Musa Keilani -Jordan - May 5, 2006

DIFFERENTIATING between rhetoric and actual intentions
in the US-Iran confrontation over Tehran`s nuclear
programme has become intensely difficult. On the one
hand, Iran has cranked up the intensity of what could
be nothing but provocation to the US and Israel. It is
as if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, having
concluded that Iran is targeted for regime change by
the US, is daring the US and Israel to stage military
strikes against his country.

If that is indeed the case, then his strategy is based
on a conviction that the Iranians, who are in no
position to launch a military offensive against the
US,  could draw the Americans into starting military
action. Such action would justify a "defensive" war by
Iran that could prove catastrophic for the US, given
the American military and non-military exposure in
Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.

American analysts speculate that more US soldiers than
those who lost their lives in the invasion and
occupation of Iraq so far could die in a matter of
weeks if not days as a result of military action
against Iran. It does not matter for the Iranian
leadership how many Iranians and pro-Iranians could
die since the Iranian mindset has an intense focus on
martyrdom.

Beyond military casualties, the chain of events
sparked by US military action against Iran could shoot
up international oil prices through the roof, and this
could pull the rug under the feet of the US dollar,
the key currency in which oil is traded around the
world. If the dollar collapses at this point in time,
which is highly improbable, so does the American
 economy, throwing chaos in the
international scene. Again, that expectation, coupled
with the awareness that the US could not but be
mindful of the eventuality, could be a central pillar
of Ahmedinejad`s strategy. If the US pulls back from
the brink and puts off military plans against Iran,
then it would also be touted as a major victory by the
Iranian leadership.

On the other hand, the US, despite having the most
advanced and sophisticated spying technology,  does
not seem to have any clue about Iran`s nuclear
programmes except what has been reported by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Veteran
members of the US congressional intelligence
committees have already admitted that there is no way
the US could determine how far the Iranians have gone
ahead with their nuclear programme. They have asserted
that US intelligence network simply lacks the
capability to secure accurate information on Iran`s
nuclear activities.

The painful and embarrassing truth ~which also
exposes the gaping shortcomings in US intelligence
work ~is also prodding Washington into undertaking a
military adventure against Iran. At the same time, to
propagate that the world is in the dark about Iran`s
plans also suits the US strategy because it could
always cite the benefit of the doubt in favour of
action against Iran , Whatever considerations the US might have, Israel,
which is determined not to allow any Middle Eastern
power other than itself to have a nuclear programme,
is straining to hold back itself from staging in Iran a repeat
 of the 1981 attack that demolished Iraq`s sole
nuclear reactor. Israeli lobbyists are hard at work in
Washington, hyping up the "Iranian nuclear threat" and
lobbying for military action against Iran. Leading and
misleading interpretations of Iran`s strategy are
being sown around in order to create murky waters to be
exploited and to benefit Israel`s objective of using the
US military to wage war for the sake of Tel Aviv.

Whatever is happening in the United Nations Security
Council is only a build-up to realising the
American/Israeli objective. Although the draft
resolution that was being circulated in the council by
the US and France last week  whether it was adopted
or otherwise  does not call for sanctions against
Iran. Obviously, imposing sanctions would be countered
by Iranian moves to create an acute crisis in the
international oil market and hence there is no call
for sanctions in the resolution.

However, the sinister implication is inherent in the
reference to  Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It is yet
another step towards the use of force against Iran
since Chapter 7 can authorise economic sanctions and
the use of force in cases of threats to international
peace and security. The question is here whether the
Iranian nuclear programme poses such a threat, but
then the US has reserved the right for itself to be
the sole judge in such matters. The obvious conclusion
is that the US would, at some point sooner than later,
would cite the resolution as a justification for its
planned military action against Iran.

Russia and China might make a lot of noise
particularly against the reference to Chapter 7 ~ but
they might not be able to make a real difference when
it counts because the US is unlikely to forward
another UN Security Council authorising use of force
against Iran (knowing well that the resolution might
not be endorsed by a majority vote in the council).

That is what the US did in the case of Iraq, and what
we are seeing is a re-run of the Iraq episode.

The bare elements are clear: The IAEA has reported
that Iran has failed to comply with its demand to
suspend uranium enrichment, but has not affirmed that
the Iranians are engaged in developing nuclear
weapons. Uranium enrichment is a right of any country
which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), and even the IAEA or any government or
organisation has no right to deny this prerogative to Iran.

That is what was emphasied by Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki, who has called on the United
Nations Security Council not to
politicise the issue.

Parallel to Mottaki`s diplomacy is  the increasing
intensity of Iran`s defiance of the US.
Iran might be engaging in rhetoric, but the US is not.

Washington has made up its mind that Iran should not
be allowed any leeway that would permit it to develop
an effective nuclear programme. It is only a matter of
time and methods to achieve that objective ,though Arab
states in the Gulf know that an Iranian nuclear
warhead is more of a political threat to them ,
manifesting Tehran`s regional hegemony,
 than being a military one to Israel.