Close Up
Will Iran still be a threat in 2008 ?
The Crisis in Pakistan and the recent rioting in Kenya have dislodged Iran to the background. Yet in Europe and the US the debate on the Iranian Nuclear Programme is far from over, even though the US Intelligence Service deems that the military aspect of this programme was halted in 2003.
We interviewed two people with widely different approaches on this subject.
Yes: Iran’s intentions and capacities remain worrisome in 2008
Bruno Tertrais
Fondation pour la recherche stratégique
The Iranian threat lies in the combination between the capacities and the intentions of the regime in place at Teheran.
By capacities, I mean the levels attained by the military and civilian nuclear programmes, which according to the UN inspectors are quite disturbing. This programme has no economic justification and everything points to Iran wanting the Bomb. Granted, the recent report by the US Intelligence Service states that the military branch has been suspended since 2003, but the results have not been lost and could be used in future. Lastly we must be aware of the speed at which the Iranian Ballistic Missile programme has been growing.
As to Iran’s intentions, it is the regime’s essence in itself that poses problem. Iran considers itself at war with the West and has hegemonic intentions in the region; its Arab neighbours are the first to be targeted. Do we need to remind people that Teheran has always supported terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah who attempt against civilians? And Iran had a role to play in destabilising Iraq and Afghanistan. Were Iran to obtain the bomb, with greater confidence it would dictate its will to the region. And last but not least, there is an apocalyptic and Messianic current in the Iranian Regime: that of the President Ahmedinejad and the most radical Mollahs. Retaliation threats might not work with such characters.
No: Ahmedinejad does not hold all the power and realism will take over in the end.
Hasni Abidi
Director of CERMAM (Study and Research Center for the Arab and Mediterranean World)
The Iranian threat must be relativized. First of all, for the past twenty years this country has been unable to export its political-religious ideology and its regional influence tends to be overestimated. Second, concerning its nuclear military programme interrupted in 2003 according to US Intelligence reports, the West seems to forget that decision making in Iran follows a rational process. Despite all his declarations, the Iranian President - as radical as he may be - does not have all the power and eventually realism prevails in Teheran. And this realism materialises itself in the need the Iranian Leaders have, to save their regime. Most important for them is the control of Civilian Nuclear Technology on which there has been a national consensus ever since the days of the Shah. It is also pertinent to analyse the position of the Gulf Countries to better grasp the Iranian case, as they directly face the Fundamentalist Regime. These countries do not believe in the hypothesis of an Iranian Bomb. And Ahmedinejad was not invited out of fear to do the Hajj in Mecca and to address the Gulf Cooperation Council in Qatar, a historic event. This illustrates the fact that the Gulf Countries consider Iran as a non belligerent partner who could be associated to the economic projects of the region.
Iran or Pakistan?
The International Community in its zeal to supervise Iran, has taken the risk of forgetting Pakistan, who does possess the Bomb and is starting to look line a stick of dynamite whose evolution cannot be predicted. And here lies the paradox. While Washington focuses its critics on the Mollahs, Musharraf’s regime still belongs to the international coalition waging war on terrorism, despite the latter’s ambiguous game in Afghanistan. But for how much longer? How would the West react if tomorrow young Pakistani officers formed at home and with little contact outside, were to unite with an Islamist movement? What would happen if the shock wave provoked by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination degenerated into Civil War with inter-ethnic confrontations? By invading Iraq instead of “finishing the job” in Afghanistan (where the Taliban are regaining power), the US has committed a major strategic mistake. And this mistake could see itself perpetuated if the Americans – blinded in their will to finish with the Mollah’s regime – were to decide a military intervention against Iran instead of seriously considering how to contain the probable imminent implosion of Pakistan.
AKRAM BELKAÏD
La Tribune – 04/01/08
Translated by Ines Ward
Research Assistant Trainee at CERMAM
Permanent link to this entry (permalink)
- Origin CERMAM
- http://www.cermam.org/en/logs/zoom/will_iran_still_be_a_threat_in/
- Publié le 4 February 2008