Those who hoped that the IAEA visit to Iran would open the door to resuming talks on Tehran’s nuclear programs must be disappointed. Experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency spent three days in Iran, whose news agency published only a few short notices about their visit.
A never-ending crisis
The Vienna-headquartered IAEA called the talks a success and said another group of its experts would soon go to Tehran. This provoked rumors about the possible resumption of talks between Iran and the six international mediators – Russia, China, the United States, France, Britain and Germany – in Istanbul, Turkey.
But we have seen all of this before, including unsuccessful talks, UN Security Council sanctions against Iran, and media leaks about imminent missile strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities either by the United States or Israel.
Can international crises carry on endlessly? Strangely, the answer is yes. Apart from the Iranian and North Korean nuclear crises, there have been many such never-ending crises in global history.
Forecasting the outcome of the Iranian crisis (war or peace?) is almost impossible, even though many people have tried. But there are several interesting aspects to that crisis bearing not so much on Iran as on the world at large.
Iran’s impact on U.S. elections
It is obvious that Barack Obama, who is running for a second term, does not want Iran to join the nuclear club and to become the strongest power in the Middle East in the election year. If this happens, people will say that he should have “done something about it.” But fighting Iran single-handedly is a bad idea, and not only because Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. More importantly, the United States, whose sovereign debt exceeds $15 trillion, is cutting the defense budget and troops. The key feature of a recent operation against Libya was that the U.S. stood back while other countries fought the dictator.
Who could do the same in Iran?
Last Tuesday National Intelligence Director James Clapper, CIA Director David Petraeus and other representatives of the numerous U.S. intelligence agencies delivered their annual reports in Congress.
They agree that Iran may create a nuclear charge in a year and a vehicle to deliver it in another 12-24 months, the deadline for the United States and Israel. At the same time, the intelligence officials clearly indicated that no major events such as a war were to be expected.
It would have been a routine forecast if not for the reminder about the failed attempt on the life of the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The attempt to assassinate Adel al-Jubeir was made in October and provoked many skeptical smiles: the terrorist attack was allegedly planned by Iran’s special forces in the United States, but the huge number of glaring mistakes completely rule out the possibility.
The supposition was soon hushed up, but resurfaced during the Congressional hearings as an almost unveiled invitation to Saudi Arabia to take part in the Iranian affair.
The reason could be that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf monarchies have played a major part in the Libyan war and the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia. In the case of Libya, they and NATO used each other to achieve their goals in the region.
It would be far better for the United States if the bulk of responsibilities in the fight against Iran were shouldered by the Arab monarchies rather than Israel, which is standing somewhat aloof in the region. They have hated Iran for over 12 centuries to such a degree that a Saudi-Israeli alliance could even be seen as a possibility. This would be a clean win for Obama.
First target Syria
The current developments in Syria, Iran’s key ally in the Middle East, look like Saudi Arabia and Iran fighting each other through stooges, Bashar Assad and the Syrian opposition. It has been clearly proved that it is not the United States but the Gulf monarchies that are supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition.
On the other hand, attempts could be made to involve Iran even before the Syrian issue is settled, for example by provoking Tehran into actively supporting Bashar Assad. There are many other possible scenarios.
This brings to light the role of Russia, China and other BRICS countries, which represent dozens of states that are watching the events in the Middle East, in particular Syria, with obvious alarm. The UN Security Council is now discussing a new Syria resolution in New York. Moscow and its partners have said once again that they will not vote for a resolution that creates a precedent legalizing the overthrow of regimes which the unusual alliance of Arab and Western countries finds unsuitable.
Another choose-your-side game being played in the Middle East concerns Iranian oil, which the European Union stopped buying on June 1 to punish Tehran. Who will snatch the contracts and buy Iranian oil, making the EU and any other current sanctions useless?
To date, Iran sells oil to China, Japan and South Korea, which are unwilling to support the EU’s embargo, especially China, but fear that a war in the region would leave them without any fuel. Knowing that they will have to take a decision, they are feverishly scrutinizing the situation.
The countries which transit Iranian oil to the east have gained a new standing. One such country is Turkmenistan, which has recently hosted a delegation from – surprise, surprise – Israel.
In short, balancing on the brink of war could continue in the region until the United States withdraws from the greater Middle East in accordance with its proclaimed plans.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
