Its leaders try not to flinch, but a few more steps will make certain a potentially devastating military strike on Iran, writes Hussain Abdul-Hussain* The probability and timing of a military strike against Iran have produced an unprecedented amount of literature and speculation. But the line the West has drawn for Iran's nuclear ambitions is obvious and gives away the date of a strike. Since the first day Iran announced its intentions to enrich uranium for peaceful civilian use, which can be also used in the making of nuclear bombs, the West has been divided into two. The first camp, led mainly by diplomats of the European Union, believes that it is possible to diffuse the standoff with Iran through talks. A majority of European governments believe that should the West give Iran enough incentives, including shipments of uranium, economic aid packages and some regional hegemony, Tehran would stop its domestic enrichment. The second camp, led by Washington's hawks and the Israelis, who believe a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to their country, has pushed for military action against Iran's nuclear sites and infrastructure. These hawks believe that while it might be nearly impossible for a strike to wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities, it would at least break Iran's backbone and would force Tehran to dedicate its resources to recovery, and as such forget its nuclear and regional ambitions for a while. The West and its divisions on Iran are clear. Both the pro-talks doves and the pro-strike hawks have drawn "a line in the sand", to use the words of former US president George W H Bush when he warned late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait. Should Iran cross the line, the West will see to it that it be pounded even more fiercely than its Iraqi neighbour had to suffer in 1991. The Iranian leadership, on the other hand, has so far adopted a poker face. What does the Iranian leadership think will happen if it persists with enrichment? Do Iranian leaders believe their own propaganda about the decline of American military power and the rise of their own? Whether the Iranian leadership realises or not the consequences of its defiance and the devastating magnitude of a war cannot be determined at this point. Tehran should know, however, that the Western line is not drawn where Tehran starts enriching uranium, but where the Iranians acquire domestic knowledge for doing so. So far, Western intelligence does not believe that the Iranians are capable, yet, of enrichment. But intelligence agencies expect Iran to be able to do so in a matter of months. The day this happens and Iran announces it, or the word gets out discreetly to Western capitals, will be the day of the strike on Iran. The Iranian leadership should realise that enrichment is the point of no return, for if Iran acquires enrichment technology diplomatic talks will be rendered useless. The West will not offer a nuclear Iran more incentives, but would rather deal with Tehran as a new threat; enter the hawks and their military solutions. While some might argue that Tehran bets on world divisions, and the weakness of the United States whose army is bogged down in Iraq, to get away with enrichment without punitive military measures, such arguments do not support suggestions that a divided West and a weak America are incapable of hurting Iran. America might have its army busy in Iraq, its economy might be strained and facing bumps, but its air force is as free as a bird and its B-52s can still raze Iranian cities in hours. The Iranians should not deceive themselves with their own military propaganda, whose images are being engineered on computer software to add effects of prowess. The Iranian military is no match in a confrontation with American power, even if Hizbullah, Syria and Hamas enter the fray. It might be understandable that politicians such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah employ propaganda and populist slogans to rally popular support. But for Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah to actually believe that their military powers are the equal of those of America, Israel and the West would be a grave mistake and tantamount to committing suicide. Iran and its allies in the region should realise that America and the West are not as weak as they seem. Perhaps America is in decline, but it is still not finished yet. And until American firepower is matched or overwhelmed by competing nations or its military technology outdated, American paws will remain strong, whether the American use of such power is ethically justified or not. And it is advisable for Ahmadinejad and his regional protégés to think twice before messing with such power, not because we wish to see him defeated, but because any such war will send all the peoples of the region into an era of darkness that would make the current miserable situation look like the age of enlightenment. * The writer is a journalist in Washington, DC.
