Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (91669)	4/9/2003 9:26:31 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iran waits anxiously for the end of war By Gary Brown Thursday, 10 April 2003 WITH the endgame in Iraq now approaching, no state will be watching the postwar posture of the United States more closely, or with more legitimate concern, than Iran. The government of President Khatami in Tehran has been working hard to reduce the political influence of Shia religious fundamentalists. Probably Khatami would like to completely eliminate the constitutional authority of the conservative Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who retains an effective veto over legislation passed by the Khatami-controlled parliament. But the fundamentalist clergy has resisted reform, and still wields significant political power in Iran. Khatami's reforms have been so badly stalled that his supporters are beginning to lose heart. Many failed to vote in recent municipal elections. The struggle between secular reformers and oppressive clerics will be a feature of Iranian political life for some time to come. Iran has been running a modest ballistic missile program for many years. Both it and Iraq used missiles in the war started in 1980 when Saddam invaded Iran. Although there is little real evidence that Iran harbours ambitions for intercontinental-range missiles, the US has frequently made this claim. Iran is also running a nuclear power program about which the US has expressed strong reservations. Tehran says the program is civilian and that it will abide by the international nuclear regime established under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nevertheless some wonder why oil-rich Iran is investing in civilian nuclear power and openly express concern that the underlying motive is the support of a nuclear weapons project. These concerns are not as easy to dismiss as those about the alleged ICBM program. For historical reasons going back to the foolish US support for the corrupt regime of the former Shah, and the equally foolish Iranian violation of US diplomatic premises and immunity early in the Islamic revolution (US diplomats were illegally held hostage for many months), Iran was assigned to Bush's ''axis of evil''. After that, the Khatami administration basically gave up trying to improve its relations with Washington, though it had more success with Britain after lifting the notorious death-sentence fatwa against author Salman Rushdie. But now Iran faces an unwelcome development in its strategic circumstances. There have been American troops across its eastern border with Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Aware of the risks, Iran has been punctilious in its relations across that border. Anxious not to be tarred with the al-Qaeda brush, it also handed 16 suspected al-Qaeda members to the Saudis in August last year. Iran is also believed to have quietly negotiated an arrangement with the US for the Iraqi war, and it has proven to be the most scrupulous of neutrals. Iran wants no trouble with the US, and was not about to interfere in the Iraq operation. Nevertheless, Iran now finds American forces on both its eastern and western borders; the western force, in Iraq, is very large. One would not need to be a particularly paranoid Iranian to conclude that, strategically, this is an acutely uncomfortable situation. A bit more paranoia, coupled with poor judgment, might lead some Iranians to conclude that, to preserve its independence now that American armies flank the country on two sides, Iran needs some further insurance. It is noteworthy that virtually the whole spectrum of Iranian opinion, from pro-Khamenei clerics to pro-Khatami reformers, is unanimous that a nuclear program is necessary. As the Washington Post reported on March 11, both Amir Mohebian, an unofficial adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, and Mostafa Tajzadeh, a leading theorist in the reform movement that dominates the parliament, share this view though they agree about little else. The program is seen as insurance against Israel, and also as a matter of national prestige. But with US forces in two neighbouring countries, an Iranian nuclear weapon regionally deliverable by existing missiles could threaten substantial US regional interests. This, some in Tehran might feel, is an opportunity for insurance or rather, deterrence which should not be missed. Of course, flushed with success in Iraq, Washington might take another view. It might demand that the Iranian missile and nuclear programs cease. And there will be a large victorious army on hand to enforce the demand. Thus, Iraq might only be the first country to be unilaterally ''disarmed'' by the US. Iran, however, might prove a tougher nut to crack than Saddam's Iraq. Gary Brown is a former defence adviser to the Australian Federal Parliament. He is now an independent defence and security analyst. canberra.yourguide.com.au