Iran’s Options to Respond to the West

After adopting the new UN Security Council resolution 1929 against Iran, the EU and some other US allies such as Australia has been discussing on the new round of sanction against Iran in addition to the UNSC ones. It seems that there is some kind of monolithic actions in this regard against Iran in the West front but on the other side of the game which is Iran we have not witnessed any particular measure in spite of long rhetoric to respond to the sanctions.
In this article I’m trying to briefly clarify the Iranian options to respond to these actions. Iran can take into consideration five strategies to respond to the current situation.
First, acceptance of UNSC resolutions on Iran’s nuclear issue. This policy means that Iran halts its nuclear program and uranium enrichment and cooperates fully with the IAEA and approves the additional protocol in its parliaments. This may reduces the pressures on Iran and stop some of sanctions. On the other hand this policy certainly damages the Iranian prestige among Non- Allied Movement and Islamic nations. Internally the Iranian people would lose their confidence on the government and criticize it for withdrawal from their absolute right of using atomic energy. This also means that the Iranian government wasted its energy, resources, etc for near 8 year, for nothing.
Second policy is relative cooperation. According to this policy Iran accepts some part of resolutions in order to make confidence and show its good intention. For example Iran can suspend uranium enrichment for certain period of time and enforce the additional protocol voluntarily. This may result in more negotiations and reduce some sanctions. The aim of this policy is to ensure the international community about the good will of Iranian party. The course of history proved that this policy because of profound distrust between two parties would not operationalize.
Third policy is to continue the current situation which I mean by that resuming the Iranian nuclear issue in spite of the new sanctions and do nothing in particular in response to the sanction. This policy would complicate the situation. The continuation of the current situation may increase the sanction and put more pressure on Iran and in the worst case may bolster the idea of attacking Iran. So this situation is not desirable for Iran.
Fourth policy is to reduce the level of cooperation with the IAEA and the hostile states. Preventing IAEA inspectors to come to the country and restricting their access to some sites perhaps are some options in this regards. This may be a quick response to the new sanctions and has some domestic consumption. But on the other side it may increase the sanction on Iran and disappoints some Iranian allies in the world and proves the arguments of the west about Iranian non-compliance nature.
The fifth policy is a confrontation strategy which can be divided into two main categories: low-intensified conflict as a result of enforcement of the resolution 1929 to inspect Iranian ships and cargos and Iran’s retaliation in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea. Limited conflicts in this regard would be occurred. Another category is high-intensified conflict as result of Iran’s change policy to exit from the NPT and trying to make bomb. This policy has the deterrence function for Iran but on the other hand can pave the way for the west to resort to article 42 of UN charter and attack Iran in a way that they did against Iraq in 2003.
I believe that Iran must assess the west strategy and intention of the current measures. They may have four purposes from their actions:
1. Increasing the pressures and sanctions to change the behavior of Iranian government through threat.
2. Continuing the current situation which is bargaining and trying to adopt new resolution.
3. Increasing the sanctions and limited confrontation with Iran in different areas.
4. Increasing the pressure and sanctions to change the Iranian regime.
This is exactly the fact that should be clarified. I think current situation should be changed by Iranian government. If we come to this conclusion that the west cannot tolerate the Iranian regime and this is the beginning of trend to topple Iranian government in Iraq-like manner then Iran should keep every option on the table even achieving to atomic bomb.
For now Iran should apply a combination of all aforementioned policies which it means trying to back the 5+3 to negotiation table and also some confidence building measures and at the same time reduce its cooperation with IAEA and warn the west that Iran can move beyond if they continue their hostile actions. In this regard the fifth way- exiting NPT and making bomb- should not be off the table. The West problem is the nature of Islamic Revolution and all of these actions are excuses to curb Iran. Solving the nuclear issue, this country cannot be sure that another issue would be presented.
To sum up, I extremely emphasis on solving the Iranian nuclear issue through political methods and cooperation with the international community but if the rival powers try to exhaust the country through counterproductive measures, Iran should take into account all possible options to deter the west from interfering and defend itself from probable attacks even by nukes.

http://stratfor.blogspot.com/

When the Oil Spill Does Matter!

It seems that the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico is going to deteriorate Obama’s political future and overshadow his internal agenda. The Spill makes Obama to talk to his nation for the first time from the Oval Office of the White House and call the event as “the worst environmental and economic disaster” for America. He also mentioned that this is “an assault on American shores and citizens”. A sentence which reminds me of George W. Bush’s rhetoric after the 9/11 attacks. I am not going to say that the Oil Spill is the 9/11 of president Obama but it seems that he himself insist on that. Obama accused British Petroleum of failing to do proper measures to control the Spill and requested from BP to pay compensation to the victims. Obama’s strong rhetoric against BP made British new prime-minister to react to the accusation. It seems that after a century of “special relation” between the US and UK the environmental event deteriorated the liaison. This event has some implications on the US administration and also has some lessons for the International Relations as an academic discipline as follow.
First of all, as I mentioned before the Obama’s political gesture is now at risk by this environmental crisis. Because of the importance of the issue he traveled four times to Louisiana to show his commitment to solve the problem. This is exactly what we can call it a showdown of Obama. According to a poll 52 percent of American people disapprove Obama’s handling of the crisis. This a clear reason for Obama’s concerns. His second term of office may be at stake, so he angrily makes pressure on BP and deployed 27000 national guardsmen to curb the oil leakage to the gulf. History shows the Obama’s legacy in the subject.
The second point is incremental importance of environmental issues in domestic politics and international relations. We are witnessing some kinds of tensions happening in the US-UK relations because of environmental issue. It’s not new but it shows the importance of low politics in International Relations discipline. Some events like climate change, the Iceland volcanic ash, poverty, infectious diseases, Louisiana oil spill etc are going to shape the agenda setting of international arena.
The last point not the least, is the growing significance of NGOs in International Relations. In Oil Spill issue once again we are witnessing that a super-power confronted with an NGO which is simply BP. This event shows that the states are not sole actors of International Relations and some new actors which are not necessarily weak have been appeared. After September 11th the world has recognized terrorist groups as NGOs which can change the trace of history and all the states determined to fight them. It seems that now another kind of NGOs which is economic giant challenged the sovereignty of a super-power. Regardless to the result of this confrontation, these new entities-NGOs- are in the chessboard of International Relations and cannot be ignored whether the states like them or not.

http://stratfor.blogspot.com

New Resolution Against Iran: Does It Really Work?

Finally after five month of U.S. hard work to make consensus among major powers, the UN Security Council approved fourth round of sanctions against Iran. Barack Obama one hour after the approval of the resolution called that as “most comprehensive sanctions” and declared that the United States will continue its own sanction alongside the UNSC ones. The U.S. president said that the sanction is not directed to Iranian people. But everybody knows that this is matter of rhetoric. This is Iranian people who at the end of the day suffer from the sanctions. The main question here is that do these sanctions really work? Referring to history the answer is obviously clear: NO. Iran as president Ahmadinejad mentioned will not change its behavior. Iran certainly will reject the Resolution. In other word this Resolution is a wrong signal to Iran because Iranian president clearly had said Iran would halt negotiation if the new resolution passed. Knowing that reality, the U.S tried to adopt the new U.N Resolution and simultaneously the Vienna group sent the negative letter to IAEA in response to may 24th Tehran declaration. It means that regardless of Tehran reaction, the US and the West had decided to approve the resolution. Ironically the US president said the approval of the resolution does not mean that the door of diplomacy is closed. This clearly is a double standard policy toward Iran. The US wants to increase the costs of Iran’s opposition to the West. Once again this Resolution proved that the nature of Iranian government is the main problem of the West, not the nuclear issue. Of course the Resolution not only won’t change the Iranian behavior but also it bolsters the Iranian government position in its nuclear issue and certainly close the door for dialogue and negotiation for at least several month.
Adopting this Resolution is a signal to Iran that if the hegemon is reluctant to do something no one can do that. Iranian diplomatic achievement to make a semi-coalition with Turkey and Brazil was not a desirable matter for the U.S. and that’s why they reacted firmly at the UN Security Council.
Another important point is that this Resolution has domestic consumption for the Obama administration. He-during his 16 month of being in office-did nothing notable toward Iran. He must prove his authority in international arena by resorting to Bush-like measures.
The bottom-line is that the Resolution is counterproductive and was a catastrophic respond to Iranian confidence building measures at top level. Clearly Iran won’t give up its nuclear policies for peaceful purposes and such Resolution does not work and may exacerbate the situation for the West and encounter them to a no-win situation.