|
|
America’s Iran dilemmaThe POST, Sun, Dec,16, 2007.Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
Despite the Iranian denials, many in the west were not willing to accept the Iranian assertions. The French, in their own wisdom, even went to the extent of implicitly suggesting war and in consequence many analysts began to view the French as warmongers. The statements of the incumbent French foreign minister’s statement were particularly subjected to biting criticism though he provided a different interpretation of his statements. Some observer thought that it was the product what is generally known as after-though. In their efforts to be on the right side of the incumbent American administration, the current French regime seems to have demonstrated unnecessary enthusiasm. The latest NIE has not only vindicated Iran position but has provided interpretation-options for all concerned though, according to some, it made the incumbent American administration look bad. The NIE revealed that Iran had discontinued its weapon development program in 2003. Indeed the Bush administration can cite in support of its stance that Iran had not been openly telling the truth about its nuclear program for years and at some stage in the past it was definitely engaged in making the weapon. But then which country has openly declared that it is involved in making the bomb after the signing of the NPT. The American Congress leaders must be happy as they were responsible for ordering the new NIE. The Russian and the Chinese must be satisfied as they were advising a more pragmatic approach towards Iran. The other Europeans must also be re-evaluating their approach towards the whole situation. Most of Europeans were inclined to follow American interpretation but as blindly as the French had demonstrated. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the UN nuclear watchdog could also use the new NIE for furthering the scope of negotiations. Admittedly the IAEA suspected Iranian indulgence in the forbidden pursuit but has always stressed the diplomatic approach. Having made regular visit and having held frequent meetings with the Iranian officials, it has never categorically stressed that it has found convincing proof that Iran was making the bomb. While the latest NIE has provided something for everyone to support their contention but one thing is certain it has revealed the faulty and inadequacy of American intelligence community. Many observers are of the view that sometimes the intelligence estimates are devised in such a way to extent support to the administrations policies. Another similar case is that of American assertion that Al-Quada has safe heavens in Pakistani Tribal areas. Just as the American intelligence community is yet to identify the actual location of secret nuclear program of Iran, it has no idea about Pakistani safe Heavens. Many in Pakistan believe that this is merely a pressurization tool. In addition, many argue that whenever the American installed administration along with NATO and ISAF are unable to deliver, they employ diversionary tactics. ‘Pakistan should do more’ and the notion of ‘safe heaven’ is often repeated in American media in order to put pressure on Pakistan on one hand and to divert the American public’ focus on their own inabilities to deliver. Whatever one may say there is no doubt that the American intelligence community’s volte face on Iran’s nuclear program has confronted the incumbent administration with an acute dilemma. The Vice President Dick Cheney’s interpretation that the latest findings of NIE may hamper American efforts to confront Iran with a view to have the Iranian enrichment program is total stopped. He also acknowledged that the NIE could complicate Washington’s drive for third round of UN sanctions against Iran. Arguments like Cheney’s assertion that there is nothing in NIE that administration should not be concerned about Iran’s enrichment activities merely reflect the poverty of policy. The NIE has provided sufficient ammunition to the Iranian leaders to convincingly influence those still contemplating for a new set of UN sanctions. While the Americans would continue to get, in all probability, support from both United Kingdom as well as from France but many others are likely to rethink their policy pursuits in the light of the findings of the latest NIE. While the leaders of democrats in American may be viewing and projecting it as a victory within the context of the ongoing electioneering campaign for the new President, the world community would look at it within the context of harsher policies pursued by the Americans against Iran. The rationale of tougher UN sanctions has certainly received a major blow by the latest results of the NIE. But the incumbent administration seems to still bend upon securing a tougher set of sanctions. The incumbent ad ministration is still engaged in portraying the Iran as the greatest threat to world peace despite the fact the new revealed information tends to absolve the Iranians. It is an acknowledged fact that all members of the NPT are entitled to acquire the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and almost all the recent statements emanating from Iran stressed that they are not making the bomb. The NIE’s revelation that Iran had stopped its weapon program in 2003 reveals at some stage the Iran had embarked upon the forbidden path. Such a revelation, if it is true, should be appreciated in the sense that the Iranian themselves realized that they were on the wrong path and after this realization, they abandoned the program. On the contrary instead of appreciating if you rub it in, then there are chances that some in Iran may urge their government to rethink about it. Undoubtedly the NIE revelation has made the option of military strike against Iran as irrelevant and redundant despite the assertions by some Americans that they have all the options are still open. China and Russia have indeed been vindicated in their argument that Iran does not have a weapon program. Given the ground realities it would indeed be somewhat unrealistic to still pursue harsher UN sanctions. The dilemma of the Bush administration revolves around how to mitigate the damaging impact of NIE findings on both domestic politic as well as on the international community. One way out is to tone down the rhetoric and leave it to the next administration but this could have impact on domestic politic and can cost votes. On the international level, it could gradually distance itself from the concerted efforts for the notion of imposing tougher sanctions and leave it to the other members. Whether or not the American incumbent administration opt for such a rational approach remains to be seen.
|
|