Yet again, things seem as if the Middle East is on the brink of World War III. Iran's nuclear program is continuing ahead with the force of a runaway locomotive and it seems as if nothing short of military action can keep the bomb out of Iranian hands. As talk of invasions and deterrence flutter around the heads of the world's diplomats while butterflies flutter in their stomachs, hope is all but lost. It appears a new clash of civilizations is on the brink. Samuel Huntington, eat your heart out.
But at the same time, two very important occurrences over the past few weeks may show the way to a light at the end of the tunnel, to a successful non-violent conclusion to the Iran nuclear crisis.
These events are: The announcement last week by Egypt that it would pursue a peaceful nuclear program, and an offer by Iran to allow France to oversee enrichment of its uranium.
Egypt's announcement of a nuclear program (which was ratified as having peaceful intentions by the UN and the US) provides a rallying point for the regime, a key player in this political drama. The Arab states, as determined by their actions against Iran thus far, fail to comprehend the extent of the threat against them. Here's how: shooting a nuclear weapon at Israel would be tantamount to declaring war on the United States itself. Iran is radical, but judging from the progress of their nuclear program, hardly stupid.
But let's rewrite this sentence replacing "Israel" with "Libya." Shooting a nuclear weapon at Libya would be tantamount to declaring war on the United States itself?
Hardly.
As their own regime, the Arab states face a greater threat from Iran than the West does because they don't have the power to deter Iran with any overwhelming reliability. That means that Iran is more likely to target the Arab states (which we know it wants to do anyway to achieve regional hegemony). So why haven't the Arab nations spoken up?
The answer is multifaceted, but it might have something to do with not being thrilled about taking the same position as George "Evil Axis" Bush. As a regime which places great value on pride, aligning with the US would be less than desirable. And who doesn't have a little schandenfreude watching the bully be bullied?
But aligning with Egypt has little to do with U.S. policy directly. Arab nations can affirm the right of Egypt to a nuclear program, and spin this affirmation into an assertion that they will not be bullied into submission by Iran, that nuclear energy should be used for peace, and that it's not worth Iran building nuclear weapons because we could develop the capability, too. So the Egypt announcement is critical because it lets the Arab nations stand up to Iran without seeming to kowtow to the United States. It's a win-win situation.
When all is said and done, international pressure from the United Nations and the West combined with pressure from the Arab world would present a significantly more formidable deterrent against Iran developing a nuclear program than currently exists. Threats from near are always are more effective than threats from afar, and nothing is nearer to the Middle East then, well, the Middle East itself.
Unfortunately, the probability of this actually happening is unclear. And for a field based on judging probability of action, a solution with unclear pragmatic feasibility is not really much of a solution.
Which is where the second event comes in. Iran last week offered to allow France to enrich its uranium inside Iran. Also buffeting this event was the offer from Russia two weeks ago (rejected by Iran) to do the same, but on Russian soil.
While certainly no one wants Iran to have nuclear capabilities, the reality is that most likely, it will. This makes pursuing an "all-or-nothing" approach ineffective and dangerous. Instead, some states like Russia are taking a more pragmatic approach. Iran can have uranium, but if evidence surfaces of using it for illicit purposes, Russia (and the West) can cut off the supply.
For Iran, nuclear power will be guaranteed. For the West, it's a check on abuse. Overall, it's a pretty good agreement for both sides, and one which the Western diplomatic core will realize sooner or later (and may have realized already) to be its only choice if sanctions fail.
And Iran, a nation also putting emphasis on pride, has an out. Instead of appearing to crack under impending international sanctions, it can reach a deal. And European Union Policy Chief Javier Solana has stated that this deal will be on the table even if sanctions are imposed.
Ultimately, by involving ourselves in key points of Iranian nuclear production, very important deterrents and checks on power are installed into an otherwise isolated system. Control would be given to a much broader community over what could otherwise be a dangerous nuclear threat to peace and security. If Iran tosses its non-proliferation policy, the West tosses its agreement to enrich. Pressure from the Arab world would only help make this agreement look more appealing - if that pressure comes. So we don't need to power up the air force and head for the bunkers just yet.
But neither should we deny that this is only a temporary solution to what will clearly be a long-term issue. While deterrence has many facets, its most critical is patience. Pressure on Iran need not be intense, but it must be consistent. And only through continued addressing of the question of Iran's nuclear program can an ultimate synthesis be reached.
