Geopolitical Analysis

By K.N. Pandita – Security Council is gripped by deep division of opinion among the Big Five on Iranian nuclear issue. It is heading towards polarization if no breakthrough emerges in coming days.

US is determined to rope in some of her European allies for a final showdown with Iran. On the other hand, the Iranian President, in a bravado of sorts, shrugs off the responsibilities that naturally fall on the shoulders of top leadership of an important strategic country. This eye- ball to eye- ball confrontational stance needs to be defused.

Russia has been trying for a negotiated deal with Iran. So far success has eluded these efforts but Moscow has not lost all hopes. Moving a step forward, it has announced that it would help Iran in the enrichment of uranium for civilian purpose. China not favouring any military action against Iran has chosen not to issue policy statements and to wait and watch the situation. That is Beijing’s classical diplomatic stance.

Nevertheless China’s role in the imbroglio is of great significance. Among the big world powers today, it is only China that has very cordial relations with most of the Islamic countries but especially with oil producing countries of the Gulf. Therefore China’s economic and strategic interests are powerful determinants in her policy towards Iran.

As far as Russia is concerned, Moscow wants to maintain the semblance of big brother mentality of the Soviet era. It is but natural that Moscow would not like to leave the field fully open to American intrusion. Russia has deep interests in Iran for last two centuries.

Thus Iranian nuclear enrichment issue is assuming far greater significance than just the matter of manufacturing of WMD and its consequences. It is becoming the pivotal point of divergence of contemporary political strategy in the Asian continent.

As such Washington needs to re-think its policy of dealing with the emergent nuclear states with her hegemonic mindset. Actually policy planners in the White House and the Pentagon need to take a fresh look at international developments particularly in the Asian continent.

Iraq had no WMD. Baghdad under Saddam had no links with Osamites. In fact Saddam was the only true and practical secularist among the whole lot of Islamic states in the world. Yet the US chose to strike and destroy Iraq. But what actually happened in Iraq has provided a lesson to those countries that are living under the shadow of similar military forays against them. Attack on Iran means giving a boost to the Islamic world to

Washington shall have to stop behaving like a policeman of the world. She must remember that even the strongest nation has some very weak points. Producing nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean using them. These weapons have not been used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki despite certain situations about to get out of control. Leadership in the Asian, African or Latin American continents is fully conscious of the dangers of using a nuclear device. Nobody can challenge their sense of responsibility.

Washington should give up its antagonistic stance against Iran and other prospective nuclear states. Contrarily, it should adopt a new policy of befriending them and gradually impressing upon them the necessity of addressing trade and commerce areas more than confrontational areas. It must take the lead in forging a new thinking for a new world. Let this dimension be added to globalization concept.

In the event of a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, Washington will stonewall all possible options of bringing Teheran to a table for a dialogue. The result of a strike will be disastrous and at the end of the day may become counter productive. It would mean going by the philosophy of war of civilizations although it can be avoided and diffused..

World view of Islamic civilization is a reality. Influence of religion among the Muslims is definitely much deeper than what meets the eye. This is a reality and should be accepted. As regards fundamentalism and violence accompanying it, one has to understand that Islam itself is locked in a grim battle between modernity and orthodoxy. Why should the US or any other power in the world not allow the Muslims to settle their problems themselves instead of thrusting their philosophies (democracy, secularism etc.) on them and wishing to dictate terms to them?

Iran is a nation that is deeply divided on the issue of modernity and orthodoxy. Nearly half of contemporary Iranian society comprises the youth below 40 years of age. This vast segment is struggling to wriggle out of the stranglehold of radicalism. A strike on Iran will sensitize their nationalism and the clerics will exploit it to the hilt. They will rope in a major segment of the youth and the smaller one left out will be crushed. This will put an end to any chance for the American and Western democracies to stabilize Iran’s historic struggle for democratic pluralism.

Therefore the wise thing for the US would be to drop the idea of use of force but induct strong political and diplomatic options to bolster democratic and egalitarian elements in Iran and elsewhere in the Muslim world. The much hyped war of civilizations has to be converted into war of ideas. The war has to be carried to the Muslim societies and not out of Muslim societies. We must realize that despite great hatred generated by intransigent Muslim regimes against the west, hundreds of thousands of Muslim youth are staking everything to say good bye to their native lands and settle down in the Western countries and USA. This vast manpower has to be put to its proper use. A war against Iran will only deprive the western nations and the Americans of enormous support which the Muslim Diaspora would otherwise be ready to offer. (The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies Kashmir University, India).