By David Martin Abrahams
Dec 20, 2009
In the last few weeks, the international community has seen an escalation in the already tense relationship between Iran and the west, due to the former's continuous efforts to develop nuclear weapon.
At first, a possible solution was thought to be found as the UN has come up with a deal: Iran will send the lion's share of its low-enriched uranium to other countries, so it would not have enough uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. In return, the economic sanctions will be lifted and Iran will improve its position in the international community. However, the Iranian regime has withdrawn from its initial will to openly discuss this mechanism. As the dialogue between Iran and the West has changed to two monologues, Iran announced it tested its longest-range missile so far.
The Western discourse fluctuates between the angry-yet-restrained threats of the US to sever the sanctions, to the Israeli clarification that "all options are still on the table". However, it is reasonable to doubt the option of an Israeli, or American, attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, because it is intrinsically counter-productive. First, an Iranian military response will undoubtedly cause immense damage; second, the effect on oil price and the world economy as a whole will be devastating; third, any attack will create a political turmoil in the Middle East whose consequences no one can anticipate; and last, even a successful attack will only postpone the Iranian nuclear program for several years. That is, the West can talk the talk, but trying to walk the walk carries with it severe implications.
As I have already written earlier (Iran and the West: Talk softly but carry a big stick), Iran is not a moonstruck isolated country led by a lunatic; it is an ambitious, long standing regional power led by a firm, yet not homogenous, political-religious establishment. One does not need to be a statesman in order to understand that futile threats are a two-edged sword. The Iranian regime uses the Western indecisiveness in order to continue its nuclear program; but it already feels the negative impact of the economic sanctions. This is why the West, led by the US, should return to the trail of constructive dialogue: to prepare for a tough negotiation with a sophisticated rival; to deploy a "stick and carrot" policy; to try and understand the Iranian motives; and to avoid dictating the desirable solution.
The renowned Prussian General von Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of diplomacy using other means. This phrase was true to times when the damage caused by wars was, to a certain extent, reversible. In the nuclear age, when the lives of millions can be lost by pressing one button, war is not a real option. Therefore, diplomacy is the relevant method to end the current crisis.
|
