Tweet
GULF ANTI-MISSILE SHIELD
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal
Feb 5, 2010, 00:23
The news that the US is supplying Patriot anti-missile systems along
with state-of-the-art weapons to Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar and is
deploying warships in the Arabian Gulf signifies one of two options.
Either this provocative move is meant as an anti-Iranian deterrent
or Washington is aware that something is afoot and wants to protect
its allies.
US President Barack Obama recently used his State of the Union address
to warn Iran of "growing consequences" if it refused to discontinue
its uranium enrichment program. Likewise, former British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, now the Quartet's Middle East envoy, ramped up
the Iran threat when giving evidence to Britain's Iraq Inquiry last
Friday, and urged the international community to take "a very, hard,
tough line" with Tehran. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also
reportedly told Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri that France has
proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which, he warns will
not be tolerated by Israel.
The fact that Gulf states view Iran with a certain amount of suspicion
is understandable. For one thing, Tehran could well be developing
nuclear capability, which would give it military supremacy over the
region, although it has always protested that its nuclear program
is exclusively civilian while maintaining its right to nuclear power
under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
For another, it's well-known that Iran has been spreading its
influence around the area with financial and military support to
Lebanon's powerful political and military organization, Hezbollah,
the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and rebel tribesmen in
north Yemen. It is also believed to have trained, armed and funded
insurgents in Iraq and is supportive of certain members of the Iraqi
government, known to have close ties to Iran.
Moreover, Tehran has on more than one occasion threatened to retaliate
against American interests in the Gulf and to close the Straits of
Hormuz to shipping were it to be attacked by the US or Israel. In
light of that threat, who can blame GCC nations for wishing to protect
themselves against Iranian missiles in the event they were caught up
in any future conflict not of their own making.
It should be said that Saudi Arabia together with all the Gulf
countries have cautioned against any attack on Iranian nuclear
facilities, which would destabilize the neighborhood and devastate
economies. They would prefer a peaceful resolution to disagreements
between Tehran and the West; hopes of which are fading.
However, when seen from the Iranian perspective, deployment of
anti-missile systems and US warships is an aggressive step that
shuts the door on detente, promised by Obama during the early days
of his presidency.
Forgotten are his hopes of unconditional face-to-face talks with the
Ahmadinejad-led government; abandoned are his plans of reaching out to
the Iranians for rapprochement. Admittedly, Iran was lukewarm following
Obama's friendly New Year message to the Iranian people but, on the
other hand, the US leader was too easily deterred. Indeed, he has
been too easily deterred on a range of topics, including the pursuit
of Middle East peace. It's evident that the Obama administration
is now taking a hard-line stance against the Iranian regime and is
thought to be backing Iranian opposition groups and insurgents in
hopes of toppling the government. It has also been pushing hard for
severe United Nations Security Council sanctions to be added to those
already in place but is being thwarted in that regard by China which
benefits from oil deals worth over $100 billion -- and to a lesser
extent by Russia.
Russia, which has strong economic ties with Iran, is reluctant to back
sanctions. Last September, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Nesterenko
said: "This language of sanctions, it is not our language . . ." A
month later, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned that nothing
would be gained by trying to intimidate Iran.
As the situation stands now, comparisons can be drawn between attitudes
to Iran and the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, although there are
differences. Once again, the US and Britain -- heartily cheered on
by Israel -- are talking tough, almost to the point of saber rattling.
However, this time they have the full support of France and Germany.
And, once again, China and Russia together form a bulwark to their
ambitions within the UN Security Council.
The question is would Washington and its EU allies take military
action alone and without the cover of an appropriate UN resolution,
while they are still haunted by the specter of the Iraq blunder and
its potential illegality? After all, it is credible that Tehran is
not, in fact, seeking a nuclear weapons' capability, in which case,
any attack would be tantamount to yet another war of aggression. Such
a course would also be a hard sell among a skeptical Western public
sick of seeing their soldiers return from Afghanistan and Iraq in
flag-draped coffins.
A far more likely scenario would be an attack by Israel with the
tacit approval of the US and other Western powers. The Israeli public
would likely throw its weight behind its government as most Israelis
see Iran as an existential threat. At the same time, Israel doesn't
worry too much about flouting international law or receiving United
Nations censure, as any condemnation will be labeled "anti-Semitic"
and ignored. Israel does consider a green light from its benefactor,
the US, all-important, however.
Certainly, former US Ambassador to UN John Bolton is convinced that
Israel will attack Iran but, thus far, his predictions have failed
to manifest, including the last indicating there would be a military
confrontation before the end of 2009.
If Bolton is essentially right, even though his timing's off, it
is impossible to imagine the repercussions from such a strike that
will be suffered by this region and beyond. It's unlikely that Israel
could knock out all Iran's nuclear facilities, known to be numerous,
spread far and wide and, in some cases, deep underground. There is
another unknown factor too. Nobody knows for sure what ready-made
weapons Iran has purchased and accumulated over the decades.
If Obama doesn't want his Nobel Peace Prize to turn into history's
biggest joke, he should stick to his original plan of sitting around
a table with Iranian decision-makers and reassure them that the
US means Tehran no harm and is prepared to rein in Israel. That's
the only setting in which Iran can be convinced to make its nuclear
program transparent. It's surely worth a try when the alternative is
so frighteningly awful!
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs.
She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at
[email protected].
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal
Feb 5, 2010, 00:23
The news that the US is supplying Patriot anti-missile systems along
with state-of-the-art weapons to Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar and is
deploying warships in the Arabian Gulf signifies one of two options.
Either this provocative move is meant as an anti-Iranian deterrent
or Washington is aware that something is afoot and wants to protect
its allies.
US President Barack Obama recently used his State of the Union address
to warn Iran of "growing consequences" if it refused to discontinue
its uranium enrichment program. Likewise, former British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, now the Quartet's Middle East envoy, ramped up
the Iran threat when giving evidence to Britain's Iraq Inquiry last
Friday, and urged the international community to take "a very, hard,
tough line" with Tehran. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also
reportedly told Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri that France has
proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which, he warns will
not be tolerated by Israel.
The fact that Gulf states view Iran with a certain amount of suspicion
is understandable. For one thing, Tehran could well be developing
nuclear capability, which would give it military supremacy over the
region, although it has always protested that its nuclear program
is exclusively civilian while maintaining its right to nuclear power
under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
For another, it's well-known that Iran has been spreading its
influence around the area with financial and military support to
Lebanon's powerful political and military organization, Hezbollah,
the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and rebel tribesmen in
north Yemen. It is also believed to have trained, armed and funded
insurgents in Iraq and is supportive of certain members of the Iraqi
government, known to have close ties to Iran.
Moreover, Tehran has on more than one occasion threatened to retaliate
against American interests in the Gulf and to close the Straits of
Hormuz to shipping were it to be attacked by the US or Israel. In
light of that threat, who can blame GCC nations for wishing to protect
themselves against Iranian missiles in the event they were caught up
in any future conflict not of their own making.
It should be said that Saudi Arabia together with all the Gulf
countries have cautioned against any attack on Iranian nuclear
facilities, which would destabilize the neighborhood and devastate
economies. They would prefer a peaceful resolution to disagreements
between Tehran and the West; hopes of which are fading.
However, when seen from the Iranian perspective, deployment of
anti-missile systems and US warships is an aggressive step that
shuts the door on detente, promised by Obama during the early days
of his presidency.
Forgotten are his hopes of unconditional face-to-face talks with the
Ahmadinejad-led government; abandoned are his plans of reaching out to
the Iranians for rapprochement. Admittedly, Iran was lukewarm following
Obama's friendly New Year message to the Iranian people but, on the
other hand, the US leader was too easily deterred. Indeed, he has
been too easily deterred on a range of topics, including the pursuit
of Middle East peace. It's evident that the Obama administration
is now taking a hard-line stance against the Iranian regime and is
thought to be backing Iranian opposition groups and insurgents in
hopes of toppling the government. It has also been pushing hard for
severe United Nations Security Council sanctions to be added to those
already in place but is being thwarted in that regard by China which
benefits from oil deals worth over $100 billion -- and to a lesser
extent by Russia.
Russia, which has strong economic ties with Iran, is reluctant to back
sanctions. Last September, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Nesterenko
said: "This language of sanctions, it is not our language . . ." A
month later, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned that nothing
would be gained by trying to intimidate Iran.
As the situation stands now, comparisons can be drawn between attitudes
to Iran and the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, although there are
differences. Once again, the US and Britain -- heartily cheered on
by Israel -- are talking tough, almost to the point of saber rattling.
However, this time they have the full support of France and Germany.
And, once again, China and Russia together form a bulwark to their
ambitions within the UN Security Council.
The question is would Washington and its EU allies take military
action alone and without the cover of an appropriate UN resolution,
while they are still haunted by the specter of the Iraq blunder and
its potential illegality? After all, it is credible that Tehran is
not, in fact, seeking a nuclear weapons' capability, in which case,
any attack would be tantamount to yet another war of aggression. Such
a course would also be a hard sell among a skeptical Western public
sick of seeing their soldiers return from Afghanistan and Iraq in
flag-draped coffins.
A far more likely scenario would be an attack by Israel with the
tacit approval of the US and other Western powers. The Israeli public
would likely throw its weight behind its government as most Israelis
see Iran as an existential threat. At the same time, Israel doesn't
worry too much about flouting international law or receiving United
Nations censure, as any condemnation will be labeled "anti-Semitic"
and ignored. Israel does consider a green light from its benefactor,
the US, all-important, however.
Certainly, former US Ambassador to UN John Bolton is convinced that
Israel will attack Iran but, thus far, his predictions have failed
to manifest, including the last indicating there would be a military
confrontation before the end of 2009.
If Bolton is essentially right, even though his timing's off, it
is impossible to imagine the repercussions from such a strike that
will be suffered by this region and beyond. It's unlikely that Israel
could knock out all Iran's nuclear facilities, known to be numerous,
spread far and wide and, in some cases, deep underground. There is
another unknown factor too. Nobody knows for sure what ready-made
weapons Iran has purchased and accumulated over the decades.
If Obama doesn't want his Nobel Peace Prize to turn into history's
biggest joke, he should stick to his original plan of sitting around
a table with Iranian decision-makers and reassure them that the
US means Tehran no harm and is prepared to rein in Israel. That's
the only setting in which Iran can be convinced to make its nuclear
program transparent. It's surely worth a try when the alternative is
so frighteningly awful!
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs.
She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at
[email protected].