Tensions are rising as the West fears Iran may become a nuclear power. What's the right approach, and are we heading for war, asks John Humphrys
Tensions are rising dangerously between Iran and the West. The West fears that the Islamic Republic is intent upon becoming a nuclear power and is determined to stop it. Iran insists it has no such aim and is outraged and defiant at the pressure being put upon it. The West has not ruled out using military means to make sure Iran does not go nuclear. Are we heading for war or can it be avoided?
Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been a major headache for Western powers ever since the fiercely anti-Western Iranian government announced to the world that it wanted to develop a civil nuclear energy industry. Why would it want to do that, the sceptics asked, when the country is sitting on one of the world’s largest oil fields? The answer was that it could only be because it had greater ambitions: it wanted to develop its civil nuclear programme so that, one day, it would be in a position to build its own nuclear weapons.
This the Iranian government has consistently denied, though few people believe them. The adjudicator in such disputes is the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), which inspects countries that are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty to ensure that their development of civil nuclear power is just that. So far the IAEA has reported that there is no evidence – as yet – that Iran is stepping over the line, but it is getting nearer and nearer to being able to do so. That is what is causing the mounting anxiety.
Israel is the country most worried about it. Israel itself is universally believed to have its own nuclear weapons, though it refuses either to confirm or deny this. Its alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is understandable enough: senior figures in the Iranian regime have said that Israel should be wiped off the map. So Israel has made clear it simply cannot accept the idea that Iran should become nuclear. Its great sponsor, the United States, agrees and so does the European Union.
So far the West has adopted a dual-track policy of trying to prevent a nuclear Iran. On one hand it has tried to persuade Iran through diplomatic means that it would not be in Iran’s own interests to go that route; on the other, it has imposed increasingly tight sanctions on the country while it is suspected of doing so. The European Union recently agreed to ban all imports of Iranian oil (a major source of the country’s income) from I July. Outraged, the Iranian Parliament is threatening to get its retaliation in first by banning exports to the EU. It has also threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which so much of the world’s oil supplies is transported.
There has also been what could be called ‘unofficial’ activity to try and slow Iran’s progress to being a nuclear state. Several prominent Iranian nuclear physicists have been murdered. Many people suspect the hand of the Israeli secret service behind these deaths.
What is alarming most commentators at the moment is the prospect that Israel may take things into its own hands in a more overt way and use military force to stop, or at least set back, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The thinking is that Israel may take the opportunity to bomb key sites before Iran is in a position to bury any nuclear weapon capacity below ground. The United States is urging restraint on their Israeli allies but few doubt that if Israel is determined to take such action, it will do so.
Why is the West so determined to stop Iran going nuclear?
The answer is that it is not only Israel’s security that would be under threat from a nuclear Iran. The fear is that in a highly unstable Middle East, the supremacy that Iran would gain from becoming nuclear could not go unchallenged. Other states fearing Iranian dominance would seek to follow suit. Saudi Arabia has already made clear that it could not countenance letting Iran alone be a nuclear power in the region and would seek to have nuclear weapons itself. Nuclear proliferation would spread through other countries, and a region which is already a tinderbox would become a nuclear tinderbox.
Other analysts, however, say that we should not freak ourselves by this prospect or, at least, that we should see it too from Iran’s point of view. They point out that Iran already regards itself as surrounded by unfriendly nuclear powers, not only Israel but also the United States (with its warships in the Gulf), Pakistan and Russia. So it would be hardly surprising if it wanted to protect itself against what it sees as a threat. Furthermore, the argument goes, haven’t we in the West long believed in nuclear deterrence? Certainly it would feel more comfortable for everyone if Iran did not go nuclear, but if it did, deterrence theory suggests there would simply be a stand-off rather than any nuclear conflagration in the region.
On this analysis, the argument goes, current Western strategy is self-defeating. Iranian politics is a complex business with many different sources of power vying with each other for supremacy. By throttling the country with sanctions and threatening it with possible military intervention, the West is simply strengthening the hands of hardliners, making it more likely that Iran will feel the need to have its own nuclear weapons. What’s needed instead is a wholly new diplomatic approach, rather on the model of President Nixon’s abandonment of confrontation with China in the early 1970s in favour of cooperation. We should be trying to find a modus vivendi with Iran and, in the process, encouraging the more moderate and pragmatic elements in the Iranian power structure.
But suppose we followed this different approach. What, ask those in the West sceptical about it, would we then do if Iran went ahead with developing nuclear weapons anyway? Or, to put the question another way: are we determined to stop Iran going nuclear, or aren’t we? And if we are, that must mean that ultimately we are prepared to take military action to try and stop it, with all the implications that has not just for the region, but also for oil supplies, the world economy and, indeed, world peace. Does Iran going nuclear mean that much or not?
What’s your view?
- How worried are you about Iran going nuclear?
- Do you think it is intent on having nuclear weapons or not?
- Do you think the current western approach to stopping this happening can work or not?
- Would you support Israel taking pre-emptive action or not? Do you think Israel could be restrained or not?
- What do you make of the idea that we should try a wholly new diplomatic approach to improve our relations with Iran in the hope of cooperating with them rather than confronting them?
- What do you think about the notion that it doesn’t so much matter if Iran goes nuclear so long as there are other nuclear powers to deter it from using them? How important is it that there is not further nuclear proliferation in the Middle East?
- And, in the end, is stopping Iran going nuclear worth going to war over, or not?
Let us know what you think.
