The Iran puzzle - how to solve (peacefully)?

The Iran puzzle - how to solve (peacefully)?

by Nita & Dave Anand

Iran wants to produce electricity using nuclear technology and that is its right as a sovereign nation. No one is trying to deny Iran that right, but the way it is going about achieving it as a non-proliferation treaty signatory, is a cause of great concern for the entire world, and especially Israel, whose very existence is at stake.

After squandering several opportunities to resolve the issue, including one by Russia, Iran seems to have created a nuclear-bomb perception with 20 percent uranium enrichment versus 3.5 percent needed for power generation. An International Atomic Energy Agency report last November about Iran's progress in this respect is making everyone nervous, with Israel threatening to attack and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

Writing for Washington Post recently, columnist David Ignatius said this:"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June -- before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities near the city of Qom to make a weapon - and only the United States could then stop them militarily with their newly designed bomb to reach and destroy such fortified facilities with little collateral damage."

No one expects Iran to take the Israeli attack laying down as Iraq did back in1981.

"Whoever attacks Iran's nuclear infrastructure is really making the decision to go to war with Iran," said Richard Burt, a former chief US negotiator at strategic arms reduction talks. Iran's response could include: try closing the Strait of Hormuz; an attack on Saudi oil fields; chasing and harassing tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats; grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships; stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with majority Shi'ite Muslim population; triggering attacks on US forces in Afghanistan and the Gulf; and in the extreme case -- attacking Israel with Hezbollah and Hamas assistance by raining rockets and missiles or even attacking America mainland through human proxies.

Last year it was the Arab Spring to liberate Tunisia, Egypt and Libya; we could have the War Spring in 2012 to free Iran from the clutches of mullahs. One Israeli official, who envisions a short-war of about five days followed by aU.N.-brokered cease fire, has even advised the United States to just stay out for them to do the dirty job.

A full scale war with Iran when presidential elections are around the corner is not in America's interest and nor should it be in any other nation's interest, with perhaps the exception of Israel, whose leaders, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak, feel -- any delayed action may prove too late. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told Reuters -- "If Iran becomes nuclear then it's the end of world order as we know it ... This is what we have to think about, and not about the shorter consequences of a strike that 'would be dwarfed in comparison to the danger of a nuclear Iran' -- It will be the end of the free flow of oil from the Gulf since a nuclear-armed Iran would be able to dictate prices."

Will severe sanctions work?
While the media is noisy with war drums, severe sanctions put in place only recently seem to be a step in the right direction. President Barack Obama signed new sanctions into law on New Year's Eve, with the European Union announcing similar measures to prevent Iran selling its oil by end of January 2012. Europe will stop all purchases of Iranian oil by July (if not banned earlier by Iran), which amounts to a fifth of Iran's crude sales. Even though China has denounced the sanctions, it has cut purchases to half and is taking advantage of the situation by getting deep discounts for what it buys, which in effect is a loss to Iran.

By all accounts, Iran's economy is in a downward spiral. Vegetable seller Hasan Sharafi, a father of four in the central city of Isfahan, had this to lament:"Prices are going up every day, life is expensive. I buy chicken or meat once per month. I used to buy it twice per week. Sometimes I want to kill myself. I feel desperate. I do not earn enough to feed my children."

Even in this dire Iran situation from sanctions, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, threatened to retaliate against the West by saying:"Sanctions will not have any impact on our determination to continue our nuclear course. Such sanctions will benefit us. They will make us more self-reliant ... We would not achieve military progress if sanctions were not imposed on Iran's military sector. In response to threats of oil embargo and war, we have our own threats to impose at the right time." And now Iran's parliament has summoned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to question him on the deteriorating economy, other domestic policy decisions as well as his foreign policy decisions.

Evicting Iran from Syria as a solution
Efraim Halevy, a former Israeli national security adviser and ambassador, has a novel solution. Halevy opines that evicting Iran from Syria could end up solving two problems with a single stone. The changing regime in Syria would end Iran's presence in Damascus that would burn its bridge to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, who together, have a stockpile of 200,000 rockets and missiles for raining over Israel as a proxy of Iran. Halevy further observes that Iran's eviction from Syria would not only be a big blow to these two militant outfits, it will degrade Iran's prestige internationally, and possibly force the bleeding regime in Tehran to come to senses and stop nuclear bomb activities. Should this option pan out (a la Libya), it would be lot safer and much less economically painful than an outright war with Iran, but no one seems to be sold on the idea.

Should we try to co-exist with nuclear Iran?
A small number of experts are of the view that accommodation than international war to stop Iran from nuclearizing is a better way out considering the severe economic woes the Iran-war will spew, along with bloodshed. The reality is that a nuclear Iran will definitely bring about nuclear Saudi Arabia and others in that red hot region. So these fake experts fail to understand that the Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD that comes into play after a few nations acquire nuclear arsenals only works for responsible nations and not rogue countries, especially rogue Muslim countries, where martyrdom is of higher calling and could easily enforce "involuntary martyrdom" on the world-at-large with a cache of atomic bombs. Iran is not like the USSR of the cold-war era during which MAD policy was shaped and adopted.

It is a no brainer that the option to resolve the Iran nuclear issue needs to happen now versus the brainless idea of accommodating and containing nuclear-armed Iran later. Rightly, the Senate has opted to pass a non-binding resolution called "Sense of the Senate" that seeks to rule out containment strategy for nuclear-armed Iran by limiting diplomatic efforts and raising the probability of Iran-war for resolving the issue.

Nita and Dave Anand (danand55@gmail.com) live in peaceful Trumbull. Dave has written and published two books: "People SuperHighway, the Mystique & Quest of Soul" and "The Verses."