Avoiding war with Iran may cost Obama the Jewish-American vote, and perhaps the presidency, writes Ayman El-Amir* Iran's three-day military exercises in the southern Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, dubbed "the Greatest Prophet", were a defiant message to several Iran watchers. The primary target is a response to escalating Israeli and US pressure and intimidation tactics. A secondary message to the Gulf Arab states is that Iran will be a tough nut to crack if it is attacked by either the US or Israel. It is capable of land and sea retaliation against US military bases and warships in the Gulf. In a separate message, the Revolutionary Guard wanted to reignite Iranian patriotism weakened following the last parliamentary elections and the clashes they triggered. In times of crisis, nothing is more effective in rallying a nation than a show of military power in the face of external threats. Israeli-driven Western confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme is becoming not only more complicated but militarily more uncertain. In early April, the US convened a 47-nation summit conference on nuclear security to which it invited its allies, excluded Iran and North Korea and excused Israel, the most controversial nuclear state, for rebuffing President Obama's invitation. Iran responded with a 60- nation conference in Tehran in which Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei labelled the US "a nuclear criminal" for having used nuclear bombs against Japan at the end of World War II. The conference in Washington was about nuclear non-proliferation -- stopping the spread of nuclear capability to nations and groups not now possessing them. The conference in Tehran was about nuclear disarmament, including superpower states possessing and stockpiling nuclear weapons. While it is doubtful that either conference has won new converts, Israel was conspicuously absent. To keep Israeli nuclear capability off the agenda, the Washington conference focused attention on the implausible threat of nuclear technology, or components thereof, falling into the hands of terrorist organisations. It followed a Hollywood thriller movie script that indirectly pointed a finger at both Iran and North Korea as possible suppliers. In Tehran, the conference called upon Israel to join the 1968 UN Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iranian-US sparring is not about nuclear weapon capability or Iran's unproven violation of the NPT, but about dominance in the power politics of the Middle East-Gulf region. Unlike the Gulf Cooperation Council's emirates, Iran is unwilling to submit to US-Israeli hegemony. Israel is leading the US and the West by the nose to break Iran's growing influence that threatens to check the Israeli power of aggression. The sinister equation presented by the US and Israel is that Iran is a threat to international peace and security because of the suspicion that its uranium enrichment programme is designed to develop a nuclear weapon capability. Based on Israeli paranoia, Iran is deemed in violation of the NPT and should be brought to heel, preferably by military attack. By comparison, Israel, a universally acknowledged nuclear power with a sufficient stockpile to annihilate most of the globe, is let off the hook because by not signing the NPT it is not required to report anything or submit to any monitoring. It does not matter how much aggression it has committed, how much Arab territory it occupies and how many Palestinians it kills or cleanses every day. Israeli nuclear weapon capability hardly comes under scrutiny. Such is the politics of colonial power. In preparing for punitive UN Security Council action the US is maximising the threat of Iran. Pentagon officials loyal to Israel have leaked intelligence estimates that by 2015 Iran would be capable of developing inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that could reach the US. Iran's minister of defence, Ahmad Vahidi, denied the allegation. Another report published by The New York Times claimed that a secret memorandum written by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the White House in January warned that the US has no effective long-range policy to thwart Iran's progress towards acquiring nuclear weapon capability. Israel tirelessly broaches the same claim to Western allies and to its friendly Arab neighbours and wins their support. It is pushing for military action against Tehran. The Obama administration is building a case against Iran to elicit Security Council sanctions. It is not far- fetched that it may be building a scenario parallel to that conceived by the Bush administration's neo- conservatives that eventually led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on bogus Israeli-inspired claims of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. More than in the case of Iraq, the US will have to carry the votes of at least four recalcitrant members of the Council: the veto-wielding Russia and China in addition to Turkey and Brazil. A veto by at least China would kill the draft resolution for further sanctions. However, when China disagrees with a draft it usually abstains. Short of a veto, the US could be denied a majority vote if the draft receives the support of less than 10 members of the council. In addition to Russia and China, the position of Turkey, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico and possibly Lebanon is uncertain. Or the sanctions provisions could be so diluted to garner support that it would not seriously affect Iran. On the other hand, this is what happened in the weeks preceding the invasion of Iraq -- the US, the UK and their allies failed to garner a simple majority vote to support the invasion. They went ahead with their war plans anyway. At the end of the rope, the Obama administration may have to accept the status of Iran as a potential nuclear power that has the ability to assemble a nuclear weapon from readily available components. In a similar vein, the Nixon administration accepted in 1972 a vague Israeli statement over its manufacture of nuclear weapons to the effect that "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East". It was a benign disclaimer masking a veiled threat. To date, this is the public policy of Israel that the US does not seek to clarify or investigate. The US will often gloss over nuclear weapon development activities when it suits its interests. It did so in the case of India and Pakistan. It imposed mild sanctions on India that it has now lifted and looked the other way when Pakistan was developing its nuclear weapons capability. In the early 1980s, Pakistan was a vital corridor to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan for the Saudi- financed, CIA-trained mujahidin who launched a holy war against the Soviet occupation. The Reagan administration then diverted the attention of Congress from Pakistan's nuclear activities for fear that it may impose sanctions that could end Pakistan's cooperation with anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan. From the Reagan administration's perspective, defeating the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan was more important than Pakistan's development of a nuclear weapon capability, or the NPT for that matter. According to Pentagon officials, the possibility of military action against Iran is still on the table. Israel is hassling for it and would be glad to take that enormous risk if only the US could wink the eye and protect it against an international backlash. It is a hazardous proposition that involves logistical difficulties and military risks. It would have to involve US support of mid-air refuelling of Israeli fighter-bombers and Saudi cooperation in allowing Israeli planes to use a narrow strip of its airspace on the way to Iran. Saudi Arabia has a vital interest in seeing the growth of Iranian power pared down, but not to risk Iranian retaliation, despite the US supply of Patriot anti-missile batteries. In the course of its military manoeuvres, Iran renewed its offer of mutual security pacts with Gulf Arab states. But they prefer US protection. Despite the difficult scenarios, all doors are not closed to the Obama administration. It may do well to muster some courage and drag Israel to an all-party international conference on declaring the Middle East a nuclear free zone, with proper monitoring and inspection mechanisms. The bottom line is that President Obama may have to be prepared to forego a second term through the Jewish-American stranglehold on the American polity. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington DC. He also served as director of the United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
