Attractive as a missile strike on Iran may seem to some U.S.
establishment, experts note that a final decision is yet to be made. A U.S. Navy oil skimming boat (center left) is seen moving through the Persian Gulf waters off Mina Salman, Bahrain.
Photo: AP
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
That One Option for Iran
U.S. leadership is ready to resolve the Iran issue. With plenty of options on offer, a military operation is the best developed one, Kommersant special correspondent Dmitry Sidorov reports from Washington. This scenario is drafted right up to a day.
Six Days of Nightmare
Day 1. After one month of debate, the UN Security Council imposes strict sanctions on Iran over its suspicious nuclear program.
Day 2. Iran withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and tests a nuclear weapon.
Day 3. The United States bombs Iranian nuclear sites, air bases, and air defense targets but spares Iran’s oil infrastructure to minimize disruption of the world oil market.
Day 4. Iran announces that it will deny its oil exports to any country that does not condemn the U.S. action, but it continues to produce oil at the same levels.
Day 5. Pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq stage an uprising, shutting down Iraqi oil production in the southern oil fields. This takes roughly 60 percent of Iraq’s oil exports off the world market. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announces an oil embargo against the U.S. in support of Iran. The OPEC condemns the U.S. aggression but ignores Iran’s call for an embargo. China, Japan, and the European Union condemn the United States to escape Iranian oil threats. Russia condemns the U.S. and continues oil production at maximum capacity to exploit higher oil prices.
Day 6. An oil tanker is sunk by a mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is believed to be responsible but does not claim responsibility. U.S. intelligence says that the mine was laid by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Saudi Arabia announces that it will divert as much oil as possible to Red Sea ports.
The conservative Washington-based Heritage Foundation presented this scenario of possible developments of the Iran issue in a recent report. Heritage Foundation scholars drafted the report from December 2006 to March 2007. The expert panel included U.S. State Department, Pentagon and National Security Council staffers. The full report was released on July 25. Experts come to a conclusion that a military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis within the framework described in Day 3 is the most viable option. Under this scenario, economic losses for the United States will be minimized despite a hike in oil prices. Oil production will be launched in Alaska and off-shore west of Florida, something that Bush administration has been seeking for the last six years amid angry protests of environmentalists. On another note, the U.S. government will not cut gasoline and diesel taxes, but will end tariffs on ethanol to encourage ethanol imports and reduce biofuel prices in the United States.
Options in Store
Attractive as a missile strike on Iran may seem to some U.S. public and establishment, Heritage Foundations experts note that a final decision is yet to be made. The U.S. administration is still split in two. Decisive Vice-President Dick Cheney favors a military option while Secretary of the U.S. State Department Condoleezza Rice stands for long-term diplomatic talks.
“Cheney is a pessimist,” Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in an interview with Kommersant. “He braces for the worst, so he may assume that diplomatic efforts will not succeed.”
Mr. Clawson believes that the White House is now in a shaky balance. Hawks are ready to wait and have not gone too far promoting the military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.
Several Washington-based analysts, interviewed by Kommersant, point to this split as the chief reason why the U.S. administration unexpectedly agreed for direct negotiations with Iranian envoys in Iraq. The parties have recently held the third round of talks which, however, brought no progress apart from official statements of “a frank and serious atmosphere” of the discussions.
The U.S. Congress is also eager to take part in peace settlement for Iran. American lawmakers have recently passed two bills introduced by the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Tom Lantos (D-CA) and his deputy Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). The drafters suggest setting up an international nuclear fuel bank for Iran and banning investments in Iranian economy of over $20 million. The sanctions are to cover not only American companies but also foreign firms which invest more than $20 million in Iran. These companies will be barred from U.S. markets.
Representative Tom Lantos says that the bills are aimed to “enhance existing economic sanctions against Tehran” and expose Iran’s plans to acquire nuclear weapons under cover of “the so-called civil nuclear program.”
However, chances are not big that the Senate and President Bush will endorse the investment bill. Kommersant sources in the White House say that the U.S. administration will stand strong to oppose the move that is sure cause tensions with a number of EU nations as well as India, China and Russia which have considerable economic interests in Iran. The bill also proposes to bar major investment funds and financial firms operating in Iran from the U.S. market.
The bill on the international nuclear fuel bank looks more realistic. But a timetable for its enforcement is quite uncertain. In addition, the White House and the State Department are going to need to agree this project with other nuclear nations.
In its turn, Iran can bury this initiative by saying “no” to exports from the nuclear bank but keeping up protracted talks to gain time to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed in a recent interview with Algeria’s Al Watan that Iran would not give up its atomic energy program. “We are not ready to give up a single inch of this right,” he said. “We will continue our effort within the framework of international law. I can say that Iran is a nuclear state.”
Choosing between peaceful and military solutions to the Iran issue would be a much easier task for U.S. leadership if the United States knew how close Iran has come to the development of nuclear weapons. Kommersant sources in Washington and Jerusalem estimate that Iran is able to acquire a nuclear bomb within one or three years’ time. Patrick Clawson notes that Tehran is in no hurry to produce nuclear weapons, so the United States and international community have some time to settle the problem by diplomatic means. “Iran has been developing its nuclear bomb for the last 20 years,” the expert says. “I would say they are working hard but they are not breaking their backs.” Iran views nuclear weapons as an important goal but not a crucial one, according to Mr. Clawson.
Between the U.S. and Iran
Several experts interviewed by Kommersant say they are not sure about Russia’s role in the Iranian nuclear settlement. Patrick Clawson is optimistic about Moscow’s recent steps. “Two years ago, we had concerns about Russia’s approach to the Iran issue,” he told Kommersant adding that Russia is poised for “remarkable” steps such as a recent refusal to send nuclear fuel to nuclear facilities in Bushehr.
Israel’s former UN envoy and now president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Dori Gold sounds less upbeat. He says Russia made a big mistake in relations with Iran last year. “Russia is facing a long-term threat from radical Islamic groups in Chechnya and neighboring regions,” he said. “As most of these forces stand for Sunni beliefs, someone in Moscow thought it would be worth it to support a Shiite regime in Iran.” Dori Gold believes that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it may as well decide to take under its wing Sunni terrorist groups apart from Hamas and Islamic Jihad which are already receiving aid from Tehran. “Iran needs Russia to keep it protected from the West and UN sanctions until Tehran acquires nuclear weapons,” Dori Gold says. “Moscow will feel better if it embarks on greater cooperation with Washington.”
All suggestions about Russia’s possible role in resolving the Iranian nuclear deadlock may lose sense if the United States opts for a military operation against Iran. “In this case, the Kremlin will be informed of the plans shortly before the start, and that’s it,” a source close to the White House told Kommersant.
Dmitry Sidorov
All the Article in Russian as of Aug. 20, 2007
|
|
|
