Tension between Iran and the West has not been higher in recent memory. The debate about military strikes and crippling economic sanctions on Iran has been confined to the issues of efficacy, limitations, and potential reaction by the Iranians. However, there is a critical matter that sheds light on the potentially disastrous and costly ramifications of a military operation against Iran: the damages to peace and stability in Afghanistan and its region. Any strike against Iran would severely hamper a successful transition process in Afghanistan by 2014.
Iran holds the keys to stability in that region. The Persian Gulf, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southwest Asia -- which includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan -- all border on Iran. Tensions in and with Iran thus affect the entire neighborhood.
The deteriorating relations with Pakistan have made abundantly clear how a neighbor can be detrimental to the situation in and around Afghanistan. Afghanistan's western neighbor Iran is just as important as Af-Pak. Afghanistan's second longest border is with the large Islamic Republic of Iran -- positioning Kabul close to any development there: from Iran's nuclear ambitions to the impact of Afghan refugees and drugs.
Iranian influence in Afghanistan is strong: the western part of Afghanistan, especially the Herat province, has intense human, cultural, and commercial relations with Iran, not to mention its intelligence presence there. The Tajiks in Afghanistan's north have benefited from Iranian support. In fact, Iran's connections with the Northern Alliance helped the Western intervention in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban 2001. Today, India assists Iranian-Afghan commercial and infrastructure development.
As Afghanistan seeks to counterbalance Sunni Pakistan's influence, it has also turned to Shia Iran. On numerous occasions President Karzai has made diplomatic and personal overtures to the Islamic Republic for its shared language, culture, political and economic interests with Afghanistan.
In case of a hot crisis, Iran could easily upset stability and peace in Afghanistan and beyond. This would be disastrous for American and international intentions to provide for an orderly and stable transition for a secure and prosperous Afghanistan. During this time when there is a need for strategic tranquility, escalating tensions with Iran are most counterproductive.
Perception forms reality and influences intent and action. At this point, it is hardly just a matter of military operation or the beginning of acts of war against Iran. The perception of a vital threat is enough to cause intense fog of suspicion and duplicity which could, with the right catalyst, easily escalate to hot conflict.
Indeed by virtue of the power of perception, war with Iran might already have begun. The combination of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, surprising blasts at nuclear sites, cyber sabotage at nuclear facilities, critical economic sanctions, provisions for opposition members to access the internet without government censorship, previous investments in democratic civil society groups in Iran, and the alleged foreign intelligence operations with the Baluchi rebels -- all of these combined could be interpreted as war-like acts against Iran.
For their part, radical elements within the Iranian regime may even consider whether war with the United States wouldn't be good for shoring up national support and quelling opposition activities. Moreover, actions of a deliberate third party, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, or a non-state-actor like Hezbollah could further accelerate the downward spiral to hot conflict and devastating regional consequences.
It is imperative to develop a strategy that denies Iran nuclear weapons within a working and balanced regional context. Otherwise, the United States and its allies in the region may find itself in a troubling disadvantageous situation which critically challenges all intentions and achievements in Baghdad and Kabul.
Some, especially Russia, might benefit from yet another American crisis involvement; harvesting an increasing oil price and a freer hand in their interest in Central Asia and the Caucasus. From the Levante to the Hindukush, the U.S. and its allies have sacrificed soldiers and treasure to establish security and stability for men, women, and children living there. War with Iran would not only nullify all that but plunge the region further into instability, conflict, and radicalization -- in dangerous proximity to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Daniel Nikbakht assisted in writing this article.
Rajan Menon: Iran, the West, and the Lessons of the Great War
If you don't want a missiles and rockets deluge on Israel, do not attack Iran.
If you don't want World War III, do not attack Iran.
This action has been taken in order to isolate Iran politically, militarily and economically by applying a blockade that will starve it into surrender. With Iran forced to fight for its survival from nuclear-armed states, the inevitable loss of life will be immense.
What will then happen? Will the US install a puppet as Iranian Head of State? Will Iranian oil reserves be expropriated by the US and Israel? What will happen to the 84 million Iranians who will then be required to live under the threat of an all-powerful, secret Israeli nuclear arsenal?
The key question is: why would all 27 EU member states accept a world that would clearly place them at such a huge political, economic and military disadvantage. Will the world be a safer place, run by the US and Israel?
And why would Russia and China, not to mention Iraq and Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt, accept such an attempt to control the entire Middle East; its oil and its people?
And what of the emasculated United Nations, forced to stand and watch as the international community, which it is supposed to represent, is dismembered whilst it stands helpless and impotent in the face of the most powerful threat to global peace since 1939?
Let's move on to discuss those things within our control, like maybe fixing our dysfunctional pubic education system.
Their two answers to this question, one Western sabotage efforts have been more successful than either side has admitted or the more likely one is that Iran wants the capabilities to build a nuclear bomb and equip its missiles with them in a short space of time but does not want to take that final step because they do not believe it improve Iran position in the world.
Discussing Afghanistan effects should come AFTER a legal justification has been presented and verified as accurate.
Another war of aggression based on lies, people who claim to know what will happen in the future, and paranoia that suits ideology must not be allowed.
TEHRAN (FNA)- The latest report on Iran presented by the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General to the agency's Board of Governors vindicates the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities and confirms that Iran's program is faced with no technical or legal problems, a senior MP said.
"Mr. Amano, like (his predecessor) Mohammad ElBaradei, has underlined the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program," Rapporteur of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazzem Jalali told FNA on Saturday.
He noted that Yukiya Amano's first report on Iran's nuclear program, similar to ElBaradei's reports, is comprised of technical and legal as well as political aspects.
Both in Amano and ElBaradei's reports on Iran, those parts which deal with the legal and technical issues underline the technical success and legality of Iran's nuclear program and the peaceful nature of the country's nuclear activities, the lawmaker stressed.
"Therefore, there is no problem in the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program technically and legally," the lawmaker noted.
Jalali stated that the IAEA's Thursday report on Iran has vindicated Tehran's full cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and the country's move within the framework of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Meantime, he reminded that like ElBaradei's report, Amano has once again sought to raise a certain number of ambiguities and questions in the political side of his report to appease the western countries.
That said, the right's embracing of the Bush Doctrine, no matter how discredited it is, looks alot like the Italian, German & Japanese people's embracing of the same attitude in the 1930's.