In the sphere of relations between the West and the Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Iran's pursuit of nuclear capacity has always had an important position. The balance in the Middle East is extremely delicate, and both Western governments and international organizations have not always shown the sufficient capability to deal with such a complex and in many aspects still unpredictable system.
From an historical point of view, it can be argued that Western countries ever since have tried to spread their influence in Iran. There are two reasons that justify this enormous interest. Firstly, Iran has a remarkable geopolitical position. Iran is at the crossroads between Asia and the Middle East, it has access to the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, and is protected by the Strait of Hormutz, whose strategic role is undisputed. Secondly, Western countries, such as the United States of America, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, have always shown a strong interest toward Iranian oil resources.
In the first chapter, a necessary historical background will be provided, in order to find out the roots of the lack of dialogue and to define the distance between the Islamic Republic and the rest of the world.
Although the Western interest is strong, it has often been in conflict with the Iranian perception of foreign presence. On one hand, Western countries have tried to establish their presence in Iran and across its borders, but on the other hand, Iran has shown a growing diffidence toward the Western approach. This diffidence became reciprocal, and is now made of strong mistrust. Longstanding issues and misunderstandings afflict reciprocal perceptions, and the cover of a positive path, although desirable, is not easy.
The second chapter aims at defining the geopolitical consequences of Iranian nuclear capacity, both from a domestic and a regional point of view.
As far as the consequences of these developments are concerned, the third and the fourth chapters will provide some possible scenarios.
It is commonly known that there are enormous interests at stake, and that the relationship between Iran and the rest of the world is based both on a flexible sequence of possible options and a rigid unavailability toward concessions. From a diplomatic point of view, the agents of the two sides have for a very long time demonstrated their ability to drag on the matter, avoiding serious openings that can represent a true intention to solve their problems. The situation is made more difficult by the action of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran perceives its position as weak and is very suspicious of foreign moves. However, no pressure can be exerted on Iran, without causing enormous imbalances in the hydrocarbons' world market and consequently perturbing practically all economies in the world.
The war in Iraq has shown a limit in Western approach toward the Middle East. Along with the difficult management of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the situation in Lebanon, and the search for terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq has shown that the Western powers cannot control everything, at least, not in such a way. Iran, today, seems to be a country that cannot be challenged. It is, probably, the sole country in the Middle East that will not surrender to threats or sanctions. The starting point, this time, is a stalemate.
Two options are still on the table. The first one comes from a degeneration of the international situation and ends in a war. This is extremely dangerous both from a military and humanitarian point of view. In the third chapter this features will be broadened, and it will be shown how, in the end, none of the military options will prove to have a successful outcome for any player.
The second is far more difficult, and consists in a rapid and successful diplomatic opening that can lead to an effective negotiation. The fourth chapter goes beyond the rigid positions of the two sides, and analyzes their underlying interests, demonstrating how the negotiations so far have been unsuitable, and how a different negotiation scheme can be applied.
It seems that new balances are going to emerge, and that a new and different approach will be required.
Antonio Buttitta is a Conciliator at the Chamber of Commerce of Agrigento, Italy.
- 1
January 31, 2010
Member deleted
The western powers see military dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program as thread. One could sometimes consider Iran’s weaponisation activities also from Iranian point of view. In 1953 the Americans toppled their democratically-elected, pro-western government to gain control of their oil reserves. USA re-instated the Shah on his throne, then kept order via the dreaded Savak (security police) with ruthless repression for over a quarter-century. After the Islamic Revolution, during the 80’s, USA gave aid to Iraq and armed Saddam Hussein e.g with chemical weapons to use them on Iranians. After 1980, the USA has been trying to find a means to get Iran back under its thumb, to control their resources, and install a puppet government. Hated by some its neighbours and some superpowers, isolated and weak, it is easy to understand that Nuclear Weapons can be considered as necessary insurance policy in hostile environment.
Already years some western NGOs in countries like Iran that have been targeted for destabilization. On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”
From my point of view Iran has the same right to develop its nuclear program for civil and military purposes as all the other states. Iran isn’t doing anything else than USA, Soviet Union/Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa and North Korea haven’t already done. Sure Iran’s programs have been implemented clandestine, but so is the case with all others too.
During last year some “new” information pieces (Iran has already bomb, tests of modern missiles, secret Qom nuclear facility, Ahmadinejad still in power) are indicating that the Americans and Israelis are preparing the public for war. This would be the worst scenario. Now it is time to make u-turn in western politics towards Iran. Iran finally may even be ready to make a deal. Iran’s leadership may have achieved much of what it set out to accomplish when it stepped up its clandestine nuclear program in 1999. In contentious, high-stakes negotiations, deals are possible when both sides have a chance to declare victory, and that point may have been reached.
More e.g. from my articles “Iran's nuclear program at the Crossroads”
http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/irans-nuclear-program-at-...
and “Iran-no revolution but potential Change anyway”
http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/iran-no-revolution-but-po...