|
 |
|
| The Iranian nuclear program
|
|
|
The Ayatollahs´ nuke perspectives in the realm of Asian politics. By Thomas de Toledo
With the rise of new economic powers emerging in Asia, this continent has become the new hub of the industrial dynamism of the planet. At the same time, it is the region where nuclear technology for military purposes has most proliferated in recent decades. China, Russia, North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel have nuclear bombs, and Japan is the only country in the world that was the victim of an attack delivered by the United States. In this same scenario, there is the Iranian nuclear program, declared for peaceful purposes, but that faces stiff opposition from Western countries. The big question that arises therefore is: why has Iran aroused so much opposition from the international community, while these Asian countries are tolerated? To respond, let us review the history of the atomic bomb on the continent and the system of alliances and contradictions that drew this picture.
After the outcome of World War II, the Soviet Union was the first Eurasian country to possess the atomic bomb, in 1949. With the conquest of this technology by China in 1964, this country has earned its place among the nuclear powers and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In 1974, India made its first nuclear test, and had already come into conflict and involved in disputes with Pakistan, which has also created its nuclear program and tested its first bomb in 1998. Israel has a secret and undeclared program, but there is evidence that they had already been conducting tests since 1979. The last country on the continent to conquer the technology of the atomic bomb was North Korea, in 2004. With this, Asia has become the continent with the most countries on the planet possessing nuclear weapons.
Iran is the newest Asian country applying to join the select club of those who have mastered nuclear technology, but its government says the program is for civilian power generation and medical use. However, surrounding nuclear power countries will not be surprised if someday it evolves this program into serving military purposes. After all, in the two wars the U.S. is currently waging in the world, in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is the only country that borders both, in addition to having the hostility of Israel, which threatens to do as they did earlier with Saddam Hussein´s Iraq: bomb the nuclear sites of the Ayatollahs.
With broken relationships with the U.S. and part of the West since the Islamic Revolution of 1978, tensions between these countries did not decrease under the Obama government. Even with the efforts of Brazil and Turkey to mediate an agreement to enrich uranium outside Iran, which would reduce suspicions about the military use of technology, the UN Security Council voted this year, 2010, the fourth round of sanctions on Iran. Russia and China, traditional allies of Iran, also voted in favor of measures proposed by the U.S., because there is a convergence of interests between these nations and the West to not have a new nuclear power in Asia. Russia is particularly concerned with the measure because the U.S. has advanced with plans to establish an antimissile defense and military bases near its borders, to supposedly defend Europe from an Iranian nuclear attack. Therefore, any factors that prevent the activation of this shield, concern the Russians, who, like the Chinese, agree with the sanctions, since they do not affect their commercial interests.
This all, however, does not explain why the Iranian nuclear program arouses such fury in the West, which simply ignores the pressure for Israel, India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT (Nuclear No-Proliferation Treaty). To understand this game, one must consider the system of alliances formed by the U.S. in the Cold War and its "War against Terror."
To fight with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the U.S. needed to ally with the government of Pakistan, and therefore have approached this unstable country, where they fear that the radical Islamic insurgencies may take possession of atomic weapons. To preserve a balance in the region, it also maintains close relations with India, which has served to avoid further tensions throughout the region of Kashmir, despite the constant insurgencies. Already Israel has always been the main U.S. ally on the continent, and since the Bush administration there has been almost unconditional support for the actions of this country in the Middle East, given the importance of the electorate and the Jewish lobby in domestic and foreign politics. Added to this, the current Israeli right wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, considers the possibility of an attack on Iranian nuclear installations, with or without U.S. participation.
The Islamic Shiite regime in Tehran never was sympathetic to the radical Sunni Taliban and Al Qaeda. However, it supports the Lebanese Shiite guerrillas of Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, both considered terrorists by the U.S. and Israel. Bush said there is an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and it does not seem surprising that with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq the attention of this country went back to these other countries. Since the priority of the "War against Terror" has been the Islamic countries, and North Korea has won its atomic bomb and has a powerful armed force, it is not strange that great attention has been given to American coercive diplomacy over Iran.
There is great similarity between the "Iranian issue" and the process that followed between the Gulf War in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Throughout this time, Iraq was accused of not cooperating with the United Nations, and it suffered heavy sanctions for being responsible for killing millions of children. At the same time, the country of Saddam was accused of possessing dangerous weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to the West. Even without obtaining evidence and having the support of the UN, the invasion became a fact in 2003, and is extending to the present day with a tragic humanitarian, social and economic toll. Likewise, the Iranian nuclear program has served as a pretext for sanctions and accusations by U.S. and allies, that its real interest is military.
It seems the U.S. has learned the lesson that acting unilaterally as in the case of Iraq has a high political cost, and therefore it is looking for more alliances to confront Iran. At the same time, they demonstrate they are not interested in a peace negotiation, such as that led by Brazil and Turkey, preferring to act aggressively. To complete things, the Iranian president has made declarations that the Holocaust was a lie, and maintains other positions that only strengthen the U.S. position. The decision to keep the nuclear program goes beyond his government because it is even supported by the opposition, and especially by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. So even under pressure Iran would not abandon it, despite the danger of an imminent attack.
Since the invasion of Iraq, Iran has become stronger militarily, and is considered an emerging country with a large population of nearly 80 million inhabitants. In case of an attack on the Islamic Republic, there would probably be a response to American targets in the region and Israel, which could open a chain reaction, prompting other countries such as Syria and organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas to react. For the explosive Middle East, this would be a disastrous scenario with unpredictable consequences of a long and bloody conflict. Therefore, peace must be the priority, and all the global efforts to avert a U.S. and Israeli military action should be exercised. What these countries avoid seeing is that even this would be disastrous for them and a future peace process in the region.
Just as Europe was in the late nineteenth to the twentieth century, the pole of global economic dynamism, and its contradictions resulted in World War I and II, Asia has gained increasing importance in the industrial and military world. The unresolved internal contradictions on the continent, together with European and U.S. interests, create an explosive recipe that may spark conflict at high risk of spread. The multilateral institutions have therefore a key role in this process of avoiding that international law being guided by a double standard, benefiting U.S. allies and harming those who do not follow them. If Iran's nuclear program must be monitored, the same applies to Israel, India and Pakistan. It also could insert North Korea in the international system, and lessen the suspicions in the Muslim world and emerging countries with the real interests of the U.S., Israel and some European countries.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Consultant in economic development for the Amazon region, he holds a Master Degree in Economics by UNICAMP. Graduated in History at USP, is a professor of International Relations at FACAMP.
|
|
|
