Iran is locked head-to-head with America not only over the nuclear question, but also the future of Iraq, writes Rasha Saad Following the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) resolution last week -- which paves the way for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear activities -- Iran's conservative-dominated parliament took steps towards adopting a bill that would oblige the Iranian government to forestall implementing the additional protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), allowing for snap UN inspections of nuclear facilities. Iran signed the protocol in 2003 but has not ratified it. Russia urged Iran on Monday to ratify the protocol with a statement from the Foreign Ministry stating: "The voluntary adoption by Iran of the conditions in the document would be an extremely important measure of trust, the rejection of which would not help regulate the Iranian nuclear problem in the context of the IAEA." Iran has threatened to resume uranium enrichment for what it insists is a peaceful nuclear energy programme while the US suspects the Islamic Republic of attempting to obtain a nuclear bomb. Opposition from Russia and China, which both have large trading interests in Iran, blocked swift referral during the IAEA meeting. Only Venezuela voted against the watered-down resolution. Developing nations mostly abstained expressing their resentment at what they perceive as unfairness as the IAEA cracks down on Iran while US ally Israel, believed to be the only nuclear-equipped military power in the Middle East, avoids any such scrutiny. Indeed, the IAEA conference rejected discussion of "Israeli nuclear capabilities and threat," as proposed in a resolution by Oman, despite a strong push for this by 15 Arab states plus the Palestinian Authority. Israel has not signed the NPT and neither confirms nor denies reports that it has some 200 plus atomic bombs. Any move to bring Iran to the Security Council will not occur before the IAEA governors meets in November. Tehran froze its enrichment programme two years ago as a "confidence building measure" amid talks with the European Union on guaranteeing the safety of its nuclear programme. However, since new hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory, Iran is regarded as having hardened its position by rejecting proposals to abandon fuel cycle technology in return for incentives and resuming uranium conversion work. Meanwhile, not every one in Iran is happy with the current stance. Moderate Iranian politicians have signalled reservations over how the regime, now under the total control of right- wingers, is handling the nuclear issue. Failed Iranian presidential contender Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani appealed to Tehran's hard-line authorities to exercise restraint in the standoff with the West over the country's nuclear activities. In a sermon to worshippers at Tehran University, the moderate conservative said the dispute surrounding allegations Iran is seeking nuclear weapons was "very serious" and called on the regime to show "patience and wisdom". "It is about diplomacy rather than slogans," said Rafsanjani, who remains the head of Iran's Expediency Council, a top political arbitration body. In apparent reference to the IAEA, he added: "You will not get anything from frightening resolutions. We should sit, talk and reach confidence. For many political analysts the victory of Ahmadinejad might very well signal an end to Iranian flexibility, particularly when it comes to issues which for all Iranians are matter of national dignity, such as Iran's quest for nuclear energy. According to Daniel Brumberg, special advisor to the US Institute of Peace's Muslim World Initiative, the previous Iranian administration, under the influence of Rafsanjani, approached the question of non-proliferation pragmatically, using it as leverage in negotiations with the US. But Ahmadinejad and his allies seem far more ideological and thus far less inclined to see the pursuit of a nuclear fuel cycle as a bargaining chip in relations with the West. "Thus [Iran] has asserted an absolute right to pursue nuclear enrichment activities despite -- or indeed precisely because of -- mounting pressures against it," Brumberg said. He added that the current Bush administration, not to mention Washington's European allies, hoped that the reformist Rafsanjani would win the Iranian presidential elections and thus open the door to continuing American coordination with Europe and proxy negotiations with Iran. But the victory of Ahmadinejad, Brumberg argues, has consolidated the power of a conservative clerical establishment whose very successes can be partly attributed to the Bush administration's public efforts to link its campaign to bring democracy to Iraq to its struggle against the Islamic Republic. Indeed, many believe that the critical triangle of Iraq, Iran and the United States is not separable from the nuclear saga. In fact, US difficulties in Iraq -- together with high world oil prices -- are regarded as emboldening Tehran in the midst of the storm. The Institute of Peace convened a meeting of the Iraq Working Group and Muslim World Initiative to discuss the Iraq-Iran-US triangle earlier this month. The panel sought to map the interests driving both Iranian and American engagement in Iraq and found a decisive link between Tehran's approach to the nuclear question and Washington's evolving position in Iraq. Indeed, as Geoffrey Kemp, director of Regional Strategic Programs at the Nixon Center points out, since the invasion in 2003, Iran's willingness to cooperate on the nuclear issue has been directly related to the success of the US military campaign on the ground. A stable Iraq and a fall in oil prices, according to Kemp, would encourage Iran's leaders to cooperate with the US and Europe. But if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate and oil remains at exorbitant prices, Iran will be less inclined to compromise. Iranian "involvement in Iraq" has lately alarmed several Arab countries. Saudi Arabia expressed concern that Iran is meddling in Iraq's political arena. "Iraqis are complaining of interference by Iran. If there is indeed such interference, especially in [southern Iraqi] provinces neighbouring Iran, that would be quite serious," Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal said during a visit to the US late September. Iran, which described such remarks as "surprising and irrational", is scheduled to send Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to Saudi Arabia for talks on the situation. Meanwhile, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr did not take Saudi statements lightly; saying "some Bedouin riding a camel" would not lecture Iraq, "the cradle of civilisation". "We will not allow anyone to interfere in our internal issues, regardless of their political status," he said. Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari was quick to apologise for Jabr's statements. Zebari was, however, very critical of the Arab League -- whose Secretary-General Amr Moussa is reportedly planning to visit Iraq -- saying it had not done enough to help Iraq cope with the violence it has been suffering since the US-led invasion in 2003. Political analysts who believe that the Iranian influence in Iraq is rather due to Arab shortcomings share this view. Saudi columnist Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote in the daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that the Iranian presence was merely a result of the absence of balanced Arab states from the Iraqi arena ever since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. According to Al-Rashed, for two years now, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have refrained from interfering in Iraqi affairs, especially considering the presence of American occupation. Al-Rashed believes that given the swift downfall of the former regime, a vacuum was created. "This Iranian infatuation with Iraq was paralleled with Gulf reserve and Egyptian refrain, ending with the miserable status quo in Iraq." Al-Rashed adds that, regretfully, Arabs concerned with Iraq are consumed by the American occupation with little consideration of the fact that American forces may evacuate at any given point during the next three years. "They do not imagine that if the American troops leave Iraqi soil, this will automatically lead to an Iranian hegemony over Iraq, as it is Iraq's most influential neighbour."
