RECIPE FOR WAR

"I wish I might" - this phrase best describes current attempts by the West to resolve the crisis over Iranian nuclear programme.

Logical conclusions

One year has passed since the world began to expect US Armed Forces' strikes against Iran. Back then, everyone was worried as they watched what the Americans were doing, what their leaders were saying and where their aircraft carriers were moving in the Persian Gulf. Politicians, political analysts and journalists engaged in heated debates on the possible consequences of a military attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. Various lists of those facilities and all types of secret plans were published; they were presumably compiled and developed by the Pentagon. Even dates for the launch of the military operation were mentioned.

Naturally, hardly anyone doubted - or doubts now - that the United States has these lists and plans. And no one doubts that Iran, too, has plans to retaliate in case of invasion. But, thank God, common sense has prevailed for now and a third world war (which, many people think, will begin if Iran is attacked) remains just a journalists' scare story.

However, threats towards Iran have been resumed for more than a month now. It is difficult to call them direct threats, however: their gist is that Iran is presumably preparing a nuclear attack against Israel and, if it happens, the "heavy artillery", in the form of the United States, will enter the arena.

But this type of approach raises greatest concerns. After all, if we think logically and use the information available from the same Western sources, there is a long way to go before Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Besides, despite the fact that the Iranian nuclear dossier has been on the agenda for quite some time now, no one - be it the US secret services, the IAEA, or the EU - has come up with a coherent answer to the question of whether Tehran is really working on a nuclear weapons project. But why, then, is the hypothetical possibility of an Iranian attack against Israel discussed so much now?

Again, looking at how Tehran behaves in the face of the hostile attitude toward it, which is fully reciprocated, it is hard to believe the statements by the officials of the Islamic Republic that the country's nuclear programme is purely peaceful. Nuclear weapons would almost certainly make the ruling regime immune to acts of military aggression and would strengthen its position in the international political arena. Iran is not North Korea.  It is quite an independent and economically developed country....

The issue of Israel's security directly influences the domestic political situation in the United States (especially now, during the presidential campaign) and, therefore, it influences international politics too. The US presidential candidates and the incumbent president are literally struggling to outdo one another in issuing threats to Iran "if it attacks Israel."

Israel, too, adds fuel to the flames by supplying the international community with reports from its intelligence services and openly says that the Iranian nuclear programme cannot be stopped by any other means than by strong-arm methods.

Against this background Iran, which has sensed that the threat has again become real, recently made a statement on the successful testing of its medium-range Shahab-3 missile. Specialists say that its range of 2,500 kilometres makes these missiles dangerous, not only for the entire Near East, but also for areas far beyond the region. The range is at least sufficient to attack many targets which are of strategic interest to the Americans.

Vicious circle

The EU has been in a state of uneasy anticipation for some time now. This has resulted in the involvement of the main member states of this union, which are usually quite cumbersome and slow in making important decisions, in talks with Iran. Meetings are regular and always fruitless, but they are a good way for the Old World to win time. A military operation in Iran would bring even more problems for the European nations, which are going through tough times as it is because of the unprecedented high cost of oil. In case of any instability in the Persian Gulf or nearby regions, energy prices will certainly skyrocket beyond all previous limits.

The latest round of talks, which started on 19 July, ended a couple of days later without result. The six nations, which expressed their readiness to offer Iran economic benefits and supplies of fuel for nuclear power stations in return for Tehran's agreement not to enrich uranium, experienced nothing but frenzied resistance. As always, Iran was given time to reconsider its decision: the latest deadline will expire in early August and then the Islamic Republic might suffer the imposition of  new sanctions or the tightening of the current ones.

It has to be said, to be fair, that the UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran with enviable regularity and without any special resistance from countries such as Russia or China. But no one has seen any practical results yet from the Security Council sanctions.

In addition, Iran is broadening its cooperation with Moscow despite the sanctions. Just a short time ago, Moscow and Tehran agreed to create a joint venture to develop oil and gas projects in Iran. So Tehran realizes that there is not even a semblance of unity in the camp of nations which denounce its nuclear programme in the Security Council and, if it comes to using harsher methods against Iran, there will always be a country or two to block such a decision. Tehran does not fear any new - and essentially half-way effective - sanctions which might be imposed on that country.

It can be said with certainty, therefore, that a vicious circle has emerged on the issue of the Iranian nuclear problem.

Illusions are dispelled

Nonetheless, all the parties concerned clearly understand that time is on Iran's side and therefore that a solution to the problem has to found as soon as possible. After all, there is quite a real threat of a new nuclear power with an aggressive attitude towards the present world order in general and some of its neighbours in particular.

This understanding is particularly clear in the United States and Israel. But US politicians, who are up to their necks in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, are currently unable to provide full-fledged domestic support to a new military campaign. The illusion of a victorious war has long since been dispelled from the minds of the American public. And the colossal costs of combat operations, not to mention casualties among the military, have become increasingly more apparent in the context of economic recession in the United States. This has all resulted in more acute internal confrontation within American society, as clearly demonstrated by the fiasco of Congress elections for the ruling party, the unprecedented low approval ratings of President George Bush, whom parliament threatens with impeachment every month and a rift in the ruling team itself. The CIA report, of which we have written in the past, and which, contradicting the Bush administration, claimed that Iran had stopped its development of nuclear weapons, is further testimony. This factor was the main obstacle to the desire of the "Texan cowboy," which is what the incumbent president is called in the United States, to launch a new war. Mindful of the disparagement of the lies about the non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq, which triggered the military campaign in that country, President Bush could not afford to make the same mistake again.

Nonetheless, the United States has not abandoned its search for new excuses. And an "Israeli act of provocation" might prove to be of good service to the American "hawks." The most dangerous time will come before the end of George Bush's term of office.

The simplest way of starting a war would be precisely by "working through Israel." Any damage to Israel, even if provoked by Tel-Aviv, would automatically forge a consensus in the United States on the need for emergency military intervention, with all the appropriate consequences. It is clear that any politician - whether in the White House or aspiring to be there - would be coerced into supporting a military campaign to "defend Israel from Iranian aggression."

However, if Israel takes "preventive measures" against Iran first, it will be very difficult for the Americans to enlist the support of both the UN Security Council and the EU. And in the current situation, the Americans could launch combat operations on their own, but not continue them, let alone end a war victoriously. They would need wide international support to achieve that. In other words, it is necessary to provoke Iran. But Iran, to the great regret of the American hawks, is not particularly keen to react to acts of provocation, although one would be hard pressed to accuse Tehran of deliberate diplomatic taciturnity either.

Furthermore, Iran is not Iraq and still less - Afghanistan. A decisive victory over the incumbent Iranian regime would need support inside the country. But there is no such support. Attempts to play the card of the large ethnic Azeri minority in Iran were doomed from the outset: in the face of a foreign threat, the Iranian people forget their ethnic backgrounds. But the Americans have not forgotten such an important factor.

"Stage directors" from across the ocean

Some analysts monitoring Turkey's domestic political situation say that there exists a foreign catalyst in the ongoing confrontation between the ruling party on the one hand and the military and supporters of a secular regime on the other.

The incumbent Ankara Government, which has demonstrated enviable independence on a whole range of issues in its relations with the United States, cannot be to the liking of American politicians. The Iraq campaign and combat against Kurdish terrorists, in which Ankara effectively forced Washington to take heed of its opinion, and cooperation with Iran are among the controversial issues.

Ankara has long since ended its dependence on Washington and often does what Washington does not want it to do. Losing a very important political ally in a very important region is bound to be of concern for Washington strategists.

That is why there exists an opinion that the situation in Turkey, including attempts to ban the ruling party, is to some extent controlled and supported from across the ocean. Some analysts think that this is being done to bring a government to power in the country which would be loyal to the United States and which would revise Turkey's foreign political course, including towards Iran.

Expectations that a new Turkish Government would review its relations with Islamic - and mostly Shia - Iran might indeed come true.

And then an act of provocation might occur, which would lead to a military conflict between the two countries. If that happened, the Turkish Army would spearhead NATO's efforts against Iran. And supporters of this scenario think - and not without good reason - that Turkish troops would not be regarded as hostile by their brethren, Iranian Turkic peoples, who might join the coalition.

This is just the opinion of some analysts. But it has the same right to exist as the opinion that Israel will become the main catalyst of a new armed conflict (especially given the current situation in Turkey and its relations with the United States). Which scenario will be chosen hinges on two factors: how remote, in the Americans' view, is the prospect of nuclear weapons coming into Tehran's hands, and how an Iran campaign might serve the purposes of different groups within the US political elite.

Unfortunately, the list of "either-ors" is not confined to the two above-mentioned factors alone: very different interests of very different nations and political groups have become too intertwined over the Iran problem. As chemists sometimes say, the "entire periodical table is there."

But one thing is clear: the Iran issue is hotting up once more. We might be eyewitnesses of very important developments as early as the presidential campaign in the United States...