Back at the Table

Iran and the P5+1 are talking again. Will it make any difference? By Wang Jinglie

Back at the Table

Iran and the P5+1 are talking again. Will it make any difference? By Wang Jinglie

The author is a research fellow with the Institute of West Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

After a nearly 15-month hiatus, delegates from Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the United States, Russia, the UK, France and China—plus Germany (P5+1) finally resumed talks in Istanbul on April 14. They reached an agreement to start a new round of high-level meetings on nuclear issues in Baghdad on May 23.

All parties showed sincerity at the Istanbul meeting. Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, speaking for the P5+1, said after the meeting that all six parties were satisfied with the“constructive and useful” atmosphere.

Saeed Jalili, head of the Iranian delegation, praised the “desire of the other side for dialogue and cooperation” and said “we consider that as a positive sign.”

The meeting was a good beginning for the follow-up talks. But since discord and hostilities between the United States and Iran are deeprooted, it is impossible to build mutual trust and resolve Iran’s nuclear issue in the short run. The threat of potential military strikes by the United States and Israel still looms over Iran.

U.S. enmity

Iran has been a thorn in the side of the United States since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. As an implacable anti-U.S. force in the Middle East, Iran hinders the U.S. strategy in this region. The United States has long wished to topple the current Iranian regime. The U.S. military often threatens to launch an attack on Iran. For example, three U.S. aircraft carriers were sent to waters near the Gulf to display muscle to Iran in early 2012.

Washington has laid two red lines for Tehran: developing nuclear weapons is intolerable, and blocking the Hormuz Strait is unacceptable. If Iran crosses either line, the United States is bound to make a strong response.

The Iranian nuclear issue, however, has never threatened the leading global position of the United States. There are too many troubles around the world for the United States. It is impossible for it to get rid of all troubles. Furthermore, Iran has kept itself cautiously away from the red lines. Given its shift of focus to the Asia-Pacific region, the United States is not willing to get bogged down in another war in Iran after its withdrawal from Iraq.

Despite the accumulated rancor for decades, the Iranian nuclear issue might not be completely harmful to U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond.

Since 2009, the United States has quickened its deployment of a missile defense system in the Gulf region. Five Arab countries—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait—have agreed to accept the land-based PAC-3 missile defense system. The United States and its allies have formed an arc-shaped net around Iran. This year, in collaboration with the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the United States began to deploy a ballistic missile defense system in the region as part of its global defense network.

The United States has divided the Islamic world by making use of the Iranian nuclear issue. Due to the alleged Iranian threat, other Gulf countries have increasingly looked to the United States for protection. In return, these countries would not hesitate to follow U.S. policies on many issues.

Tehran’s nuclear program has not only aggravated neighboring countries’ fear of Iran but also stimulated their demand for weapons. These countries purchase large quantities of weapons from the United States every year. According to statistics released by the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade, a Moscow-based research institute, in February, the overall contract sum of arms imported in the world market in 2011 reached $80.225 billion. Saudi Arabia ranked highest among buyers. It spent $32.2 billion on weapons last year, accounting for 40.14 percent of global contracts. Noticeably, Saudi Arabia signed a huge contract worth $29.6 billion with the United States to buyF-15fighters. Another Arab country, the United Arab Emirates, ranked third with $4.962 billion, accounting for 6.18 percent of the world’s arms trade.

XINHUA/AFP

Nevertheless, Iran “is not yet building a bomb,” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on the CBS television’sFace the Nationon January 8. All sanctions aim to “persuade Tehran not to take that step.”

Therefore, the key point of the Iranian nuclear issue is not whether Tehran has violated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but the ideological conflicts and hostile relations between Iran and Western countries led by the United States. A U.S. military action on Iran is unlikely in the near future.

The United States won’t allow Israel to play with fire, despite a powerful Jewish lobby. But overwhelmed by a sense of insecurity, Israel may still launch military strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons

Israel’s insecurity

In contrast to the positive attitude of the P5+1, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lashed out at the new round of talks, criticizing the United States and the international community for tolerating Iran’s nuclear program. Israel regards Iran’s possible nuclear weapons as a deadly threat. If diplomatic solutions fail, Israel is almost certain to resort to military actions.

There are several reasons for Israel to take risky actions. Past sufferings and miserable experiences taught Israeli people that national security is of paramount importance. Israel will fight for existence at any price. It will not pin its hope on the protection of its allies or international conventions. Also, rightwing groups and radical nationalists calling for hard-line policies on Iran remain influential in Israeli society.

Moreover, Israel has a formidable military, which is good at long-range attacks and targeted elimination. In recent history, Israel launched several successful attacks on other Middle East countries. For instance, Israeli forces bombed Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981 and raided the Palestine Liberation Organization’s headquarters in Tunisia in 1985. It is believed that Israel has made a plan for possible air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Without a doubt, the Middle East will fall into chaos if Israel attacks Iran. Oil prices will possibly soar to $200 per barrel, damaging the recovery of the world economy. In view of the important geopolitical position and economic role of the Middle East, the United States won’t allow Israel to play with fire, despite a powerful Jewish lobby. But overwhelmed by a sense of insecurity, Israel may still launch military strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. During a recent visit to Washington in March, Netanyahu acknowledged that differences still existed in the Israeli and U.S. timetables for contending with the Iranian nuclear program.

The double standard

Weapons of mass destruction have cast a shadow over world peace since nuclear weapons were first used in 1945. In the nuclear arms race, powers have vied to acquire their own trump card. The group of nuclear-weapon nations keeps expanding. According to the statistics from theBulletin of the Atomic Scientistsin December 2009, there are 23,360 nuclear warheads (including the retired and dismantled weapons) around the globe. The United States deploys 5,200 nuclear weapons, ranking first in the world. Russia follows in second place with 4,850 pieces.

The United States and other Western countries hold a double standard on nuclear disarmament and the Iranian nuclear issue. On the one hand, the West constantly urges the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities and impose sanctions on Iran. On the other hand, they keep silent on Israel’s nuclear weapon program.

Mohamed ElBaradei, former Director General of the IAEA, more than once proposed an inspection of Israel’s nuclear facility in Dimona. But his proposal was rejected. The unfair standard also explains why the international community has failed to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. As long as some countries possess nuclear weapons, other countries will certainly follow.