Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

America is pointing the guns to the Iranian regime but is Europe ready?

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 2/7/2007

If a single word can summarize America’s view of Iran, it is “anarchic.” And the last thing on the minds of American congressional leaders, however, is the damage Iran could do to the world with its nuclear warheads if it not barred from making it now.

For Iran’s distressingly contented nuclear industry, the most hazardous explosion in recent months has come not from a blast in a plutonium or a burst in reactor plumbing, but from the President’s bad temper.“ Israel has no right to exist,” thundered President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in one of his controversial speeches.

The expanding nuclear industry of Iran has always troubled the West but now this speech of President made the west suspicious of its intention more. Whatsoever, considering the latest developments in the Gulf, analysts are saying that, now, instead of fingers, America is pointing the guns to the Iranian regime but much to its utmost dismay, stubborn Iran is showing no sings of apprehension.

After it failure in Iraq, observers reckoned that Bush administration does not believe that a military solution is possible in Iran, which is good news for president Ahmadinejad and his diplomats. But while the world is focused in Iraq, evidence gathered from the Western press suggests that the neoconservative Bush administration seems to be rapidly building a momentum toward a clerical Iran.

Nonetheless, an armed response by the United States of America, where this proved true would be understandable - given the serious threat posed to the world by the Iranian nuclear industry. But is it sensible to attack Iran, while Iraq is burning? Is it sensible to attack Iran after knowing that war breeds hate and it can never be won as exemplified by the aftermath in Iraq?

Nonetheless, many observers have called for air strikes in Iran not only because of its secret nuclear hideouts but because they feel that Iran has a hand in the killing of American troops in Iraq. They sense that Iran is fishing in the muddy waters of Iran. This plausible theory has been taken a step further by those who favor President Bush and his Iraq tactics. But not by those who think attacking Iran means America bogging herself down in yet another unfamiliar quagmire.

Meanwhile, we must acknowledge one very basic fact. War cannot be the first step in any international confrontation. So a better first step would be economic punishments- provided they really penalize the Iranian clerical regime, with less effort to the Iranian people.

World is right in believing that economic and diplomatic pressure has a better chance of inducting Iran to mend its ways than raiding it off with bombs. But if pressure is to work, it has to be backed by a credible threat.

Analysts reckon that commercial cooling off is an obvious start: no credits or concessions, a firm no to any export to Iran that might have a military use. But if Iran continues to be caught out in villainy, then European Union needs to steel itself to go further. After all, Iran depends at least as much on western investment as the West depends on anything that Iran can sell it, including oil and the carpets.

But Iran knows that the West cannot afford to ignore Iran’s strategic value. The country’s leaders seem confident that they can ride out the storm without having to make concessions on human rights, their opposition to peace with Israel.

However, behind this entire scuffle, Iran’s leaders are plainly keen to preserve their ties with the European Union .They stress they want good relations with Europe, short of any compromise on the fundamental principles of the 1979 Islamic revolution. They also want to reassure Europeans that their interests in Iran will be protected.

And they believe that the Europeans economic interest in Iran will make the trouble short. Iran sells much of its oil to Europe; its mammoth population is a good consumer market; it sits close to gulf and Central Asia. So is Iran playing the oil game?

But neither Iran nor Iraq matters as much to Europe as things like European Union, staying close to America, making friends with China/India and, above all, doing profitable trade with the world. But, at a time when Europe is still groping for a wider foreign policy, it does not relish discovering that its links with Iran have been damaged.

Meanwhile, coming back to the initial confrontation. Any war, no matters where it happens, in any part of the world is terrible.

Hence, predicting the impact of U.S - Iran war throughout the region is tricky. More people might migrate from the region. But it is clear that there will be sizeable casualties in both sides of the conflict because Iran is three times more populous than Iraq. This brings less opportunity for peace and more risk for instability. More probably, the war will go on and on.

The world must try its utmost to find a non-military solution. It should avert this war. However accurately targeted, an American assault would certainly lead to mammoth civilian casualties. And moreover, America itself would suffer too, since its attack on Iran would polish anti-U.S. feelings already growing all over the world.

Hence, the major concern in the current Iranian nuclear stand-off is not just how to moderate Iran’s grubby leader. Equally important is how the U.S. conducts itself as the globe's sole superpower, after its ongoing series of failure in Iraq.

Considering this, can it afford to fail in Iran too? Obviously not. But, the tensions are building. America has already pointed the guns to the Iranian regime, but it is yet to pull the trigger because Europe is not ready, and so are China and Russia.