Author : Dr Dhananjay Tripathi,

ANALYZING THE PRESENT IRANIAN CRISIS

By Dr Dhananjay Tripathi*

Introduction

Iran is presently in centre of international controversy with Israel leading a strong campaign against it. As per the logic of Tel Aviv, nuclear programme of Iran pose an existential threat and it is ready to take all measures to ensure its survival. Similarly, Washington and the European Union are also up in arms and giving several reasons to justify sanctions against Iran.

The current anti-Iran posturing of West has several hidden meanings. Iranian nuclear issue is a cause of concern but the question is, does the west which once had complete monopoly on nuclear science and Israel which has some 250 nuclear arsenals are really worried about the Iranian ‘weapons’ in making. Iran has unique history and from Islamic revolution of 1979, till date it is deprived of good friends in west but due to its energy resources and geopolitical location Iran remained a pertinent international player. Iran is also a country, which is consistent on its position against Israel and this also remained a bone of contention. 

The US Dilemma

The problem between the US and Iran aggravated after second Iraq war in 2003. The US occupation of Iraq started its strategic competition with Iran for acquiring loin’s share in the post-Saddam political set up. The divisive politics used by Americans in Iraq for consolidating their influence also lead to fragmentation of secular Iraqi society on the Shia-Sunni lines. Iraq has a sizeable Shia population (60-65%) and this provide wider scope for Iranian intervention in Iraq. Even after nine years, stability in Iraq is a distant dream and the country, which possesses oil reserves only next to Saudi Arabia, is not in complete control of the US.  The US interest in Iraq is not a hidden fact and according to one of the reports, as early as in 1997, nine US oil companies including Mobil, Conoco Chevron, Occidental, Arco, Exxon, Texaco, Coastal and Amoco reportedly contacted Iraq to express interest in developing Iraqi oil field once sanctioned are lifted[1]. Due to continuous phase of war and instability Iraq failed to exploit the full potential of its oil reserves. In 1979, just prior to the war with Iran, oil production in Iraq had reached an all time high of 3.5 million barrels per day (bpd)[2].  Thus, peace and tranquility is the most required elements in order to reap maximum benefits from Iraq. It is very interesting to note that in one of the briefing papers released before the second Iraq war, Royal Institute of International Affairs predicted Iranian role in post - Saddam Iraq and its related consequences for oil production potential of Iraq. The most hurting fact for US is that it sacrificed so many lives  (approximately 4000 military casualties till 2011) to get control of Iraq but still struggling to extract the estimated benefits.

Several defence analysts of the US believes that politically stable and economically strong Iran is one of biggest hurdles and it should be either tamed or destabilized. This is the reason why Iran-US relations deteriorated further after the US occupation of Iraq. Despite, anti-Iran rhetoric Washington is aware of the negative fallouts in case of war with Iran. It will be a mistake to equate Iran with Iraq because Tehran has far superior military capabilities. As per the global ranking Iran is 12th biggest military power of the world and has commendable air power, which is enough to deter any attack and to retaliate in short span of time. On the other hand, Iran also has active links with few terrorist organizations, which can prove lethal for American interest in this region. With substantial investment, America will avoid complete anarchy in Iraq, which will be detrimental to its interest. Whatever is projected about the US-Iran ties, White House will wait till the last for an agreement where the US interests are safeguarded without entering into a conflict.

Also from strategic point of view, opening another front at a time when Afghanistan and Iraq are instable, will only lead to further complications for the US. Despite the biggest military power of the world it is not possible for the US to enter into three war zones at a time.  In short, US will remain politically and diplomatically active against Iran but will not go for an all out war.

The Real Beneficiary

Arab spring has changed the political spectrum of west Asia and with regard to spread of democracy it is clear that the US interest in the region was harmed with the overthrow of pro-western regimes.  Democracy is not a desired system of governance for several Arab countries and it is vehemently resisted. It is also interesting to note that after the Arab spring pressure is building on Israel to resolve Palestinian issue. Protest against Israel was witnessed in Egypt and Istanbul has also taken stringent position, curtailing diplomatic ties with Israel. It is evident that there is a strong sentiment in Arab world against the Zionist regime; and democracy will allow people to pressurize their respective governments to deal strongly with Tel Aviv. Israel is facing the burnt and it requires some immediate aggressive move to divert the attention of the Arab world so it can continue its policy towards Palestine.

Conflict and instability in the region particularly some type of low conflict suits the interest of Israel and Iran is strategically most appropriate country for this purpose. Being a Shia country Iran does not have many strong allies in the region. Because of the Shia- Sunni divide it is difficult to imagine that Arab world will practically come forward to support Iran in case of war with Israel.  The kind of statements given by the Arab leaders on Iran are evidence enough to draw inferences as what are the most likely response of these countries in case of Israel’s attack on Iran. According to Wikileaks Saudi King Abdullah described Iran as snake whose head should be cut off. King Abdullah even urged the US to attack Iran.   Political analysts from West Asia are also of the view that Arab Spring is bit favourable for Iran, which is a democratic country. Democratic model of Iran is different from the one advocated by western political scientists but no one can deny the fact that regular elections is a key feature of Iranian democracy. There were change in regimes by ballot and Iran has a system in place.

These are some of the rare institutional frameworks of Iran, which are absent in majority of countries in west Asia.  Arab spring infact for the very first time, in these so many years given a ray of hope to the people of this region. Arab Spring is a genuine upsurge for democratic rights in west Asia and this has not gone well with the prevailing ‘Sheikdom’. It is a notable fact that during the first gulf war Saddam Hussain was widely admired amongst the people in west Asia but the pro-western regimes of the regions sided with the US.  The insensitive, pro-west and anti-people attitude of these regimes has helped the terrorist organizations like Al-Qaida to draw sympathy and recruits from this region. West, particularly the US has immense economic interest in the status quo and it never raised the real issues and supported the continuation of undemocratic regimes. At this juncture when demand for democratic rights are widespread there is a big threat for the ‘Sheikdom’.  A war between Israel and Iran will come as a wishful gift for the ‘Sheikdom ‘. In short, any military confrontation with Iran will be a relief for  ‘Sheikdom’.  Thus, any escalation of conflict in West Asia related to Iran will suit the interest of Tel Aviv and ‘Sheikdom’.

Conclusion

Israel is all prepared for some type of adventure but it is noteworthy that without a green signal from Washington it can only do its covert operations. For Washington its interest in Iraq is vital and also Mr. Obama is going to face a crucial elections and he will definitely avoid any aggressive move. Iran, in this regard will remain in international news, with Israel leading overt diplomatic and covert military operations but there is no indication of any full-fledged war.

Endnotes