Salama A Salama Iran's possession of nuclear technology, or even its ability to produce nuclear weapons, is not a danger to Egypt or the Arab world, nor is it in our interest to see a war breaking out over Iran's nuclear programme. What is good for us is to have the West and the US reach an agreement with Iran by which the latter would be able to develop its nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes and in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If this means that Iran would acquire enough nuclear knowledge to deter Israel, that's even better. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel's destruction is not the reason for the current escalation, in which Barack Obama abandoned diplomatic means and took Israel's side. Obama has ditched every promise he made at the beginning of his term with regards to Iran as well as the Palestinian problem. The real reason for the change in US policy is the newfound power of the neocons, who want regime change in Tehran. The success of the conservatives has weakened Obama's determination to resolve the Iranian problem through diplomatic means. As for what the neocons want, you may have heard Sarah Palin call for the bombardment of nuclear facilities in Iran. During the recent Munich Security Conference, Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, called for either heavy sanctions on Iran or military action. Iran had agreed to uranium enrichment in Russia and France. It then objected to the method and amount of delivery. Then, on its national day, Iran promised to start enriching uranium to 20 per cent. It also refused to send nearly three quarters of its uranium reserves (1,200 out of 1,600 kilogrammes) to Russia and France for enrichment, demanding that the quantities involved be smaller. This request -- quite a reasonable one considering the constant threats against Iran and the existing mistrust among all the parties concerned -- is what set off the current crisis. The West was gripped by panic when Iran said that it would enrich uranium to 20 per cent, a ratio that is good only for medical use. For weapons-grade production, the ratio should be more than 90 per cent. Still, the West disliked Iran's defiant tone and couldn't tolerate its resolve to protect its interests. The West is now threatening economic and financial sanctions, sending US navy vessels to the Gulf, and deploying US missiles in Gulf states, all of which add to the tension. Israel, not to be outdone, is making threats of its own. China, Brazil and Turkey have all advised caution and said that dialogue with Iran must continue. The Arabs, meanwhile, can't seem to make up their mind. Actually, the Arab position on Iran reminds me of the Arab position on Iraq, when some Arabs warned of military action while others offered facilities to the invading armies. I have the nagging feeling that the same thing may happen again in Iran's case. At present, some Arabs say that Israel is using Iran's nuclear threat as an excuse to shirk its peace commitments. This is nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Take the case of India and Pakistan. It is their nuclear parity that keeps them from going to war. So I would think that a nuclear parity between Israel and Iran has every chance of deterring Israel's belligerence in the region. Recently, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa urged the Arabs to talk to Iran about security arrangements in the region. This is a good idea, for we don't want to do with Iran what we've done with Iraq.
