| Europe finds itself cornered in the stalemate between Washington and Tehran over what is now visibly a 'lose-lose' game after Iran's defiance of two U.N. Security Council Resolutions on the suspension of its uranium enrichment programme. The challenge facing Europe, as world powers meet in Berlin this week to debate new punitive measures against Iran's nuclear program is to 'think outside the box.'
This, of course, means distancing itself from Washington's pressure tactics, which forced Europe into compromising Iran in the earlier Security Council votes. Now, with the failure of the Security Council and financial sanctions imposed unilaterally by the U.S., the ground realities have sunk in: Since Iran is far from softening its position and suspending its nuclear programme, the EU sees the outcome can only be a 'lose-lose' situation. What is now needed for the West is a desperate face-saving device, which Europe strives to embody considering the high stakes involved, and the looming threat of another protracted war in the region led by the neo-con administration in Washington in the region.
Even though the prospects of the war seem to flounder with the US Congress and legislators (plus military brass and even Republicans in the President's Party) in tenterhooks over neo-con belligerence toward Iran, the hallmark of the Bush administration has been its wars of aggression. But Iran continues, in the face of global isolation, to defy the American Goliath. U.S. financial sanctions have failed to force Tehran into compromise and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, stressed the Islamic Republic's stance by stating earlier this week that Tehran was ready to “pay the price” by continuing its nuclear programme. US MILITARY MANOEUVRES IN PERSIAN GULF
Some 'changes of the guard' have taken place in the Persian Gulf area in the U.S. fleet posted there. Two American aircraft carriers – the Dwight D. Eisenhower and cruiser Anzio left the 5th Fleet last Friday, passing through the Suez Canal and ending their mission begun seven months back with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; but the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is en route to the region to join the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, operating in the area since February, deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle also left the Persian Gulf area. While the military configurations realign, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney left on May 8 on a six-day tour of four key Middle East countries, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Egypt.
According to senior American intelligence sources in Washington and the region, the main focus of Cheney's agenda would be a military confrontation with Iran. The Americans calculate on playing the sectarian card, the Shia-Sunni fractiousness rehearsed in Iraq; they also speculate that all four countries, leading Sunni allies of the United States, would submit to Washington's pressure-tactics to ally with Israel. Since Cheney's visit to Riyadh in November 2006, the Vice President and National Security Council Middle East director Elliot Abrams have been forming a regional military and political coalition against Iran. This seems like lame pipedreams considering the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that unite the Islamic world. ISRAELI WAR-GAMES
However, failing to get Arab support, and due to the vast opposition to the Bush policies within the American military, diplomatic and intelligence networks, according to one Arab analyst Cheney, will resort to using the Israeli proxy to launch an attack (if possible) on Iran, for refusing to shut down its nuclear enrichment programme. Israel would trigger the ignominious “9/11” factor, which was used to push the American government and people into launching attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. In brief, this would be the case of the 'runaway ally'. The reasoning behind this is that an Israeli strike against Iran would push the Congress and public into a showdown with Iran since the United States would step in to support Israel.
While the war-drive has dampened somewhat in the U.S. because of the Iraq disaster, some sources confirm preparations for a war-scenario based on recent developments. For instance, in recent months the Bush administration has stepped up its provision to Israel of smart bombs and the latest generation of Patriot anti-missile batteries.
The Israeli war-rhetoric has also escalated. In an interview with the German magazine Focus (April 28) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that Israel had the capacity to launch 1,000 cruise missile strikes against Iranian targets within a ten-day period.
A month ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister, was in Washington for private meetings with Cheney. In a speech addressing the annual convention of the Jewish lobby group, AIPAC, he equated Iran with Nazi Germany in 1938, promising that Israel would strike Iran before the Islamic Republic acquired nuclear weapon-building capability. Netanyahu, a right-wing war-hawk and favourite of the neo-cons, has intensified his campaign of a no-confidence drive in the Knesset to unseat Olmert after the Winograd Commission Interim report made strong criticism of the Olmert government's fiasco in the Lebanon war in summer 2006. Netanyahu is five votes short of the 61 needed to replace Olmert, and according to Israeli polls, his right-wing led coalition would win if early elections were to be held. EUROPE'S STALEMATE
In summer 2006, European diplomats feared an escalation of the Iranian nuclear crisis following Security Council sanctions. Since then, Iran has defied two Chapter VII U.N. Security Council Resolutions to suspend its uranium enrichment programme and has further retaliated by cutting back on cooperation with the IAEA. The end result of the Security Council measures has, indeed, made both parties entrench their positions. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated, “What has been the result of three (UN) Security Council resolutions, two introducing sanctions? Iran has quickened the pace of its peaceful activities and reduced its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency … This can go on, but the result is an escalation of the crisis.”
Further, Iran has proceeded to an expansion of its nuclear programme since the new centrifuges installed can only strengthen Tehran's bargaining power. Also, according to non-proliferation experts, the reality is that Iran will finally achieve the necessary technology necessary, which would dispel any notions of compromise.
These prospects foster the lose-lose situation the West fears most. An 'out of the box' solution is needed for Europe to attempt to end the stand-off. EU High Representative for the Common Foreign Security Policy Javier Solana has publicly called for direct U.S. Iran talks. Moreover, he has stressed that reform of the non proliferation treaty is essential as the case of Iran cannot be isolated from this broader issue. The Europeans have also floated the idea of an international enrichment consortium in Iran, plus other prospects. Tehran's former negotiations with Europe (with suspension of enrichment) have emboldened its stand that the West must also commit to solutions that would not make suspension permanent. THE “FREEZE FOR FREEZE” SOLUTION
There have been two phases in Iran's position vis-à-vis Europe: prior negotiations led Tehran to believe that “objective criteria” would allow Iran to exercise its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, provided the necessary guarantees certifying its programme was strictly civilian.
But as European bias tilted in favour of Washington, which demanded that acceptable criteria would make Iran suspend uranium enrichment altogether, Tehran found itself both in a bind and compromised by the EU. Now, Tehran continues to reject the call for suspension of any framework that deprives Iran of its uranium production. The alternative Europe faces in the current gridlock between Washington and Tehran is to revive an idea floated last summer which was the “freeze-for-freeze” solution. This required both sides to freeze their activities from any further development without stopping them altogether. Iran would then be allowed to 'freeze' its programme without suspending it, meaning it could continue its current nuclear development without expanding the programme by adding new centrifuges.
Meanwhile, Washington would be pacified since the U.N. sanctions against Iran would remain intact, as it was difficult for the U.S. to get the UNSC to take the sanctions route. This course would not oblige Washington to confront Russian and Chinese resistance to new sanctions. However, the caveat to this solution would be that the Security Council measures would also be frozen under the 'freeze-for-freeze' directive. While still at its nascent stage, promoters of the 'freeze-for-freeze' concept believe that war-fatigue may eventually set in with opposition against Bush policies, and another lose-lose situation in Southwest Asia. | 
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر