Photo: AFP

EARLY this month the Vienna chapter of the Non-Aligned Movement, in a veiled criticism of the Western powers and Israel, along with a reaffirmation from the new Director General of IAEA, stated that it is the basic and inalienable right of all states to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. The NAM also reiterated their support for nuclear free zone in the Middle East; declared "any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear activities, operational or under construction" as a serious danger to human beings and environment and a violation of international law; expressed concern and sought clarification from the DG of IAEA of "the possible implication of the departure from standard verification language in the summary of the report of the DG; and more or less expressed happiness over access given by Iran for inspection of its nuclear facilities. It concluded that diplomacy and dialogue are the only way for long tern solution of Iran nuclear issue.
On the other hand a German television station reported a remark by Major General Atollah Salehi, current Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian army, that Israel would be destroyed in a matter of days. This remark coupled with President Ahmedinejad's intention to wipe off Israel from the face of the earth has strengthened the US determination of denying Iran the opportunity of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Why is the US so concerned? According to the analysts US-Iran relations are inextricably linked to the energy interests and tortured past, resulting in Jimmy Carter's defeat for re-election to the US Presidency.
Over 20 percent of the world's oil supply is transported daily through the Strait of Hormuz. If already tense relations were to escalate between the US and Iran, Iran could retaliate by attempting to close or disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. This, in turn, may result in an armed confrontation between the US and Iran, which undoubtedly would involve the Middle East region as a whole. Another reason given is to safeguard the security of Israel. But given the fact that Israel already possesses more than two hundred nuclear weapons as opposed to none by the Arabs, the argument on Israeli security becomes untenable. Iranians are no exception in seeing the unchallenged possession of nuclear weapons by Israel as a hypocritical insult to the integrity of the international non-proliferation regime. But Iran has to consider that during the process of acquisition of large number of weapons US and/or Israel may launch a pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear installations.
The reasons for the US' almost incestuous relations with Israel has been questioned by Harvard and Chicago University Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's thesis, explicating the disproportionate Israeli influence on US policy makers. This became evident recently by Bush administration's Under Secretary of State John Bolton's declaration: "we can not let Iran, a leading sponsor of terrorism, acquire nuclear weapons". This opens up the possibility of Osirak option (Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iraqi suspected nuclear installations in 1981) seriously.
Cooler heads in the US, not to mention those in Europe, strongly advise against such pre-emptive actions on the grounds that: (a) logic of pre-emption would necessitate the US to wage war against 12 nations with nuclear weapons program that Pentagon says are extant and emerging threats, (b) pre-emptive strikes may not be able to take out all nuclear installations as these are located in inaccessible areas out of public eyes; (c) Iran-Al Qaida links need further investigation, particularly after Iraq fiasco, along with the alleged Iranian involvement in the 9/11 tragedy; and (d) another Iraq-like misadventure will most certainly inflame anti-American sentiments globally, particularly in the Islamic world.
A British newspaper recently reported on Israeli-US joint exercise off the coast of Israel in countering simulated ballistic, medium and short range missile and rocket attacks on Israel by Iran, doubling stockpiling of US weapons in Israel, and Pentagon's pressure on Boeing to bring forward the development and testing of Massive Ordinance Penetrator and Massive Ordinance Air Blast to June this year. If used these could have apocalyptic environmental effects not only on Middle Eastern countries but on Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Central Asian countries. It is difficult to imagine the Obama administration, free from the influence of neo-cons and new sovereignists, would allow such a thing to pass. Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons, despite its claim to the contrary, appears threatening to the West partly because of tension within the Islamic world itself that threatens the peace and security in the Muslim world and beyond.
Many Middle Eastern countries are suffering from tension between mainly two strands of domestic political forces, one aspiring for the Western model of governance based on democratic values and the other forsaking modernity in order to return to its sacred past based on purist interpretation of Islamic values. The events of 9/11 were a turning point in the Western attitude towards Muslims in general and theocratic countries in particular.
Pulitzer Prize winner journalist Seymour Hersh in an article in The New Yorker (04.08.06) revealed that the Bush administration was seriously considering a military option for Iran. One military planner told Hersh that contrary to popular belief President Bush was more focused on Iran than he was on Saddam Hussein because the real issue was who was going to control the Middle East and its oil for the next ten years. The White House believed that the only way to solve the problem was regime change through war.
The Iranian nuclear issue is complex and seemingly intractable. Iranian hardliners believe in the inevitability of a conflict with the US and therefore the survival of the regime. Its ideals demand acquisition of nuclear weapons which, they argue, if Saddam Hussein had then the Americans would not have dared to invade Iraq, and has so far successfully prevented US military strike on North Korea. Brussels based International Crisis Group suggested that if "zero enrichment option" i.e. Iran's indefinite relinquishment of its right to enrich uranium in return for guaranteed supply from an off shore source as suggested by the Russians did not materialize, then Iran may be induced to accept "delayed limited enrichment" plan by which the West would explicitly accept not only Iran's right to produce peaceful nuclear energy but also its "right to enrich domestically". In return Iran would agree to a several years delay in the commencement of its enrichment program, limit its size and scope, and accept a highly intrusive inspection regime.
Should Iran refuse to accept both the options, Russia and China could be encouraged to join the West and support actions by the UNSC and the establishment of an escalating sanction regime. An amicable solution to the Iranian nuclear issue has to be found. A European group of profoundly influential people is against allowing Iran to develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities (nuclear fuel cycle) even under international inspection. In essence, therefore, the Western insistence on Iran to abandon its nuclear program is due to West's lack of trust in the Iranian regime. That Iran so far has not done anything illegal is a moot question. The West, particularly the US, sees a plausible threat in Iran's alleged aberrant behavior on nuclear issue. The international community hopefully will find a fusion of seemingly disparate positions of Iran and the West.
The author is a former secretary and ambassador.