US ups the ante in Iran nuclear game By Mohammed A Salih
WASHINGTON - The recent expansion of United States missile defense systems in
the Persian Gulf just days after President Barack Obama warned Iran of "growing
consequences" if it did not accept the West's conditions over its nuclear
program, signals a possible change of approach by Washington even as
uncertainty still prevails over how it will eventually deal with Iran.
General David Petraeus, the top US commander in the Middle East and South Asia,
said on Monday that his country had expanded land-and-sea-based missile systems
in the Gulf and the Mediterranean in response to what the superpower views as
Iran's growing missile threat.
Obama's harsh words against Iran and the announcement of
upgraded anti-missile systems in the Middle East come after a failure of the US
administration's diplomatic initiative to engage Iran. That failure and the
missile build-up will likely further increase tensions between Iran and its
neighbors on the one hand and Iran and the US on the other.
The US has based upgraded Patriot missile systems in the four small Gulf
nations of Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Bahrain. Iran has
strongly criticized the US move, accusing the West of trying to create "rift
and insecurity" in the Gulf.
The move has raised questions about US motives for expanding and upgrading its
missile defense systems in the region.
"It's hard to say whether it's preparation for military action or essentially
part of US policy to further isolate Iran from the regional states and indeed
sell more arms to regional states," Nader Entessar, an Iran expert and chair of
the Political Science Department at the University of Alabama, told Inter Press
Service.
"But any time that you [up the ante] like that, the consequences of what may
follow are unpredictable even if the intention is not necessarily to have
near-term or medium-term military confrontation," Entessar said.
Although many in the region and the West brand Iran as a "threat", the country
has one of the lowest rates of military spending in comparison to other Gulf
countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have spent US$25 billion on
weapons over the past two years.
However, Iran has carried out a number of missile tests in the past and
possesses missiles that can reach as far as Israel or Eastern Europe.
With all the talk about the "Iranian threat", the question is what type of
threat Iran really poses to the countries in the region.
"I don't think Gulf countries generally see Iran as a conventional military
threat," said Chas Freeman, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a former
assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. "The concern
about Iran has to do with Iran's political prestige."
Petraeus has reportedly said that now the tiny country of UAE has the military
capabilities to take out the Iranian air force.
Iran's political prestige comes from its extensive ties with both state and
non-state actors in the region, in particular in places like Lebanon, Iraq and
the Palestinian territories.
More than 30 years after the Islamic Revolution, Iran enjoys strong relations
with mostly Shi'ite groups in the Middle East, but also Sunni groups such as
Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad. That has not only deeply worried Sunni
Arab powers in the region like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, but also the US
and Israel.
Now the traditional powers of the Arab world have added what they allege is
Iran's support for Huthi Shi'ite fighters in Yemen to their long list of
grievances against the Shi'ite power.
Iran and the US have a history of troubled relations, especially since the
Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 that led to the overthrow of Mohammed Reza
Shah Pahlavi, a close US ally in the region. The storming of the US Embassy in
Tehran by revolutionary students and the US aid to Saddam Hussein during the
eight-year war between Iran and Iraq only exacerbated the tense relations
following the revolution.
The Islamic Republic's officials have repeatedly shrugged off accusations that
they pose any threat to the region's countries and often accuse the US and
Israel of vilifying Iran in the eyes of its neighbors and the larger world.
Despite the public pronouncement of concern with regard to Iran's attitude and
policies in the region, the Islamic Republic has no history of aggression
against any of its neighbors. The only war post-revolution Iran has fought, the
Iran-Iraq War, was initiated by Saddam, who enjoyed Western support throughout
the conflict.
In a meeting with Qatar's crown-prince Sheikh Tamin bin Hamad al-Thani on
Tuesday, Iran's parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani said, "Iran has no problems
with its neighbors and has never had any intention of aggression against any
country."
"Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini's foreign policy theory was one of Islamic union,
strengthening unity and cooperation among Muslim countries and this is the
strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Islamic world," said Larijani,
referring to the founder of the Islamic Republic.
However, domestic developments in Iran appear to have seriously limited the
ability of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's government to come up with any
serious initiative. In the wake of the June 12 presidential elections last
year, the country has witnessed widespread protests against perceived fraud in
the elections.
While Washington says all the options are on the table, a military attack, some
experts say, would be highly costly and it is therefore highly unlikely in the
foreseeable future.
"Despite Washington's sabre-rattling, the threat of reverting back into
recession makes one thing clear - when it comes to Iran, all options are not on
the table," wrote Henry Barkey and Uri Dadush, experts at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace in an analysis for The National Interest, a
quarterly journal of international affairs and diplomacy.
They argue that any attack on Iran would cause oil prices to skyrocket to
possibly as high as $150 a barrel, sending the global economy into a new round
of recession. Iran, Barkey and Dadush contend, would then encourage its
Lebanese and Palestinian allies, Hezbollah and Hamas, to attack Israel.
And last but not least, Barkey and Dadush say an attack on Iran would give the
"embattled regime in Tehran an occasion to rally" its disgruntled people
against foreign aggression.
As Iran and the West fail to reach a deal on the former's controversial nuclear
program, uncertainty over how to handle Iran is still prevalent. Although the
US has pushed hard for tougher economic sanctions, it has met stiff resistance
from China, which has lucrative business deals in Iran, especially in oil and
gas sector.
Iran's negative response to Western proposals, on the basis that they were not
fair, has left a disappointed US adopting an increasingly aggressive tone and
course of action to an extent that some say is reminiscent of president George
W Bush's hawkish years.
"We are back to what the Bush administration was trying to do, back to this
notion of regime change once more," says Entessar. "Back to the ascendancy of
the neo-conservatives again in the administration as well as outside who are
putting pressure on Obama. And that does not bode well, in my judgment, for any
kind of breakthrough in the future."
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
