The best way to defang Iran is by regime change in Syria

By Yogi Aggarwal Israeli belligerence and aggressive designs on Iran may hurtle the world into a deeper crisis than the one brought about by the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Israel has indicated that it might bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in a risky attack by 100 fighter aircraft. They would have to fly over 2,000 miles in a “huge and highly complex operation” through hostile countries such as Syria, Iraq and Iran, refuelling in mid-air to bomb what it allegedly calls a nuclear weapons programme that is almost ready. Even western powers such as the US, Britain and France, which are not exactly friendly to Iran, have been alarmed at the dangerous consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran.  It would trigger a regional conflagration with uncontrollable global consequences, the closure of the Straits of Hormuz through which one-fourth of the world’s oil supplies pass, a global economic crisis and possible terrorist strikes against Western cities. The Guardian believes that an attack on Iran would be an act of criminal stupidity. In a recent article, it argues: “The same discredited arguments used to justify the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan – from weapons of mass destruction to sponsorship of terrorism and fundamentalist fanatics – are now being used to make the case for an attack on Iran.” Though the neo-cons in US and elsewhere back the dangerous Israeli adventure, others in the defence establishment are more cautious. [caption id=“attachment_224956” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Israelis from different organisations hold banners during a protest calling on the government not to attack Iran, in front of the Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv. Oded Balilty/AP”]  [/caption] While US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta let it be known that Israel could attack Iran later this year between April and June, he also told a CBS TV programme ‘Face the Nation’ last month, “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us.” Meanwhile, Israeli agents, probably with the help of the US, have carried out covert assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, physical sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities, and cyber warfare against Iranian centrifuges in the form of the Stuxnet virus. There is a huge difference between nuclear capability and an almost-ready nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, enough to blow the oil-rich Gulf back to the stone age. Iran is trying to build a capability linked to its civilian programmes. Such a capability would not be a threat to Israel but would blunt its strategic edge. It would limit the US’ “freedom of action” in the Middle East as unchallenged hegemony. Such freedom of action is apparently the prerogative of the US and its allies (read Israel) and not of other independent states. Iran’s nuclear status may be likened to “keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons” rather than putting together a bomb and attaching it to a missile. It’s a long road from one to the other. The Iranian capabilities are best explained in a paper ‘Crying wolf about an Iranian nuclear bomb”  in the January 2012 issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the most prestigious forum for nuclear risks and disarmament. It reveals, “Top policymakers in the United States and Israel have heightened the crisis not just by their  belligerent rhetoric and aggressive covert actions, but also by endorsing highly generous assessments of Iranian nuclear technical capacities, which make it seem as if the birth of an Iranian nuclear bomb is just around the corner.” It continues, “Even though Iran’s claims that it is open and honest with international nuclear inspectors are unbelievable, that does not mean it is hiding a sophisticated weapons program. In fact, the record shows that Iran’s distinct tendency is to exaggerate its nuclear accomplishments … Indeed, in recent years its number of working gas centrifuges has actually been _declining …_is it really reasonable to expect such low-quality, brittle technical infrastructure to create a single, Hiroshima-size nuclear device — let alone a bona fide nuclear weapons arsenal?” Other strategic analysts are equally skeptical. The British security journal RUSI, bought out by Royal United Services Institute, in an analysis last month said: “The peaceful applications of nuclear energy include steps that can greatly shorten the lead time toward acquiring nuclear weapons. In Iran’s case, the research reactor at Tehran (supplied by the United States during the Shah’s reign) does require 20 percent enriched uranium to function — but that is exactly the sort that can easily be enriched to weapons-grade.” If Iran is not just months away from a nuclear weapons capability, what is all the bluster and bluff about bombing Iran and closing the Hormuz Strait all about? Such sabre rattling, and the sanctions that are inevitable, could be the start of a process of ‘regime change’. It’s not that Iran under the ayatollahs is much better than under the Shah, or that the ‘revolutionary guards’, one of the major props of the regime, are not corrupt and vicious. It’s just that Iran sits on one of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world that have been closed to the western oil companies since 1978. Sanctions in the past have hurt Iran (and Indian companies such as ONGC drilling in offshore Iranian waters) but the fresh sanctions could get worse. With unemployment running at a record high, and the memory of the rigged presidential elections in 2009 still fresh in people’s minds, discord is growing and could be aggravated by fresh sanctions. Sanctions are double edged. While they could bring down the present regime, they could also shore up its internal support by an appeal to national interests. It’s easier to hit Iran by regime change in Syria, which has lived for 40 years under Ba’ath Party rule. The movement for change as part of the ‘Arab spring’ has yet to overthrow the authoritarian regime. As an important supporter of Iran in the Arab world, regime change in Syria would seriously weaken it and strengthen Israel. This would be a more acceptable part of aggressive diplomacy, than the risky brinkmanship being suggested by Israel and the neo-cons in the US.