say, would be tantamount to impinging on Iran's sovereignty. Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad made a similar argument before the UN General Assembly last September.
With much hanging in the balance for its nuclear program, Iran clearly wants to avoid a direct confrontation with either Israel or the United States. [For background, see the Eurasia Insight Archive].
Observers believe that Iran finds the present geopolitical situation favorable to its interests. The country is making steady advances in its nuclear program and sees no reason to halt it under current circumstances. From Iraq, where US forces are badly bugged down, to high oil prices, Iranian strategists consider time to be on their side. When the August 22 deadline hits, the possibility exists that Iran will simply present its own counter-offer, thereby prolonging the negotiation process. [For background, see the Eurasia Insight Archive].
A recent editorial in the hard-line newspaper Kayhan encapsulated Iran's time-buying tactic toward the incentives package: "[E]ven after the ambiguities have been removed and the package is shorn of confusing items, it would require months to study these," the editorial argued. "If the Europeans expect a positive answer from us, that would involve a protracted timeframe and complicated and extensive discussions."
For this reason, caution is being exercised in responding to the situation in Lebanon. Although all Iranian political and media commentaries have been predictably supportive of Hezbollah's fight against Israel, the support has been more measured and muted than expected, and confined to moral support or hard-news analyses.
In a July 22 interview with the Iranian Students' News Agency, Amir Mohebian, a well-known conservative opinion-maker, noted that "[I]t could be said that the West is after a project . . . to enable the US and Israel to dismantle the [Palestinian Authority's] Hamas government, disarm Hezbollah, bring pressure to bear on the Shia-led government in Iraq and from the totality of these, seriously undermine Iran's geopolitical position in the region."
A UN Security Council resolution would force difficult choices on Tehran. Despite this, Iran is expected to show flexibility. Doing so would potentially split the US-led coalition being formed against Iran, and Iranian scientists and engineers need time to master the technological advances they have achieved. But any suspension of uranium enrichment would only be temporary. The present favorable geopolitical situation may be short-lived, meaning that, for Iran, time is of the essence.
Editor's note:
Kamal Nazer Yasin is a pseudonym for a freelance journalist specializing in Iranian affairs.
