Rupert Cornwell: Iran is a bigger threat to the US than the financial crisis
As Americans look the other way, Tehran's bomb moves closer
Live in the US any length of time, and one thing you soon realise: the country, be that its media or its government, can only focus on one crisis at a time. Right now, that failing is eminently forgiveable. Nothing is more pressing than a financial meltdown that unless it is tackled in days – or a very few weeks at the most – could lead to the Great Depression of the 21st century.
But amid the turmoil, another crisis has been forgotten. Once it was measured in years, now the critical moment may arrive in months. Does anyone remember a certain country called Iran, and its suspected plan to build a nuclear weapon?
Lehman Bros and Fannie Mae may have forced Mahmoud Ahmedinejad from the headlines. But Tehran's nuclear programme if anything is accelerating. In a report that was swamped by the drama on Wall Street, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, last week effectively threw up its hands in despair.
Teheran continues to refuse to answer questions about its past nuclear activities, the IAEA said, even as it was stepping up its production of enriched uranium. Some experts believe that within 12 months Iran may have amassed enough to build a bomb. And what then?
The impasse looks more intractable and perilous than ever. The truculence of Ahmedinejad only grows, as he revels in this period of deepening American weakness. Action at the UN is stymied by resistance from Russia and China. With relations between Moscow and Washington at their chilliest since the Cold War, there is scant prospect of Security Council agreement on the tougher sanctions that might give Teheran pause – perhaps an arms embargo, and the withdrawal of Russia's promise to supply an advanced air defence system to protect Iran's nuclear sites.
And then there is Israel. The political crisis caused by the resignation of Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, will not last for ever. Last summer the country carried out military exercises over the eastern Mediterranean that it let be known were a dry run for a strike on Iran's nuclear installations. Israeli generals and politicians leave no doubt that they regard an Iranian nuclear bomb – even an Iranian capacity to build a nuclear bomb – as an existential threat, which they would act to eliminate on their own if necessary.
An Israeli attack would cause chaos across the Middle East, and send the price of oil into the stratosphere. The Pentagon has signalled it opposes such an operation. In fact, whether the Americans participate or not is irrelevant. Given the US role as Israel's ally of last resort, Iran would assume Washington had tacitly given a green light to an attack, and would act accordingly.
Somehow a way out of this impasse must be found. During the summer there were some encouraging signs: Teheran reduced its involvement in violence in Iraq, and there was talk of the State Department opening a US interests section in the Iranian capital, that would see the first US diplomats based in the city since the 1979 hostage crisis. Nothing since has been heard of the idea – but never would it be more timely than now.
Such is the bleak backdrop against which Barack Obama and John McCain hold their first, and possibly decisive, candidates' debate on Friday. It is supposed to be about foreign policy and national security, but given the only-one-crisis-at-a-time rule, it would be astonishing if the financial mayhem did not intrude – and rightly so, given how domestic financial turmoil will ultimately condition how America behaves in the world.
But Iran ought to be front and centre of proceedings. Almost certainly it will be the first major foreign issue the next President must tackle. John McCain's throwaway line of of "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb –, Bomb Bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann", uttered during the primaries, was presumably just a joke in bad taste, not a pointer to his intentions in the Oval Office. But every sign is that he would pursue an uncompromising policy.
Like his opponent, Barack Obama insists that Iran must not get the bomb, and has sought to water down his earlier promise that as President he would sit down and talk with the country's enemies, among them Iran.
Plainly though, Obama's instincts lie in that direction. In 2003, flush with the initial success of the Iraq war, the Bush administration rashly rejected an Iranian offer for talks at which everything would be on the table. Today, such an initiative has never been so desperately needed.
As Americans look the other way, Tehran's bomb moves closer
Live in the US any length of time, and one thing you soon realise: the country, be that its media or its government, can only focus on one crisis at a time. Right now, that failing is eminently forgiveable. Nothing is more pressing than a financial meltdown that unless it is tackled in days – or a very few weeks at the most – could lead to the Great Depression of the 21st century.
But amid the turmoil, another crisis has been forgotten. Once it was measured in years, now the critical moment may arrive in months. Does anyone remember a certain country called Iran, and its suspected plan to build a nuclear weapon?
Lehman Bros and Fannie Mae may have forced Mahmoud Ahmedinejad from the headlines. But Tehran's nuclear programme if anything is accelerating. In a report that was swamped by the drama on Wall Street, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, last week effectively threw up its hands in despair.
Teheran continues to refuse to answer questions about its past nuclear activities, the IAEA said, even as it was stepping up its production of enriched uranium. Some experts believe that within 12 months Iran may have amassed enough to build a bomb. And what then?
The impasse looks more intractable and perilous than ever. The truculence of Ahmedinejad only grows, as he revels in this period of deepening American weakness. Action at the UN is stymied by resistance from Russia and China. With relations between Moscow and Washington at their chilliest since the Cold War, there is scant prospect of Security Council agreement on the tougher sanctions that might give Teheran pause – perhaps an arms embargo, and the withdrawal of Russia's promise to supply an advanced air defence system to protect Iran's nuclear sites.
And then there is Israel. The political crisis caused by the resignation of Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, will not last for ever. Last summer the country carried out military exercises over the eastern Mediterranean that it let be known were a dry run for a strike on Iran's nuclear installations. Israeli generals and politicians leave no doubt that they regard an Iranian nuclear bomb – even an Iranian capacity to build a nuclear bomb – as an existential threat, which they would act to eliminate on their own if necessary.
An Israeli attack would cause chaos across the Middle East, and send the price of oil into the stratosphere. The Pentagon has signalled it opposes such an operation. In fact, whether the Americans participate or not is irrelevant. Given the US role as Israel's ally of last resort, Iran would assume Washington had tacitly given a green light to an attack, and would act accordingly.
Somehow a way out of this impasse must be found. During the summer there were some encouraging signs: Teheran reduced its involvement in violence in Iraq, and there was talk of the State Department opening a US interests section in the Iranian capital, that would see the first US diplomats based in the city since the 1979 hostage crisis. Nothing since has been heard of the idea – but never would it be more timely than now.
Such is the bleak backdrop against which Barack Obama and John McCain hold their first, and possibly decisive, candidates' debate on Friday. It is supposed to be about foreign policy and national security, but given the only-one-crisis-at-a-time rule, it would be astonishing if the financial mayhem did not intrude – and rightly so, given how domestic financial turmoil will ultimately condition how America behaves in the world.
But Iran ought to be front and centre of proceedings. Almost certainly it will be the first major foreign issue the next President must tackle. John McCain's throwaway line of of "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb –, Bomb Bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann", uttered during the primaries, was presumably just a joke in bad taste, not a pointer to his intentions in the Oval Office. But every sign is that he would pursue an uncompromising policy.
Like his opponent, Barack Obama insists that Iran must not get the bomb, and has sought to water down his earlier promise that as President he would sit down and talk with the country's enemies, among them Iran.
Plainly though, Obama's instincts lie in that direction. In 2003, flush with the initial success of the Iraq war, the Bush administration rashly rejected an Iranian offer for talks at which everything would be on the table. Today, such an initiative has never been so desperately needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment