For the past 18 months the official policy of the Bush administration on Iran has been to offer lip-service support to European diplomacy. Even last week President Bush, standing next to Chancellor Merkel, spoke about the need for a diplomatic solution. But all along the hope and the expectation has been that the EU would fail, and yesterday the charade came to an abrupt end when the neoconservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, the defacto spokesman for the neocons in the White House, came out with a scathing attack on the Europeans in the Washington Post:
Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.
Basically Krauthammer - the intellectual apologist for torture - is making a case for a US nuclear attack on Iran. He acknowledges that Iran's nuclear research facilities could not be eliminated with conventional bombings: "The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program."
Krauthammer's tirade was noted today in the taz:
Die Ratlosigkeit, was mit dem Iran zu tun sei, ist groß in Washington. Das zeigen wütende Kommentare, wie in der Washington Post von gestern, in denen die EU3, Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland, beschimpft werden, mit ihren Verhandlungen nur wertvolle Zeit vertan zu haben. Die Administration hält sich alle Optionen offen, Präsident George W. Bush bestand darauf, auch eine militärische nicht auszuschließen.
An excellent analysis of the logic behind this latest war is provided in Telepolis by Professor Georg Meggle. For Meggle, the question is no longer if there will be an attack on Iraq, but when. He offers some convincing arguments as to why the most likely timeframe is this coming March. Many observers believe the US is too weak from the debacle in Iraq to seriously launch a new war with Iran, but Prof. Meggle points out the following in his essay:
- The US has an undiminished capacity to conduct devastating airstrikes.
- Bush/Cheney have insisted that the US will achieve "victory" in the "war on Terror".
- This "victory" cannot be won as long as Iran has a nuclear arsenal at its disposal.
- The Bush administration is unconcerned about the cost of war or the resulting loss of human life; it is, however, very concerned about its diminishing popularity. A new war against an "evil" enemy is a good countermeasure for this.
- Regaining popularity is necessary for the US to maintain its status as a military superpower, and continue its ability to pursue its hegemonic interests with other Isalmic states.
A way out of this apparently inexorable march to war is offered by Professor Mohssen Massarrat of Universität Osnabrück in an essay referred by TooMuchCookies. Massarrat's essay is invaluable for understanding Iran's perception of its regional threats. But even he has to concede that his proposals for avoiding a war - a creation of a nuclear weapon-free zone the region - have a utopian thrust:
Drittens der Vorstoß zu konkreten Schritten für ein System der gemeinsamen Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit im Mittleren und Nahen Osten analog zum KSZE-Prozess mit dem Ziel der Schaffung einer atomwaffenfreien Zone in der gesamten Region. Dies ist zwar auch kein einfacher Weg, aber er verspricht größere Realisierungschancen und ist gleichzeitig auch eine zukunftsfähige Antwort auf viele andere grenzüberschreitende Konfliktfelder, wie z.B. territoriale Streitigkeiten, ethnische Konflikte, grenzüberschreitende Nutzung von Energiequellen und Gewässern etc. Die USA werden sicherlich über einen derartigen Vorstoß nicht gerade glücklich sein. Dagegen ist die Perspektive eines befriedeten Mittleren und Nahen Ostens für Europa in vieler Hinsicht von existenzieller Bedeutung. Auch Russland und China hätten keinen konkreten Anlass dagegen zu sein und dürften einen Vorstoß in diese Richtung wahrscheinlich unterstützen. Die EU ist die einzige politische und moralische Kraft, mit diesem Vorschlag aufzuwarten und ihn mit konkreten Schritten zu koppeln. Dazu gehört die Einberufung einer baldigen regionalen Konferenz für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit, die seriös vorbereitet und demnächst durchgeführt werden müsste. Damit wird nicht zuletzt Iran signalisiert, sein Sicherheitsdilemma ernst zu nehmen, so dass auch der Iran sich aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach bis auf Weiteres zu einem Verzicht auf Urananreicherung bereit erklären könnte. Dieser Vorstoß müsste, um innerhalb von Europa akzeptanzfähig zu sein und auch Israels vermutlich massive Gegnerschaft abzumildern, mit konkreten Vorschlägen sowie unzweifelhaften und objektiven Sicherheitsgarantien für die Existenz Israels z.B. durch die USA und die EU gekoppelt sein.
Also worth reading is this essay by Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi (via Der Spindoktor). The Peace Prize laureate ties the future of Iran with an open acceptance of basic human rights.
Therefore, the West must insist that Iran can start a limited uranium enrichment program, strictly safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the framework of Iran's proposal to the E.U. in March 2005, only when it undertakes meaningful and lasting reforms. These include freeing political prisoners, allowing true freedom of speech and the development of an independent press, and permitting all political groups to participate in the political process through elections that are considered free and fair by the international community.
But as we saw back in 2003, the voices of peace - represented here by Ebadi - will be drowned out by the yelling for war. I have to share Professor Meggle's pessimism on this point.
UPDATE: Freitag has an interview with Professor Mohssen Massarrat in its most recent issue.
The occupation of Iran is difficult to imagine. Iran is way too big, with too many borders. Iraqi insurgent tactics would probably be more successful in Iran. Outrage over the attack would inspire new strains of Islamic fanaticism (informed by the rich Iranian culture) all over the world and further isolate the US.
Bush should concentrate on aiding groups in Iran fomenting secular popular revolution. We should wait for revolution or reform in Iran, keeping the option of airstrikes to take out real nukes on the table.
Posted by: ludwig | January 21, 2006 at 06:04 PM