French warning of another war

The POST, Sun, Sep,23, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Last Sunday the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner issued a startling warning that the world should brace for a possible war over the Iranian crisis. ‘We have to prepare for the worst and the worst is war’, stated the French official. He referred to Iranian crisis as the greatest crisis of present times and further said, ‘We will not accept that the bomb is manufactured’. While dropping hints that the military plans were well underway, he stressed that the negotiated settlement is still the priority. 

Predictably the Iranian media accused France for carrying on with the American agenda. The media stressed that Sarkozy has ‘taken on an American Skin’. Soon after his election the new President of France had dropped hints that his regime is likely to support many of the American policies that have not been able to attract French support. French policy on Iran seemed to have moved much closer to Washington since the advent of new President Sarkozy Following leader’s inclinations, the members of the cabinet seem to be engaged in pursuing the agenda of their leader. 

What appears to be intriguing is that while the Americans have been taking a relatively more rational line, in recent times, depending mostly on diplomatic and economic means, the French seem to have opted for war path. Are the French in hurry to please the Americans or is it something that reflects a strong independent line demonstrating French global leadership. By all accounts what appears to be relatively more convincing is that the French really wants to properly mend fences with Washington. 

For obvious reasons the Iranian authorities rejected the French war warning. Responding to French warning President Ahmadinejad said that Iran does not take seriously a warning from the French Foreign Minister. ‘We do not take these declarations seriously. Comments to media are different to the real position’, he further stated. While he more or less dismissed the French warning, the general thrust of argument was no different than what he has been repeated so often. That US would not dare strike Iran at a time  when Washington is fighting in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In addition the Iranian military elite had also warned the Americans that if attack on Iran takes place, the American bases in Afghanistan and Iraq would be legitimate targets as these bases are within the reach of its missiles. ‘Any military attack would be answered in the shortest time possible’, reportedly stated supreme leader’s top military advisor Yahya Rahim Safavi. It is not too far fetched to assume that Iran could easily retaliate and strike at the nearest American targets and then go for distant targets. 

Many world powers did not view the French threat favorably. Chinese policy has always been supportive of diplomatic solution. ‘We believe that the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations which is in the common interest of the international community’ stated Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson Jiang Yu. ‘We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs’, Jiang said when asked to comment on the French Foreign Minister’s threatening statement raising the prospect of war. 

Similarly the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov categorically warned against the use of force in Iran. He said, that ‘We are convinced that no modern problem has a military solution, and that applies to Iranian nuclear program as well. We are seriously concerned about increasingly frequent reports that military action against Iran is being seriously considered’. He further criticized the idea of unilateral sanctions by United States or the European Union and said, ‘we have to work on precise sanctions that would demonstrate the world community’s serious approach to this problem’. 

The IAEA Chief El Baradie has been taking a relatively much more rational line than both the Americans and the French has done so far. It appears that even the Americans have also slow down their threatening gestures. While the US has never ruled out using military strikes to punish Iran for its defiance in the nuclear standoff, it keeps its other options open as recently Robert gates, the Defense Secretary has categorically stated that all options are on the table. 

In July the IAEA Chief reported that Iran had slowed down its nuclear work. According to El Baradie Iran had slowed down the expansion  of its nuclear enrichment capabilities at its strategic plant in Natanz. ‘We have seen a fairly slow development in commissioning new cascades’, responded to the questions of reporters. He had called on Iran to freeze new enrichment work, holding it at a current level in return for the United Nations holding off on new sanctions against Iran for its failure to heed UN Security Council calls for it to halt all enrichment work. 

There is doubt that almost all nations would like to see the peaceful resolution of Iranian crisis and nobody prefers the use of military power in order to coerce Iranians but uncontrolled emotional statements like the French warning seem to create unnecessary hurdles and also assist in hardening of stances. One does not expect war hype from a nation which enjoys permanent status in the Security Council. The permanent members of the UN Security Council are entrusted with the task of maintaining international peace and security. One does not expect that a permanent member of the  UN Security Council would issue such an irresponsible  statement. 

Perhaps the best way out of deadlock is through IAEA negotiation mechanism. Those countries which are pushing Iran to the edge must stop their pursuit and allow those who still enjoy some influence over Iran to convince them. Simultaneously it is also imperative that the Iranians must be assured that no plan of regime change is going to be put to practice. One the major reasons that make Iranians somewhat sensitive and influence to opt for confrontationist posture is the notion that some of the western countries are keen to see the departure of incumbent regime. Since the west, collectively or in the capacity of an individual country, have already removed two incumbent regimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the assurances by the west are unlikely to produce the intended impact. 

Perhaps it would be much more appropriate and may even pay the desired dividends if the IAEA Chief along with full support of both China and Russia continues its negotiation with the Iranian. The war talk hype should be avoided at this stage. War hype may become useful if all avenues have been exhausted and there is no option left to resolve the issue. But at the current stage Iranian crisis it amounts to be an overreaction. While the French are known be extremely good in diplomacy, yet one finds examples of frivolous statements like the recent one which in fact amazes many of us.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.