And Israel’s deadly diplomacy
Analyses of the events surrounding the Iranian nuclear crisis have tended to focus on the military dimension to the exclusion of the crafty Israeli diplomatic manoeuvrings aimed at putting Iran in an untenable position vis-à-vis the international community. It has skilfully exploited global concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions to trigger telling blows on its economy and international standing.
First, despite the absence of tangible evidence from the IAEA or any other credible source, the world seems to have concluded that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Even the pliant head of the Agency has not made any such assertion yet a whole range of punitive actions have been unleashed against Iran. Rarely has a nation been penalised so heavily on the basis of so little evidence. A smoothly orchestrated media campaign supplemented with well timed leaks has convinced many of Iran’s guilt. Will such a verdict stand in any impartial court of law?
After having secured the presumption of guilt, Israeli diplomacy has adroitly manipulated the fallout. During the past several months the international media has been fed, in a cleverly timed sequence, news bites about Israel’s preparations for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. These threats have been cleverly modulated with an eye on the evolving dynamics of the American election year where presidential hopefuls are outbidding each other to proclaim solidarity with the threatened Jewish state. Having succeeded, long ago, in equating, in the American political consciousness, criticism of Israel with anti Semitism Israel is now poised to play its diplomatic trump card.
The west is strongly averse to an Israeli military strike against Iran given the incalculable consequences that are likely to ensue. It may well ignite a wider conflict which could take any direction including the unravelling of the current strategic configuration in the Middle East. It is this western aversion to another gulf war that Israel has so skilfully exploited.
Recently Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta suggested, clearly on Israeli prompting, that Israel was readying itself to strike Iran before it entered the “immunity zone” where nuclear materials and facilities could be transferred to secret locations. At around the same time, Israeli officials had let it be known that the Americans will not be notified in advance of any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The west has reacted to these threats by imposing debilitating sanctions against Iran basically to pre-empt the much vaunted Israeli assault. President Obama has prohibited any international dealings with the Iranian Central Bank entailing severe American penalties for the violators. The European Union has imposed a staggered oil embargo against Iranian oil imports under which fresh oil contracts have been proscribed whereas the existing contracts would be allowed to run till July 1, 2012. By that date, all oil shipments to the Union would cease. Already Japan and South Korea, major non
European importers of Iranian crude are looking for alternate sources of supply mostly from Saudi Arabia which has agreed to enhance its production by 2 million barrels per day. Libya and Iraq, their oil industry largely controlled by Western companies, are likely to make up for the balance of the shortfall.
Reportedly China and surprisingly India have decided to stay firm even though a senior Chinese official had recently visited the Gulf countries to asses the possibility of tapping their supplies in the event that became necessary.
The Iranian economy is critically dependent on oil income. A sizeable cut in this revenue would place unsustainable strains on the economy and the Iranian regime. Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, has threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz if the Iranian oil exports are interrupted. This is precisely what Israel wants.
Hormuz is an international waterway providing passage to a sizeable chunk of global oil trade. Forcible closure of this universally recognised trading artery would be a grave violation of international law. The international community would then be well within its right to take all necessary measures, possibly with Security Council authorisation, otherwise under international maritime law to enforce the lifting of the blockade. The responsibility for the ensuing conflict will then be pinned entirely on Iran which by the act of blockade would have transformed itself into an aggressor from a victim. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear assets in the course of the conflict, though unrelated to its cause, would trigger much less outrage than an unprovoked Israeli attack. It is this train of events which Iran must avoid at all costs.
Friends of Iran like Russia, China, India and Pakistan must jointly dissuade Iran from blocking Hormuz. They must also endeavour to persuade Iran to demonstrate flexibility in its nuclear stance to obstruct Israeli ability, so far unchecked, to play on western fears and manipulate the enormous well of sympathy that it enjoys amongst their populations. As a starting point Iran could signal its readiness to place its entire nuclear stock under IAEA safeguards an obligation to which Iran is committed as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Fulfilment of freely assumed contractual obligations should not be construed as diminution of one’s sovereignty.
The writer is Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the United Nations and European Union. He can be contacted at [email protected]
