EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - The Results of the Lebanese War Embolden Iran on Nuclear Issue

EURASIA INSIGHT

THE RESULTS OF THE LEBANESE WAR EMBOLDEN IRAN ON NUCLEAR ISSUE
Kamal Nazer Yasin 8/24/06

Amid continued international wrangling over Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran appears to have been emboldened by the results of the recent fighting in Lebanon.

Iran responded on August 22 to the so-called 5-plus-1 incentive package, developed by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, along with Germany. The package reportedly offered Iran a variety of economic benefits in return for a commitment to suspend its nuclear program. Details concerning the Iranian response have been kept under wraps. What is clear, however, is that Tehran has failed to satisfy US and European Union officials.

In a television interview broadcast by the German N24 channel on August 24, German Chancellor Angela Merkel indicated that the United States and EU had hoped for a clear Iranian commitment to suspend uranium enrichment and enter into substantive negotiations on the nuclear program. "That, unfortunately, is not what happened," Merkel said. US and EU officials are now mulling how to proceed. In the past, US officials have vowed to take the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN Security Council with the aim of imposing sanctions on Tehran.

Iranian officials have disputed the US and EU interpretation of the response. "Tehran’s response is very comprehensive and includes the Islamic Republic of Iran’s attitudes toward the continuation of negotiations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said August 23.

Meanwhile, the Iranian press has provided clues on the essence of Tehran’s reply. One commentary in particular stands out. Hussein Shariatmadari, an aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as editor of the conservative Kayhan daily, wrote August 23: "There are over 60 ambiguous items in the (5-plus-1) package, making a �yes-or-no’ answer impossible on our part. Therefore the 5-plus-1 countries have made no specific offers to us to expect a specific response." In other words, Tehran is simply looking to prolong the talks about negotiations.

Iran’s stance seems to have been reinforced by the Lebanon fighting, in which the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia was widely seen as scoring a tactical victory against Israel. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The Lebanese outcome appeared to strengthen Iran’s diplomatic bargaining position. Conversely, it has dramatically lowered international leverage against Iran, which now believes more than ever that if the nuclear issue ends up in the Security Council, Russia or China would significantly water such a measure down.

Reflecting the new dynamics in Iran’s discussions with the 5-plus-1 nations, Iranian government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham sounded a defiant note in discussing the present state of negotiations. In comments published by the state news agency IRNA, Elham indicated that Tehran was preparing for any eventuality, including the possibility of armed confrontation. In an attempt to buttress this message, the Iranian military staged large-scale exercises just before Tehran made its response to the incentive package.

Elham declined to discuss the specifics of the Iranian reply, saying that current conditions "are not favorable for revealing details." He went on to warn US and EU officials against press leaks. "If our partners change their approach and reveal the issue to the media, we will also have the right to revise our policy," he said.

While it appears the Islamic Republic is adamantly opposed to a permanent halt to its enrichment activities, some Iranian observers believe Tehran may still agree to a temporary halt, provided that such action could secure for Iran additional economic benefits from the West. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Hezbollah remains a key component in Iran’s strategy for handling the nuclear crisis. Tehran’s aim now is to quickly restore the militia to its pre-war fighting capacity.

Israeli officials have claimed that that the Israeli military knocked out 80 percent of Hezbollah’s medium- and long-range missile rocket launchers, and killed close to 700 of the militia’s fighters. While Hezbollah’s military capacity certainly took a significant hit, experts say there is no way of knowing the exact extent of the damage. "In every military conflict, warring parties tend to exaggerate their gains. This war was no exception," Thomas Carothers, the vice president for studies-international politics and governance at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told EurasiaNet in an interview. Carothers indicated that both the United States and Israel lacked solid intelligence on Hezbollah’s missile launchers before the outbreak of fighting. "So it isn’t easy now to know for certain what percentage have been � destroyed," he said.

A big question at this stage is whether the Lebanese ceasefire, which went into effect on August 14, can hold. Carothers believed the odds were good that it would. "Hezbollah has a big incentive to respect the cease fire agreement because it needs time to reconstitute itself," he said, adding Israel also needed time to "make a thorough re-examination of its shortcomings and military doctrine."

Meanwhile, Wayne White, a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington and a former regional expert at the State Department, said the ceasefire remains fragile and could collapse at any time. "One scenario is if Israel targets Iranian military cargo planes which it suspects of carrying arms for Hezbollah � [something] that would, in turn, renew the fighting, or force the Syrians or Iranians to retaliate," White said.

Editor�s Note: Kamal Nazer Yasin is a pseudonym for a freelance journalist specializing in Iranian affairs.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.