@@ The things that are really at stake in the Iranian crisis @@
- From: "Arash" <A7000@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:27:20 -0500
Voltaire
February 9, 2006
Diplomacy
The things that are really at stake in the Iranian crisis
Tensions continue to escalate between Iran and the Atlantist powers, which are eager
to control the last hydrocarbon reserves. Under British pressure, the permanent
members of the UN Security Council accepted to redefine relations between the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations. This commitment
should facilitate the work of those who advocate an armed conflict. Russia and China,
however, put their bets on the time factor. In effect, Vladimir Putin is about to
reveal an important project that could definitely resolve the issue of proliferation
and which, at the same time, guarantees every nation?s legitimate right to use the
atomic energy with peaceful purposes.
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/390-50-3.jpg
The Chinese Foreign Affairs Minister Li Zhaoxing (second to the left) and his Russian
counterpart Serguei Lavrov (second to the right), in London, on January 31st, 2006,
discuss the details of their common strategy prior to the ministerial private dinner
on Iran.
Paris, France -- The conflict among the big powers on the Iranian issue continues.
Since December 2002, the United States has accused Iran of trying to acquire the
atomic bomb, which would violate the Treaty of Non Proliferation (TNP). Thus, the
United States is trying to have the UN Security Council condemn Iran as a pretext to
attack the Islamic Republic [1].
If Washington succeeds in controlling Iran, it would also have the military control
of the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf and the southern coast of the Caspian Sea,
its oil and gas reserves, both regarded as the second largest in the world [2].
The United States already has the military control of part of the Caspian basin and
the corridor that allows for communication between that area and the Indian Ocean
(Afghanistan and Pakistan). Most of the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Iraq) is also
under the U.S.?s military control. Thus, at the end of this operation, Washington
would own the most important current hydrocarbon exploitation areas and the main
reserves still to be exploited. The world economy would then be in the hands of the
United States, which would have absolute power.
In the current stage of the conflict, the powers are divided as to the U.S.?s
accusations. The United Kingdom, France and Germany are convinced of the military
nature of the Iranian nuclear project. They base their opinion on reports from U.S.
intelligence services, which affirm, in official documents, that Tehran is carrying
out a Green Salt Project to develop and to launch nuclear warheads
On the contrary, Russia, China and India believe that Iran?s nuclear program has
peaceful purposes [3]. They base their opinion on a ruling by Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Jamenei condemning the production, possession and use of the
atomic bomb as contrary to the Islamic ethics.
Objectively, the difference established by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) between
authorized civil nuclear technology and forbidden military nuclear technology is no
longer suitable under the current conditions. The know-how and civil facilities can
be easily and quickly adapted to military purposes. The strict interpretation of the
NPT would imply the prohibition, for all states, of the development of a civil
nuclear industry while, a liberal interpretation would open the doors to a
generalized proliferation. As this issue has not been solved, it is impossible to
solve it in the Iranian case. This lack of definition is the factor that the United
States hopes to use to launch a war. [4].
However, there is a way to clear things up. A specific method of uranium enrichment,
previously known in a partial way, apparently can serve to establish a difference
between military and peaceful use. Russia developed this method and thus intends to
let Iran - and the international community - use it. This seems to be one of the
three main proposals that President Putin will take to the G8 summit, a meeting that
he himself will preside over this summer in Saint Petersburg.
It will be necessary to prove the feasibility of this project. Russia would then
produce the nuclear fuel, in its own territory, in factories jointly built with the
beneficiary states and under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). It would also be necessary to create detailed protocols to guarantee the
interests of all parties. The implementation of this project would represent a
radical change in international relations. The energy security that Russia would give
to the world would eclipse the authority of the United States, a country that
currently satisfies its own energy security needs to the detriment of the rest of the
world.
Iran has turned its project of civil nuclear development a symbol of its independence
in front of the Anglo-Saxon colonialism that has brought so much suffering to its
people [5].
Contrary to an idea widely spread by the Atlantist media, this project does not
belong only to a Iranian power elite but it is an element of consensus of the entire
Iranian society.
In addition, the Islamic Republic abandoned its dream of expanding the Khomeinist
revolution and today aims at becoming the driving force of the Movement of
Non-Aligned Countries (NAM), which is currently in a revitalization stage. Iran wants
to share its current demand with others and to succeed in exercising their right to
develop a civil nuclear industry, not only for its own people but also for all the
others.
Thus, far from being exclusively linked to Iran?s future, the current political game
has to do with international balance and the U.S. ambitions, confirmed during
President Bush?s most recent speech on the State of the Union, to control the world.
In 2004 and 2005, the different actors of this game carried out several manoeuvres. A
European troika (France, United Kingdom and Germany) supposedly played a mediating
role between Washington and Tehran; they asked the Iranians to freeze the situation
and ended up leaning to the U.S. side.
After having accepted a two-and-a-half-year moratorium for research work, Iran
resumed it on January 10, 2006, saying that it had waited enough as to show its good
will while the Europeans had not made any serious offers.
In the meantime, the Russian position was sort of undecipherable as the Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that they could side with their western
counterparts before he was publicly put in his place by President Putin who expressed
his interest in reaching a peaceful solution. Finally, during the last weeks, many
trips allowed Iranian, Chinese and Russian diplomats to design a common strategy.
The issue had a sudden evolution after the United Kingdom organized on January 30th,
2006, a ?private ministerial meeting? where the British, French, German, Russian,
American and Chinese foreign ministers held a meeting. During the gathering, Britain?s
Jack Straw suggested that the IAEA should present the issue before the UN Security
Council, the first stage of the process towards war. His Chinese and Russian
counterparts noted that, in the current situation, a decision of this type would not
have any judicial foundation.
Due to their confidence in the feasibility of its own uranium enrichment project, the
Russian Federation only wanted to ?let time pass by? in order to prepare a protocol
with Iran, which would only take one or two months according to experts. The guests
ended the dinner setting an agenda that both parties see as a victory: next week. The
IAEA Board of Governors will not transfer the Iranian file to the Security Council as
it does not have the authority to do it but it will give it a report asking for the
adoption of measures that strengthen its own authority to be able to do it in the
future.
This commitment allows the Europeans and the Americans to keep the pressure while the
Russians and the Chinese can make use of time. Saying who won that evening would be
like determining if a glass is half empty or half full when water is in the middle.
In practice, supposing that the Security Council gives that prerogative to the IAEA
Board of Governors, the latter could not exercise this prerogative until its next
meeting, on March 9th.
The Iranians pretended to interpret the shady deal as if the Russians had abandoned
them. However, it is possible that they obtained a written commitment from the
Russian Federation that it will use its veto at the Security Council in the event
that a resolution to authorize war is presented.
Anyway, the Iranians immediately resorted to their colleagues of the Movement of
Non-Aligned Countries (NAM). President Mahmud Amadineyad spoke over the phone with
his South African counterpart, Thabo Mbeki, who gave him his support (although the
apartheid regime produced the atomic bomb along with Israel, South Africa later
renounced to it). For its part, Indonesia issued several pacifying statements while
Venezuela and Malaysia will soon welcome the Iranian president.
Simultaneously, Iran is preparing ?a world without Israel and the United States?.
Tehran hopes to create an oil stock market that will not accept the dollar. It is
already working on an experimental basis. Although no country has officially
announced its participation, many will encourage the participation of firms that will
serve as intermediaries.
As the dollar is very overvalued because it is the exchange currency in oil
transactions, [6] a stock market of this kind, even if it covered only 10% of the oil
market, would cause a collapse of the dollar compared only to that of 1939. The U.S.
power would then be dragged by the devaluation and Israel itself would be doomed to
bankruptcy.
Thus, Washington has no other choice than using all its influence over the
international economic actors to break up with Tehran. In the absence of a war, the
United States at least has to isolate Iran in the economic aspect.
Paradoxically, none of these options seems realistic. Reasonably, the U.S. Air Force
and the Israeli army can not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities as there are
Russian advisors and technicians there. To attack Iran would also mean to declare war
on Russia.
In addition, such an attack would be followed by an Iranian response that would use
missiles against Israel, not to mention that the Shia of Iraq would make life even
more difficult for the occupation forces.
In the event that the United States tries to use an economic blockade, Iran could
easily get around it through its agreement of privileged partner with China. However,
it would deprive the ?West? of part of its oil supply, thus causing a 300% increase
in the price of the barrel of oil and a deep economic crisis.
In sum, the result of this game depends on the ability of each participant to adapt
its own calendar to the others? while the Bush administration insists on dragging
them into a conflict although it does not have the necessary resources and it takes
the risk of losing its authority.
[1] See articles ?Washington and Tehran face to face?
(http://www.voltairenet.org/article127892.html), by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire,
September 6, 2005, and the section Forums and Analyses ?Iran: made satanic before
what?? (http://www.voltairenet.org/article134647.html), Voltaire, January 27, 2006.
[2] For more information on hydrocarbon reserves, see our articles ?The Power of Oil
in the XXI Century ? (http://www.voltairenet.org/article30096.html) and ?L?avenir du
gaz naturel? (http://www.voltairenet.org/article16575.html), Voltaire.
[3] See, in our section Forums and Analyses, "Iran and Russia want to renew ties with
western Europe" (http://www.voltairenet.org/article128979.html), Voltaire, September
30, 2005, and the article "Iran allies with China to face the United States"
(http://www.voltairenet.org/article30082.html), Voltaire, November 17, 2004.
[4] See article "François Géré: La position iranienne à propos du nucléaire est
légitime" (http://www.voltairenet.org/article17117.html), by Ahmad Nokhostine,
Voltaire, May 22, 2005.
[5] See article ?BP-Amoco, coalition pétrolière anglo-saxonne?
(http://www.voltairenet.org/article14167.html), by Arthur Lepic, Voltaire, June 10,
2004.
[6] See article ?The U.S.?s Achilles Heel?
(http://www.voltairenet.org/article30089.html), by L.C. Trudeau, Voltaire, April 4.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article135371.html
.
- Prev by Date: Iran issue before Security Council not legal
- Next by Date: @@ Deterrence: What did Jacques Chirac really mean? @@
- Previous by thread: Iran issue before Security Council not legal
- Next by thread: @@ Deterrence: What did Jacques Chirac really mean? @@
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
