Will Iran compromise or is it stalling for time?

Love is in the air wafting between Western capitals and Tehran. That’s a gross exaggeration, of course. But both sides appear to be seeking some sort of accommodation for various reasons. Recent talks between Iranian negotiators and P5+1 nations held in Vienna were deemed useful and constructive. Then last weekend, President Obama hosted the leaders of G-8 nations at his Camp David retreat where the unified word on Iran was a continuation of sanctions tempered by diplomacy. In fact, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta went out of his way to contradict the US Ambassador to Israel who announced that the US had firmed up plans to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, by stating that the US is not weighing a military option at this time.
Certainly, diplomatic efforts are gathering pace. Yesterday (Monday), the head of the nuclear watchdog the IAEA met with Iranian negotiators in Tehran to discuss the agency’s increased access to sensitive sites. Tomorrow, representatives of the US, Britain, France, Germany and China are due to meet with their Iranian counterparts in Baghdad. Moreover, the New York Times has quoted senior Obama administration figures as saying, “The United States and five other major powers are prepared to offer Iran a series of incentives to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium.” Some analysts are of the opinion that the US might go a step further and bless Iran’s low-level enrichment for civilian purposes, provided there was sufficient transparency.
Dousing the smoldering cinders of conflict that are liable to erupt into a full-scale war is in the short-term interests of those Western capitals facing double-dip recessions over Greece’s potential exit from the Euro and others that will be scarred by infection. George W. Bush’s wars were waged when his country’s coffers were full to overflowing; President Obama does not have that luxury even if he were so disposed. And neither would he garner the backing of traditional allies such as the UK and France.
British Prime Minister David Cameron would hardly be able to sell war with Iran while he’s forcing Britons to tighten their belts. And France’s new socialist President François Hollande hardly got his feet under his new desk before he announced that he planned to pull his country’s troops out of Afghanistan before the year’s end disregarding NATO’s 2014 deadline.
For its part, Iran is feeling the economic heat engendered by sanctions that have sent its currency into a downward spiral. There’s worse on the way; EU sanctions against Iran’s oil industry will take effect in July. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has a dilemma. For his own revolutionary credibility at home, he cannot be seen to have capitulated to the US or allowed the West to undermine his country’s nuclear program, which is a source of national pride. There are no actual olive branches to grasp, as of now only their specters, which is enough to concern Israel’s right-wing Netanyahu-led government that is convinced Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state that must be defanged at all costs. Netanyahu has no interest in Iranian assurances. He believes the Iranians are stalling for time to perfect a nuclear weapon. If he reaches the conclusion that Washington and Tehran are cozying up, leaving Tel Aviv out of the loop, would he consider going it alone?
I asked author, reporter, broadcaster and Middle East commentator Adel Darwish whether he believed Iran seeks a nuclear weapons capability notwithstanding its disavowals — and whether calls from Netanyahu that the only way to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is a military strike are genuine, especially considering Israel’s former intelligence chiefs are of the opinion that would be madness.
“Yes, Iran wants nuclear weapons. Before Saddam Hussein was toppled it was pure national security but they still fear another Saddam or Nasser emerging. They are not a threat to Israel but Israelis worry about nuclear material reaching Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is wrecking peace in the region, supporting terrorism and backing Shiite revolts,” says Darwish, who has written “Iran’s nuclear weapons are not weapons designed to deter an existentialist threat of annihilation (as is the case of Israel’s nuclear weapons) but are weapons to blackmail neighbors.”
He maintains the Israeli intelligence assessments are based on such factors as the Arab Spring that has reinforced nationalistic anti-Israel sentiments throughout the region plus, he says, the US has resisted giving Israel “the only bomb capable of doing the job”. “Without the required weapons, Israel wants the US to attack Iran, but hawks in the US want Israel to attack Iran, as do certain Arab countries,” he tells me.
“Obviously, Iranian sleeper cells in the West would be activated. Hezbollah would attack Israel. But worse would be what might happen with Egypt — a disastrous scenario if it all blows up. Israelis would fear Islamists in Egypt taking advantage of the war to launch an all-out attack, so they would take preemptive action against the Egyptian military (and Syria on a smaller scale). Israel’s main target would be missiles and chemical warheads. As they wouldn’t be able to destroy all Egyptian missile capabilities during the first wave, it is likely that Egypt would launch over 2,000 chemical warheads prompting Israel to use WMDs, including nukes.”
I asked Mr. Darwish whether he thought President Obama had adopted a ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ position on Iran. He takes the view that “Obama doesn’t have Bush’s resolve to go to war even if he is re-elected to office when he would no longer be hampered by having to please a largely pro-Israel electorate. At the same time, he is skeptical of a genuine move by Tehran for peace with America as that would “herald the end of the Islamic Republic. Confronting the ‘Great Satan is the Islamic Republic’s founding myth. Iran needs to keep up the tension for the regime to survive.”
It seems to me that the Obama administration is blurring its former red lines and may be preparing to live with a nuclear Iran for want of another option. But the trajectory could diametrically alter if Mitt Romney moves into the White House. The Romney campaign’s Director of Foreign Policy speaking on his boss’ behalf recently accused Obama of trying to silence any talk of war and has, therefore undermined the military option. He also warned Obama of making phony agreements, saying “the fact of an agreement with Iran that you can wave in the air is not what we need.” In the event of one manifesting, the question is whether or not it will be legally binding on America’s next commander-in-chief.
And so the game will continue to play out until that dreaded day when the talking stop — or better still, when leaders quit sacrificing people’s lives and treasure like pawns on a chessboard for self-aggrandizement and power.

[email protected]