Nuclear showdown with Iran: Ominous signs on the horizon

The Iranian leadership has always maintained that their nuclear program is strictly for "peaceful purposes;" but President Ahmadinejad's recent claim that Iran had joined the select group of countries with "nuclear technology," and Vice President Aghazadeh's confirmation that they have produced 110 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride gas to feed the enrichment program has further heightened international concern. Experts believe that at the current pace of development, Iran would need anywhere between 3 to10 years to develop nuclear weapon capability. The question is, why are they then bragging about something that they do not possess as yet. Furthermore, the Iranian tough statements to "wipe off" Israel from the face of the earth and calling the holocaust "a myth," and the testing of new missiles have created expected condemnation and concern in US and Western capitals. Iran needs support and understanding of the international community, not its suspicion or hostility. Whatever may be their intention; the uncertainties in the region have surely jacked up international oil price beyond $70 a barrel.

On the other hand, a new White House National Security Strategy released last week, has identified Iran as the "single country" that may pose the biggest danger to the US, and has thereby reaffirmed the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action as a central tenet to American security policy. President Bush, while forwarding the report to the Congress, has reportedly asserted that "America is at war" and described the latest report as a "wartime national security strategy" to face continuing grave challenges posed by "terrorism fueled by an aggressive ideology of hatred and murder." The 49-page report has used the harshest language to denounce Iran as an "ally of terror" and "enemy of freedom". The tone and tenor of the report signaled that the Bush administration might ultimately resort to force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon.

Consequently, a series of articles on possible US military action in Iran appeared in the American and international press. However, the most articulate and informative piece on the subject has now come from Seymour Hersh, an American Pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist. In his article in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker magazine, Hersh has alleged that "the US administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and has intensified planning for a possible major air attack."

According to Hersh, American military and Air force officials are currently drawing up list of targets, and teams of combat American troops are being sent to Iran under cover to collect targeting data and to establish contacts with anti-government minority groups. He has also quoted various high ranking serving and retired military personnel to underscore that Washington's ultimate goal is regime change in Tehran as the Bush administration is "absolutely convinced" that Iran is going to produce the bomb.

Hersh further claims that the attack plan includes use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as B61-11, against underground Iranian nuclear sites, including the centrifuge plant at Natanz, some 200 miles south of Tehran, which is no longer under IAEA safeguards. The Natanz plant reportedly has the capacity to hold fifty thousand centrifuges buried under seventy-five feet beneath the surface. In his exhaustive report Hersh has given vivid pictures of this doomsday scenario of "mushroom clouds, radiation, mass causalities and contamination over years." He has further indicated that since Washington lacks reliable intelligence on location of atomic energy centers scattered all over Iran, the US Air Force would leave no gap and undertake "decisive" action to completely eliminate Iranian nuclear capability.

Some experts believe that Washington initially may not use those deadly nuclear weapons as it would mean unilaterally breaking away sixty years of nuclear taboo and thus facing global outrage. They believe it would come at the second stage when Tehran would retaliate after initial conventional bombings either by intensifying attacks and killing of large number of American troops in Iraq or by sinking some American warships and oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The second course would slow down or block the narrow gulf passage -- the so called jugular vein -- through which the Middle Eastern oil passes to the world at large. Such retaliations, they believe, would create necessary national and international support for Washington to undertake a massive offensive, including use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons.

The human cost of such operations would be enormous. The Washington based anti-nuclear group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, examined the risks of such operations. They apprehend that "three million people would be killed in Iran by radiation within two weeks of explosion, and "35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer causing radiation." The scenario projected by these experts is too scary to think about, and everything possible should be done to avoid such catastrophe.

President Bush recently told the press that "what you are reading is wild speculation" but even in his most recent statement, he has not ruled out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions. When asked if options included planning for a nuclear strike, he replied: "all options are on the table. We want to solve the issue diplomatically and are working hard to do so." Bush has also discussed Tehran's nuclear programs with the visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao in White House, and both sides have only agreed to maintain the existing unity of the six- party Consultations Committee, comprising of all five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany.

Incidentally, the Committee met at the Deputy Foreign Ministers' level in Moscow last Tuesday and agreed to take further action in the matter only after examining the report of the Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is scheduled to be presented at the end of month. Furthermore, host Russia has also indicated that they expect that this report would be first considered at a Board of Governors meeting of the IAEA before being referred to the Security Council.

There is a clear need for flexibility and understanding on all sides and a constructive dialogue has to be undertaken with Iran. Tehran, during its earlier negotiations with the three-member EU team, comprising of France, Germany and Britain, had signed an interim agreement in Paris in November 2004, and all parties were working on a long term agreement when the negotiations fell through. It is necessary to resume dialogue with Iran and persuade them to give up their enrichment program and accept closer surveillance by the IAEA. Iran may not agree to give up its nuclear program in its entirety but they had indicated their willingness to accept a compromise solution in return for some economic concessions from the west. Perhaps a carrot-and-stick policy would work better in this situation.

On the other hand, the Iranian leadership should not make the same miscalculation as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did in March 2003 when he had believed that in face of growing international opposition and large scale anti-war demonstrations in US and in major capitals, Washington would not be able to launch a full scale military offensive against him. Given the prevailing super antagonistic relations between Washington and Tehran since the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, the Islamic regime has few friends in America. Recent polls suggest that more than half of American people would support military actions against Iran if dialogue fails to curb the latter's nuclear ambitions.

Secondly, Tehran should not think that Washington is too bogged down in Iraq to start a new military offensive against them now. Critics of the administration point out that, in reality, the current difficulties in Iraq might be one of the factors impelling them towards attacking Iran. They believe such an offensive would successfully divert public attention from the Iraq war and the current economic woes at home, and restore President Bush's image as a wartime leader, especially before the crucial midterm Congressional elections next November. Otherwise, they say, the Republican Party might lose their majority in the Congress at the November elections which in turn, might pave the way for the Democrats to take up the Presidency in 2008 elections.

The Muslim countries and their collective body, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), should come forward at this critical hour to diffuse tensions. A special session of the OIC Summit should be convened immediately to persuade Iran to return to the path of dialogue and thus save the entire region from another armed intervention which would bring catastrophic consequences for the entire Middle East and the world at large.

The underlying concern and predicament of the countries in the region have been well articulated by the Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal during his meeting with the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in Riyadh this week. While he defended Iran's right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, he also hoped that he would not have to choose one day between "a nuclear empowered Iran and the US-instigated war" against Iran: "I hate that choice, I would choose neither. We are hoping, and not without reason, that this issue can be solved with discussion. Iran is a great and old civilization with huge responsibilities to the stability of the region."

The writer, a former Foreign Secretary, served as Bangladesh Ambassador to Iran from 1995-1998.