• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
13.03.2007

A new logic of Iranian relations: situational analysis

   

Sargis Harutyunyan 

The refusal of the Iranian party to suspend the uranium enrichment work on February 21 (as it is demanded by the resolution adopted by UN Security Council on December 23, 2006) makes the situation more difficult; however the intensification of the situation in this case will be of more fundamental character.

In comparison with the last 4-5 years, the developments on Iranian nuclear program have undergone logical changes and in this connection we would like to single out two circumstances:

  • Iran’s strides in the nuclear works reduce the chances of the US and its allies to influence on the situation.
  • If that tendency is not suspended, time will work to the detriment of the latter’s.

Although the US policy failure in Iraq since 2006 let us speak about the forthcoming changes of Middle-Eastern strategy of Washington and its allies, however, basing on some showings on Iranian issue one may suppose that the developments in this direction will only become more restrained.

Direct showings

In spite of the widely spread opinion, the US Congress intermediate elections on November 7 2006 didn’t have any essential influence on the US Middle-Easter strategy.

On February 5 the US president Gorge Bush sent the draft project of the federal budget of 2008 fiscal year (which begins since October 1, 2007) to the US Congress. In the budget of $2.9 trillion the expenses allocated for defense make $ 481.4 billion, besides, for launching military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are allocated $93.4 billion for 2007, $141.7 billion for 2008 and $50 billion for 2009. As a matter of fact, in case the budget of the fiscal year of 2008 is adopted by the Congress, the US military expenses will make up $766.5 billion1.

The change of the key figures in the CENTCOM of the US military forces is not of little importance. By the decree of US president issued on January 5, 2007 the commander of CENTCOM John Abizaid and the commander of the US military forces in Iraq Gorge Case were correspondingly substituted by Admiral William Fallon, supreme commander of Pacific Command and General David Petraeus, who was responsible for organizing, training and equipping nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces. On February 26 Senate approved D. Petraeus’s and on January 7 W. Fallon’s appointments. Let’s point out that before the approval of these appointments it was known that, for example, General David Petraeus would carry out the new strategy of the president, made to public on January 11, the component part of which is to increase the number of American military troops of 140 in Iraq by 20 thousand.

There is little possibility that the American legislative body has effected any substantial changes in the expenses connected with the military field. That’s to say, the draft project of budget represented by the US president in reality also presents the consensus reached in the American elite on the developments in the Middle East and the approximate picture of that consensus, and can not be perceives as a mere enterprise of the White House’s republican administration. Thus, the campaign launched against Bushe’s Iraqi strategy by the democrats who got majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives as a result of intermediate elections of Congress in November 2006, was to great extent of declarative character2.

The next important showing is the considerably strained situation in Iraq and growing amount of American troops in the region.

For about 7 Iranian diplomats were arrested in Baghdad on December 25 2006 and in a south Iraqi city called Erbil on January 11, 2007. Although the three of them were later on released, however on January 6 was kidnapped the deputy secretary of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad Jalal Sharafi. The official Tehran accused the US in of kidnapping Sharafi3.

Almost at the same period of time, from January 22 to February 8 2007, the Iraqi fighters destroyed 6 American military helicopters. According to the interpretation of Pentagon representatives such attacks against the American forces would be impossible without military-technical support of the Iranian party4.

One shouldn’t neglect the fact that the American-Iranian relations become strained (as well as by the initiative of Americans) in the point considered to be the most sensible part of the US Middle-Eastern policy. Certain regulation of situation in Iraq in May-June of 2006 allowed us to speak about America-Iranian concert.

The picture may be considered to be complete by singling out the recruitment5 of the American military forces and exerting information pressure on Iran6.

The third showing: on December 12 2006 the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert made the following announcement: “Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapon just like Israel”. Not long after that announcement followed the above mentioned publication of the British “The Sunday Times” on January 7 2007, and on January 23 Deputy Director General of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission Ariel Leviten officially stated that his country had nuclear technologies. And at last, on February 11 the director general of Israel electric corporation7 “Khevrat Khashmal” Uri Ben-Nun announced about the possible construction of an atomic power station, something which was never discussed on the official level in the past.

One should not exclude that still in the middle of the 20th century the decision of the political authorities of the Jewish state to legitimize its own nuclear potential in the context of Iranian developments may signify proclaiming of Tel Aviv’s readiness and capability to prepare the possible military demarche against the Islamic Republic.

The other important showing is the de facto change of attitude of the European powerful states to the Iranian issue.

At his speech in Dubai on December 20 2006 the prime minister of Great Britain Tony Blair announced that one should acknowledge the military challenges issued by the Iranian government, and urged to make an axis of not-extremist counties against Teheran. It is known that because of the Iraqi campaign the cabinet of arborists faces quite serious problems at home. In that sense it is possible to understand milder position adopted by British diplomacy in autumn 2006 on the Iranian issue in comparison with the American one. However, the matter is that the British government has decided to make an exception in case of Iran8 on the background of London’s Near-Eastern milder policy9. In that sense it is noteworthy that British resources take prevailing position in information-psychological pressure on Iran.

The decision of official Paris to publish its new attitude to the Iranian Issue deserves special attention. In interviews given to «The New York Times», «The International Herald Tribune» and the French «La Nouvel Observateur» journals the president of France directly announced: “Where will it [Iran] drop the nuclear bomb. On the Israel? That bomb will not even manage to fly 200 meters when Tehran will be razed to the ground”. Although in the future the Royal Palace of Elisey attempted to play down Chirac’s words, that the president of France was misunderstood, however it is clear that Paris has made quite an important announcement.

Germany’s position has also undergone change. By the suggestion10 of Germany, as the EU presiding country, on February 6 the UE, in addition to the sanctions applied by UN Security Council on December 23 2006, imposed additional sanctions to Iran11.

The demonstrative demarches made by Russia and China are among the direct showings. On January 17 2007, Russia’s defense minister Sergey Ivanov announced that the supply of Russian 29 “Top-M1” ant-air defense complexes of the 5th generation’s of military character to Iran was stopped and during the military trainings on January 12 the Chinese missile destroyed an old hydrometric satellite at a distance of 800 kilometers from the earth.

Indirect showings

In the context of Iranian developments special attention should be paid to the agreement reached in Beijing on February 13 2007, according to which the South Korean Party will close its nuclear center allocated in Yunben and will cease its nuclear program.

Such an acute progress after six-sided (North and South Korea, the US, China, Russia, Japan) fruitless negotiations of several years has come to prove about a substantial innovation in the politics of Far East, the information on which hasn’t been made public yet. However, basing on general logic, the innovation should first of all refer to Armenian-Chinese relations. Taking into account the Iranian issue and the period of time the agreement was reached, one shouldn’t exclude that the possible compromise made by Washington to Beijing may be compromised by the Iranian issue. The first tangible result was information-diplomatic overall background: “North Korea was not right in case of its nuclear program and gave it up: now it is Iran’s turn”.

The next indirect showing is acute deterioration of American-Russian relations.

The two top officials of American Administration, the secretary of defense Robert Gates and the National Intelligence director Michael McConnell begin their activity after the Cold War with an unprecedented anti-Russian initiative. On February 1 2007, McConnell informed that within the institution headed by him, together with the coordinators of Iran, Iraq, Cuba and Venezuela has also been created the post of coordinator of Russia. As a matter of fact, Russia has been reckoned among the countries posing threat to the US. On February 8 the US new defense minister directly announced that the American military forces must be ready “to struggle against terrorism, as we [the US] don’t know what will happen in such countries as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran”. Russia responded by quite a tough speech made by Russian president Vladimir Putin on February 10 in Munich blaming the US in creating multipolar world order.

It is well known the first point of American-Russian contradictions – post-Soviet area. However, intensification of antagonism may also speak about serious development in the direction of Iran.

And at last special attention should be paid to Russian-Iranian confrontations in connection with the construction Bishehr’s atomic power-station. As a matter of fact the Iranian party has stopped financing Russian «Атомстройэкспорт» company realizing construction works grounding it by the fact that the construction works were not being carried out quick enough.

It is known that Moscow very often used the course of construction of Bishehr’s atomic power-station and the supply of fuel to it as means of exerting pressure on Teheran.

According to Russian-Iranian protocol signed in 2006, Russia was to supply Bishehr’s atomic power-station with fuel since March 2007, which may be again delayed because of the present situation. This new Russian-Iranian confrontation maybe has come to prove about not only another action, but also about concern that at least one of the parties has in connection with forthcoming developments of Russian issue.

Conclusions

The developments connected with the Iranian issue have undergone logical changes.

If in the past the military solution of the problem was considered to of little possibility also in Washington, then the leak of information about possible military operations isn’t without grounding.

The Iranian elite continues considering the possession of nuclear weapon as the main factor of preserving national security, and, which is more important, the policy implemented by Tehran in that direction will hardly undergo any tangible changes. Subsequently, in the sense of recent developments around Iran one should first of all take into consideration Iran’s real capacity of making nuclear weapon.

According to the US and European power states, nuclear Iran will rather change the essence of security system considerably restricting the influence of the West in the Middle East rich with energy carriers12 and subsequently causing global problems then change regional disposition of forces.

The main conclusions:

  • The closer Iran is to the creation of the nuclear weapon, the more is the possibility that the US and its allies will apply military force to Iran.
  • that’s to say, the possibility that the US and its allies will first of all strike Iran in case it really has the necessary level and amount of nuclear weapon is very high.
  • Thus, the US and its allies will apply military force only in case of Tehran’s readiness and capacity of developing nuclear weapon.

If this conclusion is right, then in the near future the situation around Armenia’s southern neighbor will get more strained.

1 By the way by that budget it was envisaged to increase the number of the US marines from 175 to 202 thousand till 2012, the number of land troops from 482 to 547 thousand by 2012 and at last add the number of spetsnaz by 13 thousand by 2013.

2 The well known resolution adopted by the US House of Representatives on February 16 2007 expressing vote of no confidence to the Iraqi strategy applied by George Bush should be considered in the same framework of logic.

3 It is worth mentioning that the time period of this event coincided with the publication of an article in “The Washington Post” on January 26 2007, according to which the White House allowed the US military personnel in Iraq to take the “Iranian agents” prisoner.

4 According to the US military reconnaissance, a big number of anti-aircraft and other kinds of missiles was transferred through Iraqi special service to Iranian militias.

5 t is known that Pentagon has already concentrated two aircraft percussion groupings on the base of aircraft-carriers called “Dwight D. Eisenhower” and “John C. Stennis”. According to the British sources the aircraft-carriers of “Ronald Reagan”, “Harry S. Truman”, “Theodore Roosevelt” will join to them in case of need. It was earlier known that the central command of the US military forces, which embrace the Middle east in its sphere of responsibility, will relocate its central headquarter from its air-force base of “Mak Dil” (city of Tampa Bey, Florida, USA) to the air-force base of “Al-Udeid” in Qatar.

6Beginning from January 2007 an unprecedented policy of information pressure is being carried out against Iran. On February 7 2007 the British “The Sunday Times” wrote that Tel-Aviv was going to strike mini-nuclear blows over the Iranian nuclear centers. According to another British newspaper, “the Guardian” (the issue of the 15th of January), the US president and the prime minister of Great Britain carry out serious work to begin a war against Iran. Two days later, on January 17, “The Urban Times” published in Kuwait wrote that Pentagon was going to begin military operations against Iran in April, 2007. According to the British “New Statement” (February 19 2007), the US armed Forces are ready to begin military operations any moment: by Pentagon’s calculations during an attack the Americans may destroy 10 thousand Iranian objects at once. According to the announcement of BBC made on February 20, Pentagon has already determined the Iranian nuclear, military and economic objects liable to extermination.

7 That company is responsible for the whole atomic sphere.

8 On February 21, 2007 T. Blair announced about the reduction of British troops (from 7.100 to 5.500).

9 The announcement of Dubai was not the only one. In his speech made in the House of Representatives on February 7 2007 Blair directly blamed Iran in developing nuclear weapon.

10 The speech of the chancellor Angela Merkel, made on February 5 in Tel Aviv, in which she blamed Teheran and Damascus in destabilizing situation in the region, has come to prove about Germany’s position.

11 It is noteworthy that on February 16 Japan also applied sanctions against Iran. The latter’s government usually tried to keep aloof from current geopolitical processes, first of all reasoning from its energy interests.

12 At that, in that context, as an example, are quite seriously perceived Lebanese developments.


Return
Another materials of author