After Iraq there is no case for striking Iran

Scientists who control the Doomsday Clock have moved it two minutes forward: it is now at five minutes to midnight. This stark warning was hardly noticed by the media, but it should have been. The basis for their concern is not only the worrying implications of climate change; it is also the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In my view this is entirely justified. The International Atomic Energy Agency has warned that there are at least 40 countries which have the technology to convert their civilian nuclear technology into a viable nuclear weapons programme. Our international peace and security is threatened as never before, not only by terrorism and other forms of asymmetric conflict, but also by a number of bitter and inherently intractable interstate conflicts.

One of the factors that has made the world more dangerous is the Bush administration’s adoption of the concept of ‘preventive war’, which asserts that the President is entitled to order a pre-emptive attack on any country which is deemed to be a potential threat to the United States. In the eyes of the neoconservatives war is no longer viewed as a last resort in defence of the nation’s vital interests. It no longer has to be justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter or as action under Chapter VII of the Charter: war becomes a routine tool of foreign policy.

The preventive war doctrine was used as partial justification for the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which threatened international security, though no such weapons have been found.

The dangers of ‘preventive war’ doctrine are all too obvious. War can be started recklessly on the basis of entirely illusory threats. (Ironically, Saddam’s regime was the most ‘contained’ in the Middle East, hobbled by sanctions and ‘no-fly zones’). Preventive wars can develop into wider wars involving neighbouring states and endangering the lives of thousands of civilians.

They can also act as a spur to other countries to acquire nuclear weapons: the invasion of Iraq may have led some regimes to conclude that only the possession of nuclear weapons will protect them from a similar fate.

Last, but not least, other governments might well decide that if the US can start preventive wars then they are also free to do so. The restraints on war enshrined in the UN Charter could soon be totally undermined.

President Bush has admitted that the situation in Iraq is dire. In view of the loss of over 3,000 US soldiers, the spiralling costs of the campaign and the results of the mid-term US elections which have put Congress under the control of the Democrats, one might have thought that the neo-con project would be quietly dropped in favour of a more pragmatic realist approach to foreign policy. Although President Bush’s State of the Union address pleaded for the backing of Congress for his new ‘surge’ policy in Iraq, the Democrat-controlled Senate Foreign Affairs Committee immediately rebuffed him by flatly refusing to back the new policy.

It hardly seems an opportune time for the neoconservatives and Israeli hawks to be pressing for military action to launch another ‘preventive’ war aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. However, it would be unwise to overlook a number of factors which, in combination, do make a ‘preventive’ war with Iran thinkable.

Israeli hawks and many US neoconservatives have long seen Iran as the really dangerous enemy in the Middle East. They may well believe that now, before Iran has acquired nuclear weapons, is the time for an air strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, though they may prefer Israel to carry it out.

US neoconservatives may calculate that there would still be time for the Republican Party to recover support before the Presidential elections and that a knock-out blow against Iran’s nuclear ambitions might even garner popular support in the US.

As for Prime Minister Olmert, he has a reputation for recklessness after the Israeli’s bombing of civilian and economic targets in Lebanon last summer, and may believe that a success in destroying Iran’s nuclear capability would restore his damaged standing in Israel.

President Bush has long made clear his passionate opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons: he has expressed his determination that Iran should never obtain nukes during his watch. He blames Iran for stirring up trouble in Iraq and supplying weapons and explosives to Shia militia. (It is interesting that the President warned against ‘Shi’ite extremism’ in his State of the Union message).

It is clear that the President has flatly rejected the Iraq Study Group (ISG) proposal that the US start a dialogue with Iraq’s neighbours, including Iran and Syria, to get their co-operation in stabilising Iraq.

The ISG Report reminds us that for historical and religious reasons Iran has more leverage than any other neighbour over Iraq, and that it is clearly not in Iran’s long-term interest to see the total disintegration of Iraq which could see them dragged into an all-out struggle with the Sunnis who would almost inevitably be supported by the Saudi regime and other Sunni-dominated countries. Iranian leaders recall all too clearly the huge costs in lives and treasure that they suffered in their long and savage war in Iraq (1980-88).

It would be a mistake to believe that neoconservative influence in the US government has been eclipsed. Many may have hoped that Condoleezza Rice would have emerged as a strong supporter of the ISG recommendations. After all, she started her career in government as a protégé of Brent Scowcroft, a master practitioner of realist diplomacy, maintaining stability through containment and crisis management diplomacy. But Dr Rice has since adopted the President’s policy of seeking to promote democracy if necessary by intervening militarily and imposing regime change.

The idea that there is no basis for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s tense relations with the US is patently absurd. Iran’s leaders know that they need better economic relations with the West in order to develop their enormous potential.

There are progressive political forces at work within Iran, and it is instructive to note that moderates — like Hashemi Rafsanjani (photo) — did remarkably well in recent elections to Iran’s Assembly of Experts and in the local elections, and that there has been a major protest by university students at Amirkabir University, cutting short a speech by President Ahmadinejad who has become highly unpopular because of his suppression of civil liberties and the abject failure of his economic policies. Any attempt to launch an unprovoked war against Iran would, of course, play into the hands of Ahmadinejad and his hardline supporters.

Regardless of the timing of any change of occupancy of No. 10, British foreign policy-makers should make it crystal clear to our American allies and to Israel that the UK is strongly opposed to any military attack on Iran, and should do all it can to urge our EU allies to send the same message. War prevention and not preventive war should be our top priority in these dangerous times in the Middle East.

Paul Wilkinson, Professor of International Relations, University of St Andrews.