Iran – the International Community at the Crossroads (3)
Written by IFIMES - Dr. Jozef Kunic
Thursday, 29 June 2006
> Page 3 <
The interest of the developed Western states is clear although a different picture is presented to the general public. There should be no global economic crisis since that would have negative implications practically for the whole world. Perhaps only some non-democratic dictatorship regimes would profit from such crisis as they are anyway in a poor economic situation and would only celebrate the fact that others are doing bad, too. Iran's nuclear programme should therefore be stopped. It was easy to come to this conclusion, but the problem is "How?". President Ahmadinejad has already gone very far in his rhetoric and it will be difficult for him to withdraw to a more sensible attitude. The US President has also gone relatively far in his rhetoric and for him, too, will be difficult to retreat to the border of compromise. The USA determinedly insist (with somewhat less determined support from others) that Iran should stop uranium enrichment. Iran has stated several times very decisively and loudly that it is under no conditions ready to stop uranium enrichment. Both sides hope that time will do its work and that they can benefit from negotiations, presentations of ideas, programmes etc. The USA believe that if together with the EU, Russia and China they use the carrot and stick strategy Iran will eventually, after long talks, agree to stop uranium enrichment. But Iran demands a huge carrot, since with the present crude oil prices and increased gas demands it is not facing economic difficulties, but the failure to fulfil the national pride and the promises would wash away Ahmadinejad together with his followers. Although by constantly accepting negotiations Iran is seemingly gaining time, the fact is that the compromise can only be achieved if one side makes sweeping concessions - but those concessions would have to be so profound that the political survival of those making them would be endangered. This leaves no space for a compromise solution: Iran either continues uranium enrichment or not. There is no middle road. The USA and others either accept that Iran continues those activities or not. There is no middle road here either. The status quo remains: The USA (and the large part of the international community) uncompromisingly insist that Iran stop the nuclear programme (in its territory) while Iran uncompromisingly insists on continuing the nuclear programme. Both sides have gone so far in their political acts and rhetorics that it is impossible for them to return without suffering devastating political damage.
Unless there is a complete turnabout, which is very unlikely, the Western states will have to take some action. If they fail to succeed that the Iranians themselves overthrow Iran's regime, which is very unlikely with the Iranians and especially the Persians feeling endangered and with Israel as the official enemy, there is a real possibility for a military intervention. There are some arguments against and in favour of such intervention.
In comparison with Iraq the intervention in Iran would be much more difficult: the state is much bigger with a more complicated geographical configuration, has three times more inhabitants who are traditionally much more zealous warriors, especially when defending their fatherland. Military strategists would have to examine carefully those facts. Another threat is the blockade of transportation of crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz where all the crude oil not transported through pipelines passes from Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Iran. This would lead the world into a devastating economic crisis with unimagined consequences. Iran's supreme religious leader Khamenei threatened not only to stop supplying Iran's oil, which the world might be able to deal with somehow, but even to block oil supplies from the whole region.
If the military action managed to prevent Iran's blockade of Hormuz the major crisis could be avoided, but the prices of crude oil would still increase. In that case the economies of Europe (except Great Britain and Norway), Japan and China would suffer most, while the price increase would not directly affect the United States, which have plenty of capital in world oil companies (and American dollar is the means of payment for oil), nor the crude oil exporting states. It should be kept in mind that it would be very difficult to prevent the blockade and that it would be very risky to forecast a successful operation.
Another problem would be the situation in Iran after the eventual attack. It may soon turn into chaos and internal conflicts as was the case in Iraq. While ethnic conflicts would be less probable, there is a greater possibility for the ideological conflicts between the advocators of the present regime and their opposers. However, it is the cruel reality that although there is a chaotic situation in Iraq the state has no influence over the rest of the world. The same would hold true of Iran: it would be chaotic but without any broader international influence. Nevertheless, the chaotic situation could affect the region (Iraq, Afghanistan) and the terrorism, which would definitely jeopardise safe transportation of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Insecure oil transportation through the chaotic region would lead to aggravation of the global economic situation, which the Western world surely does not want.
There is another factor that should be stressed: namely the international reputation of those taking part in the eventual military action, especially of the USA, would be compromised due to innocent victims and questionable legitimacy of such action. Not to mention the long-term negative consequences this would have for them.
The international community is therefore at the crossroads. To react or not to react military? Iran and the Western states are merely gaining time by prolonging the talks and offering new ideas and proposals which essentially only change the power of threats and the size of offered benefits without any elementary new ideas.
But the West is still at the crossroads where both roads offer very bad options: - If the West intervenes militarily in Iran, this will be a very bad option. There would be a major oil crisis the size of which would depend on the success of the military intervention. If the intervention is successful it will be clear to the Islamic fundamentalists that the West will not tolerate their activities, which is the positive element of this alternative. -If Iran wins in this dispute, this will be very bad for the West. It would encourage the Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists, which would represent a long-term threat to the stability of the world economy.
In the short-term it seems that the loss suffered by the West would be smaller if military means are used to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, there is no good way out of this crisis and whatever solution to the problem is chosen it will be bad for the whole world. It seems that the world is entering a crisis of global dimensions and we can only hope that this is only seemingly so.
Dr. Jožef Kunič* - Former Slovenian ambassador to Iran IFIMES - Ljubljana (Slovenia)
*Dr. Jožef Kunič, former Slovenian ambassador to Iran, President of the Slovenian Association for International Relations (SDMO) and member of the IFIMES International Institute
Conférence 'Italie/Europe: La démocratie en danger' avec Beppe Grillo, 6 février 2010 - Paris Marianne Ranke-Cormier, directrice de publication de Newropeans Magazine présente Franck Biancheri, président de Newropeans, un des pères fondateurs du programme Erasmus et directeur de recherche de LEAP2020.
2010 bis 2020: Gold erringt K.O.-Sieg über den DollarThursday, 04 February 2010 | Leap/E2020Die US-Zentralbank ist nicht mehr in der Lage, ihren Jahrzehnte langen Kampf gegen Gold unter dem Schlagwort vom „Überbleibsel aus barbarischen Zeiten“ führen, mit dem die alles überragende Stellung des Dollars im internationalen Währungssystem... Weiter lesen
[Conferenza] LA DEMOCRAZIA IN PERICOLO - Italia - Europa - I cittadini resistonoThursday, 04 February 2010 | Newropeans
Il bisogno di democrazia in Europa è sempre più forte. Le forze democratiche tentano di ridurre i nostri diritti impedendoci di poter scegliere liberamente mantenendo così al potere, nei nostri paesi e sul nostro continente, un élite corrotta... Legga più
Kapuscinski: ritratto e autoritratto di un esploratore di animeThursday, 04 February 2010 | Damiano Mazzotti “Kapuscinski. Opere” è la meravigliosa biografia del più grande reporter di guerra (1932-2007), con la raccolta degli scritti più preziosi e “magici” di uno dei più grandi interpreti di culture (Mondadori, 2009). Legga più
Página española
Zapatero, Galeano y HaitíThursday, 04 February 2010 | Alberto Montero SolerMientras la comunidad internacional alerta sobre la ocupación militar estadounidense de Haití realizada bajo la excusa de la ayuda humanitaria, al presidente Zapatero no se le ocurre otra cosa que decir en el Parlamento Europeo que “ver... Lea el artículo
[Europese gedachten] De schijndemocratie van het burgerintiatiefThursday, 04 February 2010 | Chris AalbertsBinnenkort begint eindelijk de Europese directe democratie. In het verdrag van Lissabon is de mogelijkheid van een burgerinitiatief opgenomen: burgers kunnen een voorstel doen aan de Europese Commissie om een wetsvoorstel te maken op een bepaald... Lees meer
Het kost een paar centen.... Thursday, 04 February 2010 | Veronique SwinkelsVolgens de Brusselse professor Matthijs hebben wij in Nederland het op een na duurste koningshuis van de wereld. Alleen de Britse koningin leeft op grotere voet. ... Of we goedkoper uit zouden zijn met een President is natuurlijk ook maar de vraag.... Lees meer
The three post-war scenarios regarding EU-US relations
On March 17th 2003, seven years ago, on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, Franck Biancheri published three scenarios attempting to describe the war's possible consequences. Among the three he qualified one as most likely to happen. Because of its striking anticipation of what is indeed happening today, we have decided to put it online again. Upon whom will the ashes of Baghdad fall down?The three post-war scenarios regarding EU-US relations
Sharp eye - Regards européensNo commentFriday, 22 January 2010Nick Reilly, GM’s European president, believes that the European car market is suffering from a structural supply surplus....
GM scraps 8,300 jobs in Europe (NRC Handelsblad) + Full Story
292 - 5 millions - 2 milliardsThursday, 21 January 2010
292 morts, plus de 5 millions de personnes vaccinées au 1er janvier… et une facture de 2 milliards d’euros. Tel est le coût estimé de 3 mois de... + Full Story
We all are Icelanders, fed up to pay for the banks failures! In any case, to prove that all Europeans are not like the British and Dutch governments, Newropeans is launching a petition called « We all are Icelanders, fed up with paying for banks failures» and aiming at gathering popular support for the Icelandic resistance to the current outrageous 'financial order'.
► SIGN HERE
Nous sommes tous des Islandais, ras le bol de payer pour les banquiers! Pour prouver que tous les Européens ne sont pas à l'image des gouvernements britannique et néerlandais, Newropeans lance la pétition "Nous sommes tous des Islandais, ras le bol de payer pour les banquiers! " pour rassembler un soutien populaire à la résistance des Islandais à l'inique "ordre financier" actuel. ► SIGNEZ LA PETITION ICI
Transcontinental 
The three post-war scenarios regarding EU-US relations
