Iranian one-upmanship could yet prove disastrous for the entire region, writes Mustafa El-Feki* Iran and its nuclear programme have become the West's major obsession now that Tehran has thrown down the gauntlet in such a way as to propel the case before the Security Council. The general concern stems from Tehran's ideological outlook, which has Israel believing it will be the first target of Iranian nuclear weapons. Compounding the anxiety is Iran's growing political and strategic clout, due in considerable measure to American policy in the Middle East. There is no doubt that the US-led invasion of Iraq performed a major service for Iran. It rid Tehran of an implacable foe, in the person of Saddam Hussein, who had initiated a protracted war against Iran that morally and materially drained both sides over a period of eight years, and it strengthened the hand of Iraq's Shia, thereby bolstering Tehran's influence over the predominantly Shia south of Iraq and over Iraqi policy in general. Prior to that the US had done Iran another favour by overthrowing the Sunni Taliban regime in Kabul. Iran increasingly appears to be in a position to hold its own against the West, all the more so now that it knows the US is too mired in Iraq to open another front in its "war against terrorism" and that any attempt by the US to move militarily against Iran would encounter vigorous opposition in the Middle East and elsewhere. Still, the Iranian situation is not as straightforward as it might appear. Above all, the Iranian regime is not some throwback to an absolutist mediaeval theocracy, as it is often depicted in the West. In fact, when I visited the country several years ago, I was astounded by the vast disparity between what I saw and impressions gleaned from what I had read about Iran. I found a modern, relatively cohesive society, where almost everything was open to vigorous public debate, where women participated in political life at all levels and whose cinema industry is, after India, the second most important in Asia. I was further surprised to learn that Iran has the most successful family planning programme in the Islamic world. Politically and strategically Iran has concerns other than Israel. The situation in the Gulf and Central Asia is tense and unstable. Pakistan is striving to follow the Turkish model in dealing with political Islam; the Gulf states are in the grip of political and social change; and Syria, Tehran's foremost Arab ally, is under threat. All of these factors combine to propel Iran, especially under such a hardline leader as Ahmadinejad, towards a more confrontational stance against the West. At the same time, although the regime in Tehran is politically and ideologically opposed to the Zionist state it has no great enthusiasm for the Arabs. It is sufficient, here, to recall the stand it took with regard to what it insists on terming the Persian Gulf and its readiness to escalate tensions with the Arabs on certain issues. Tehran is both pragmatic and dogged in its pursuit of its primary objective, which is to become the major power in Western Asia and the primary player in the Gulf. This ambition has undoubtedly contributed to Western worries but this anxiety is not a recent phenomenon. The US and its Middle East foreign policy architect, Israel, have long been wary of Islamic fundamentalism, which they have virtually reduced to the concept of jihad (Holy War), as they define it, and which they fear is conducive to reckless behaviour and terrorism. They are, therefore, determined to keep military nuclear technology out of Iranian hands at all costs. Significantly, however, French President Jacques Chirac recently hinted that his country might resort to the nuclear option against any power that threatened to use nuclear arms against France. Clearly Paris, along with other members of the nuclear club, shares Washington's concern over Iranian nuclear activity. I am among those who believe that, ultimately, might conquers courage and technological and economic superiority overcomes even the most steadfast of adversaries. The overconfidence that Tehran is currently displaying is particularly worrisome. It brings to mind recent cases of other headstrong regimes that attempted to lock horns with the US, leading to catastrophic results. Even if we presume that Iran possesses chemical weapons and long-range missiles, the tragedy would probably play out the same way, for the West and its allies, including Russia, invariably closes ranks as tensions reach a critical point in any confrontation with a party from the Third World. As a result the brinkmanship in which Iran is engaged is not so much a reflection of its actual strength as it is an expression of values and principles that these days are not very marketable. But even if Iran is playing with fire it is important to bear in mind several considerations. Firstly, no sane person can believe that the US will risk a military invasion and possible occupation of Iran, or even parts of Iranian territory. The Iraqi experience offers the best testimony to the impossibility of this scenario and besides, the circumstances surrounding the Iranian crisis are entirely different to those that prevailed at the time of the invasion of Iraq. This leads me to believe that if any power is going to attempt to strike Iran it will be Israel. Tel Aviv has been hurling accusations against Tehran and Damascus, charging them with having masterminded recent suicide bombings in Israel. It is Israel's habit to issue such propaganda before taking dramatic action. In addition Israel, which struck an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, would undoubtedly be tempted to repeat the experience against Iran's nuclear facilities, heavily fortified though they are, if it thinks the international and regional circumstances are propitious. While the US and its allies might entertain the possibility of regime change in Damascus they realise that Tehran is another kettle of fish entirely. They would even find it difficult to cripple the Iranian state and back it into a corner where they could have greater control over its political and military decisions. Iran, like Iraq, is a proud and intractable country. The Arab world is watching the Iranian-Western confrontation with mixed feelings. Most Arab governments, which have close ties with the US, are reluctant to become involved. Contributing to this are the deep suspicions they harbour against Iran, for while Tehran might take the Arab side in the Arab- Israeli conflict the rest of its political agenda does not conform with Arab aims. Iran has denied that it has ambitions to create a so-called "Shia crescent" but there is ample evidence that it is trying to extend its influence in the Eastern part of the Arab world and that it has the resources to achieve this. It is little wonder, therefore, that other Gulf countries do not share Iran's enthusiasm for its nuclear programme. Indeed, a recent exchange of letters between the secretary-general of the Arab League and the secretary-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) strongly suggests that the governments of the GCC are more alarmed at the prospect of Iran gaining possession of a nuclear capacity than they are at Israel's already existing nuclear arsenal. This may explain why leaders of the Gulf states have been airing a proposal to transform the Gulf -- as opposed to the entire Middle East -- into a WMD-free zone. Even bearing these considerations in mind, Tehran seems set on a precarious course at a particularly perilous time. Indeed, the leaders of the Islamic revolutionary regime seem determined to antagonise the West, announcing that the Jewish holocaust was a myth and the state of Israel should be shipped off to central Europe instead of being allowed to invade Arab territory and desecrate Muslim and Christian holy sites. Against the volatile regional backdrop of an explosive situation in Iraq, Iran's western neighbour, instability in Afghanistan, Iran's eastern neighbour; the likelihood of other upheavals in the Middle East; not to mention the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict that will probably continue to drag on for years, a voice of reason is direly needed. This does not appear to exist, at present, in the Iranian regime, whose one-upmanship may be the source of current tensions in the Gulf and of the next conflagration in that area. * The writer is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the People's Assembly.
