No Nonsense
The Iranian missile tests
THE trading of threats and counter-threats between suspected nuclear ambitious Iran and already nuclear armed Israel -- whether one calls it "saber rattling" or "psychological warfare" -- is threatening the global economy to retreat to "who knows what" -- recession in advanced economies and inevitable depression in energy starved developing nations.
The world economy is already wobbling from spiraling oil prices ($147 per barrel on July 16) --sometime tiptoeing and other times leapfrogging back and forth (e.g. an unprecedented $11 one-day spike -- from $128 to $139 a barrel after Israel's warning that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was "unavoidable").
Adding to the belligerence, last week (July 9 and 10), Iran test-fired several short-range missiles and one long-range Shahab-3 -- capable of targeting Israel -- while warning its enemies, US and Israel, that "our fingers are on the trigger."
The tests were carried out near the Straits of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's oil is shipped and came on the heels of an Israeli military exercise with 100 fighter jets, widely viewed as a drill for a possible "sterile" or "surgical" air strike to wipe out Iran's nuclear installations.
Washington swiftly condemned the Iranian tests while supporting the Israeli exercises privately. State Department official William Burns called Iran "as serious a problem as any we face today."
"Honestly, does anyone really believe that Iran's missiles aren't already a threat?" asked The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in an editorial. One wonders where the WSJ gets its information to suggest that "Iran may already have the capability to target the US with a short-range missile by launching it from a freighter off the East Coast?" What a crass and puerile editorial claim from a world-class newspaper?
Last year's US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. It said: "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs."
In a May 22 piece in the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman wrote: "Even if Iran were to acquire atomic bombs, there is no reason to think it would use them or turn them over to terrorists. Even if the Iranians would like to destroy Israel, they face a powerful disincentive: the prospect of radioactive incineration. Nor would Iran be so irrational as to give nukes to a terrorist group. That would be the worst of both worlds -- giving up control of those weapons, while inviting annihilation the moment they are put to use."
Chapman added: "Iran is a very modest adversary. It has no nuclear weapons. It has a pitiful air force. Its navy is really just a coast guard. It spends less on defence than Singapore or Sweden. Our military budget is 145 times bigger than Iran's."
Amid all the bellicose exchanges and the consternation, there appeared some cautious and muted optimism for a negotiated resolution of the sticky uranium enrichment program. Iran's top nuclear negotiator will meet with the EU's foreign policy chief in Geneva on July 19 and 20 for talks on freezing enrichment.
This latest proposal of the five United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members and Germany is somewhat sweetened, if you will. The concession package requires Tehran to stop further addition of centrifuges to the 300 already installed, in return for a pledge by the UNSC to freeze further sanctions.
The sweetening part, according to the July 13 Washington Post editorial, allows Tehran to continue enriching uranium during negotiations -- a reversal from the past -- without facing further sanctions --a "freeze" for "freeze" reciprocity -- merely for agreeing to participate in preliminary talks.
Let us sketch a realistic picture of Iran. It is surrounded by US forces on the east and the west, and Israel is preparing for a preemptive attack. Why wouldn't a sovereign nation show that it will fight back if it is attacked by its enemies?
Is Iran a belligerent nation? Did Iran attack any country in the last 60 years? Do they really have a military budget that rivals the US or even Israel?
Here, the US has a president who once said that Iran was part of an "axis of evil" and routinely threatens Iran, and now a presidential candidate (John McCain) has "adopted a Beach Boys tune to let Iran know he is also spoiling for a chance to BOMB, BOMB, and BOMB Iran."
The US spends 145 times as much on the ability to threaten and obliterate the rest of the planet as Iran. So, why is Iran "as serious a problem as any we face today" -- but not Russia and China, which are sitting on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear?
The answers are obvious:
- Iran shows disobedience and disrespect to the US;
- Iran has the third largest proven oil reserves (132.5 billion barrels, 2006) and can manipulate oil supply and prices, which can hurt our driving SUVs and hence lifestyles;
- Most of all, Iran threatens Israel;
- China and Russia are too big to be confronted, so they're tamed by getting "most favoured nation treatment" deal.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments