Diplomats predict a regional conflagration of unknown proportions as a result of any strike.
By AMIR MIZROCHAhmadinejad 224.88(photo credit: AP)
EU diplomatic sources who specialize in the Middle East believe that Israel cannot stop the Iranian nuclear program on its own using military means, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Teheran has effective countermeasures against air strikes, and the sources do not see Israel committing ground forces to a battle in Iran, pointing to the American experience in Iraq on that score.
In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, the Iranians and their proxies believe that Israel is not invincible. Furthermore, EU diplomatic officials predict the development of a regional conflagration of unknown proportions as a result of any Israeli strike on the Islamic Republic. While many nations in the region would quietly support Israeli action, in public they would have to align against the Jewish state, an EU source said, adding that "the end of this road is not known."
"Iran's counterstrike would not be the end of the story. There is no military solution and no stabilizing outcome," the EU source said.
The assessment comes within the context of serious concerns in Europe that Israel, feeling its back against the wall, would strike Iran's nuclear facilities, even under the assumption that such action would only set back the Iranian program, not destroy it. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has told the German government, for example, that Israel will not allow Iran to go nuclear.
At the same time, the overall assessment in the EU is that sanctions have not significantly impacted Iranian policy thus far, and are unlikely to do so in the future. EU sources also consider it unrealistic to expect any pressures on Teheran over its nuclear drive to result in a regime change.
Thus, there is a certain resignation in the EU over the prospect of Iran achieving its nuclear goals. And according to the latest thinking among officials responsible for the EU's Middle East policy, the E3+3 (Germany, France, Britain with China, Russia and the US) offer of a freeze-for-freeze approach may be the only conceivable way to avoid either Iran achieving its nuclear goal or the "unimaginable" sequence of an Israeli strike on Iran, an Iranian counterstrike and subsequent regional conflagration.
Senior Western diplomats see the E3+3 talks, based on a freeze in economic sanctions against Iran in return for a freeze in uranium enrichment, as the "only game in town."
Still, others in the EU are skeptical Teheran will drop its nuclear program under any circumstances, and believe it will opt to run the gauntlet of increased Western sanctions or an attack on its nuclear facilities.
In an indication of the consequences for the region if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, EU diplomats predict an immediate effect in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which will feel extremely threatened by Teheran's power, and that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would move into high gear. Proliferation to terrorist groups cannot be ruled out, and the use of especially radioactive "dirty bombs" cannot be discounted.
The hope in the EU is that despite being heartened by the failure of the UN sanctions regime and the unlikelihood of a US strike on its nuclear facilities, Iran will still see some benefit in accepting the E3+3 offer. The conditions for this acceptance are there, the EU source said.
According to the EU source, Iran has a really good opportunity to grasp the freeze-for-freeze offer because things are not now as they were several years ago: America is greatly weakened and will withdraw entirely from Iraq within three years. According to this assessment, the US has learned its lesson there, and will not embark on further military adventures in the Middle East for some time.
Iran is no longer the same Iran that was surrounded by strong American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan just a few years ago. It can therefore afford to climb down the high ladder and take the E3+3 deal, with international security guarantees. Russia's is seen as playing a destabilizing role in the crisis, viewing its leverage over Iran as a card it can "blackmail the West with," the source said.
Although Iran is not moving forward with a response to the E3+3 solution, and Russia has signaled it will not support a fourth round of UN sanctions, some senior EU diplomats still believe there is a chance Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions for a grand bargain with the US, although the window to reach such a deal is rapidly closing. The EU will wait to see who wins the US elections in November, and then begin working to have the new administration join intensive EU diplomatic efforts with Teheran. The EU believes the US is indispensable in the Middle East as a whole, and must be diplomatically engaged with Iran.
An example of this, the source said, was that during negotiations with Iranians, European officials feel as if their interlocutors "are looking through them to America" - that is, the Iranians are driven by security concerns and seek US assurances. For the three biggest players in the region, America plays an indisputably critical part: For Israel and Saudi Arabia, the US is the ultimate guarantor of safety. For Iran, its ultimate security threat.
The Iranian negotiating line is that they are within their rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agreement to enrich uranium for energy purposes, and that they won't accept a deal that would have others provide it with nuclear fuel, because in a time of crisis they want to rely on nobody but themselves.
In negotiations, the Iranians point to India and Pakistan as examples of nuclear-powered states, and ask why they are perceived to be different. They point to Israel's purported nuclear arsenal as an existential threat. The Iranians feel isolated, the source said, adding that since the 1979 Islamic Revolution Iran had been attacked by Iraq and threatened by the US.
Those who believe in engaging Iran point to the example of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, where Iran chose to follow a policy of keeping Iraq intact as a state instead of supporting the Shi'ite Mahdi army's secessionist path. This example has given credence to those who say the Iranians can be helpful - that diplomacy with them has potential.
According to this view, Iran has interests in Iraq that require it to support a central state dominated by the Shi'ite majority, and not a breakaway Shi'ite state that could stoke instability within Iran and inflame other regional conflicts. Iran also has interests in oil and gas pipelines in the Caucuses, and it is not in Teheran's interests for that region to be unstable.
Furthermore, Iran has an interest in dealing with the problem of heroin coming from Afghanistan, which is the source of much of the world's supply, which makes its way to international markets through the Islamic Republic, as well as through other states in the region. Some 300 Iranian border guards have died in battle with heroin smugglers over the past few years. An estimated 3 million Iranians are addicted to heroin, a serious problem for the regime.
On the other hand, Iranian interests are having a destabilizing effect in Afghanistan, supporting anti-coalition forces there. Germany, for example, with 3,500 troops already in Afghanistan and another 1,000 on their way, needs Iran to stop its negative activities there.
In an indication of upcoming EU diplomacy on Iran, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is scheduled to meet with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in October and with Chinese President Hu Jintao after that. Merkel will remind Medvedev that Iran is closer to Russia's borders than it is to Europe's, and that a nuclear Iran is not in Russia's interests. The thinking in Germany is that if Russia could be brought on board with the sanctions regime, China would follow, as Beijing does not want to be isolated.
For more of Amir Mizroch's articles, see his personal blog Forecast Highs.
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
