Iran: a lose-lose situation?

Iran's recent announcement that it had mastered the technology to enrich uranium to make nuclear fuel has created further tension between Teheran and the international community. Although the UN Security Council has called on Iran to halt its enrichment programme by the end of this month, Teheran's response has been to actually speed up the process. The fear is that Iran's enrichment technology will be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Iran's latest move has been criticised by all five permanent members of the UN security Council - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - but so far the international community has not yet decided on a unified approach to the crisis.

While the military option has not been ruled out by US, Britain and France - although all three cannot exactly be described as being on the same wavelength over the issue - both China and Russia have said that military force will not resolve anything.

Iran's uranium enrichment capability is now a fact which has to be dealt with. Statements have now been made by various hawks in Washington that given the circumstances only regime change or military action can solve the crisis. Various international press reports have also revealed that the US has already drawn up a plan to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities.

Of course, regime change is the best option to resolve this problem but this does not seem possible for the time being and furthermore such a scenario will have to be brought about by the Iranian people and not by international military force.

So the only way forward is either more diplomacy or military strikes to knock out Iran's nuclear capability. While it is not only understandable but also advisable to have contingency plans in place for a military strike against Iran - one to continue exerting pressure on Teheran and two to be prepared if all diplomatic efforts fail - the time is certainly not right for such military action. Diplomatic efforts have not yet been exhausted, most experts believe that Iran is at least one year away (possibly more) from producing a single nuclear weapon and the risks connecting with military strikes are so great that everything possible should be done to avoid this option.

Indeed the risks of military strikes against Iran are very great. First of all there is not going to be any invasion of Iran - America simply cannot occupy two large countries at the same time - Iraq is a big enough headache, so it will have to continue dealing with the same regime in Teheran after any military strikes - which will probably boost domestic support for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his hard-line government.

Furthermore, Iran has dispersed its nuclear research and development sites throughout the country, so the chances of destroying all of these in one strike are not exactly overwhelming. A job 'half done' will only encourage Iran to speed up its nuclear capability.

International media reports have also stated that Washington has not even ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran. I hope that this is simply a way of exerting more pressure on Iran because the consequences of using such weapons against a developing Muslim country, in today's circumstances, would be dire. Besides obvious moral questions arising from such an attack, the diplomatic, economic and political damage inflicted on the West as a result of nuclear weapons being used against Iran - however tactical - would be enormous.

There are other serious risks associated with a military attack against Iran. The price of oil will probably shoot up to astronomical figures, the Straits of Hormuz - where most of the West's oil supplies pass through - would probably be closed to shipping by Iran, the situation in Iraq would become absolutely hopeless with the pro-Iranian Shi'ite armies turning on the Americans and British, tensions between the Muslim world and the West would continue to increase, the Shi'ite Hizbollah army in Lebanon would intensify its attacks against Israel, the world will witness a new wave of suicide bomb attacks - last week scores of Iranians signed up as volunteer suicide bombers at a ceremony in Teheran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would get worse and we could possibly witness a joint Shi'ite-Sunni terrorist battle against Western targets.

There's another problem. Imagine the US unilaterally attacking Iran with no UN or allied support, except perhaps from Israel. President Bush would have to ask the American people to simply trust him based on his intelligence reports and America's experience in fighting wars. Given the Iraqi experience this is going to be very difficult indeed. If things go horribly wrong, Mr Bush would continue to lose the support of the American people and could end up with few friends at home or abroad. That is certainly not in anyone's interest.

Of course, I am not saying that military force should never be used, only that the international community must be prepared for the consequences if military strikes take place and that there is still time for diplomacy aimed at resolving this crisis.

Until now Iran's defiance has been largely cost-free but there is now the possibility of diplomatic isolation and UN sanctions. The five permanent UN Security Council members have all condemned Iran's latest move and gave Teheran 30 days to comply with their demand to halt its uranium enrichment programme.

It is important that some sort of sanctions are imposed on Iran if nothing happens after this timeframe and one hopes that Russia and China will agree to this. It is equally important, I believe, for the US to speak directly to Iran - not only about Iraq - and set aside its 25-year obsession with Teheran. Failure by Iran to respond to Washington's olive branch will only increase international sympathy for America's position. It is imperative that Iran is offered all peaceful ways out of this crisis before any sanctions are imposed or indeed before any military action is taken.

It is clear that there are no easy options here. One can also argue that ultimately, even if no military action is taken and diplomatic pressure or sanctions fail to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons there is always the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) theory which served us so well in the Cold War and which kept the peace.

Both sides knew that any nuclear attack by one would lead to a retaliatory strike by the other which would then lead to the destruction of both sides. Iran surely knows that if it had to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, for example, there would be no more Iran.

But the question we have to ask ourselves is: given President Ahmadinejad's belief in the cause of Shi'ite martyrdom, does he really care?