inside the glass house

Iran nuclear issue defines new East-West conflict
NEW YORK - The longstanding US-Soviet confrontation was defused when the Cold War came to a virtual end after the breakup of the former Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November 1989.

But a new East-West political battle is looming in the horizon - this time over the issue of nuclear power. At the centre of this dispute is the Islamic Republic of Iran which is courageously defying the United States and the 25-member European Union.

The world's five declared nuclear powers are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia - all veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council. The undeclared nuclear powers are India, Pakistan and Israel.
The issue that has triggered a new political battle is Iran's attempt at developing what it calls "peaceful nuclear energy" - not nuclear weapons, as the Western world contends.

But the United States and the European Union (EU), which includes nuclear-armed Britain and France, are refusing to buy the Iranian argument.
Collectively, they are threatening to punish Iran - on charges that it may be on the verge of developing nuclear weapons - by referring the matter to the Security Council, and possibly calling for military and economic sanctions against Tehran.

But their attempts are being thwarted by two veto-wielding permanent members of the Council, namely China and Russia, who are opposed to any immediate action against Iran. India, another nuclear power, is backing Iran despite pressure from the United States.

"This dispute has given definition to a new East vs West rivalry, with the Eastern nuclear powers Russia, China, and India forming a bloc against the interests of the Western nuclear powers," says Michael Spies, programme associate at the New York-based Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy.
Both the US and the EU are trying to persuade the 35-member International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the world's nuclear watchdog, to adopt a consensus resolution singling out Iran for censure by the Security Council in New York. But with at least a dozen countries opposed to such a move, a consensus resolution at the IAEA has thus far proved elusive.
Last week, more than a third of the nations on the IAEA board opposed bringing the issue of Iran before the Security Council.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying: "I am quite certain that at some point in time Iran is going to be referred to the Security Council, particularly if Iran continues to demonstrate that it is not prepared to give the international community assurances that is not going to try to build nuclear weapons under cover of civil power". She also said that Iran's referral for possible sanctions is nearly certain, but only the timing is not.

Addressing the UN General Assembly last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took a defiant stand, stressing his country's "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy. He also accused the US and its allies of nuclear "apartheid" for their double standards in ignoring the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. He said that a proposal for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East is being thwarted by Israel which has refused to be a party to it.

Not surprisingly, most mainstream newspapers in the US dropped his references to Israel and criticism of the Jewish state. In the broader geo-political context, Iran believes that political and economic integration with the West is not essential for its development.

Hence in all spheres of its policy, Iran is looking to develop either complete self-sufficiency or is looking to bolster its transnational relations within its own region and with the major powers in Asia, argues Spies of the Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy.

The rightwing neo-conservatives in the US, who pushed the Bush administration to invade Iraq, are seeking a similar military confrontation with Iran.

But since Uncle Sam has ended with a bloodied nose in Iraq, the White House may not endear itself to waging a second war with Iran.
The US has also realised that it may, after all, not have the capacity to fight two wars simultaneously, despite the fact that its formidable war machine has traditionally been geared for such a military eventuality. Since the US has been faulted for its war on Iraq - which even Secretary-General Kofi Annan called "illegal" thereby precipitating the ongoing anti-Annan campaign by US neo-conservatives - the Bush administration will find it extremely difficult to get Security Council backing for a military confrontation with Iran.

Unlike the war with Iraq, which was even opposed by countries such as France and Germany, the US has the backing of the Europeans in its current dispute with Iran.

Iraq's political credibility was tainted by its UN-condemned invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. But Iran has no such baggage to contend with. So it remains in a much stronger position to defend itself against a massive Western campaign to isolate it and impose penalties.

Back to Columns