The War Of Words between Iran and the United States has intensified lately, with Tehran continuing to defy the international community over its nuclear enrichment programme. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it absolutely clear during the country's Islamic revolution anniversary celebrations recently that Iran had absolutely no intention of giving up its nuclear programme, which he still insists is for peaceful purposes, saying it would be humiliating to do so.
The US, which seems to be losing patience with Iran's intransigence in spite of UN sanctions against it, has stepped up its own financial sanctions against Tehran, urging Europeans to do the same. Furthermore, the US has accused Iran of supplying weapons to Shi'ite militants in Iraq, in particular a device known as an explosively formed penetrator, which has killed 170 soldiers in Iraq.
Some analysts believe that the Bush administration's latest accusation vis-à-vis Iranian arms for Shi'ite militants in Iraq is part of a strategy to win over public opinion in the event of American military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Is such an attack inevitable?
Interestingly enough, an internal European Union document compiled by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana's staff and recently sent to all 27 EU governments says there is little that can be done to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons, and that diplomatic initiatives have so far failed to dent Tehran's determination to pursue this option.
"Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have so far not succeeded. At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on a scale required for a weapons programme. The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone," the report points out.
The report says that Iran will probably be able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb over the next two or three years. It also says that UN resolutions have done nothing to limit the progress of Iran's nuclear programme and that this has only been postponed due to technical problems.
The fact that this report has been compiled by EU staff - and not officials of the Bush administration - is highly significant. After all, it was Mr Solana himself who led the negotiations with Iran on behalf of the EU and the permanent members of the UN Security Council and it was the EU which always pushed for a diplomatic solution to this problem. Does this now mean that the only solution is a military one, and that such a course of action will be backed by the EU? Not necessarily, and the consequences of such an attack would have to be very carefully considered.
There is no doubt at all that a US military attack on Iran would be a huge gamble. At best, it could simply delay Tehran's nuclear ambitions. However, an attack will surely lead to massive Iranian retaliation. Iran would order its Shi'ite allies in Iraq to step up their attacks on US soldiers, Hizbollah in Lebanon would be ordered to attack Israel, the flow of oil in the Gulf could be cut off, US and Israeli interests everywhere would be targeted, Muslim public opinion would be further radicalised, the attack would be considered by many Muslim countries to be "another attack on Islam", Iran would try and stir up trouble in Afghanistan and support for radical elements in Iran would be strengthened.
There is also a huge risk that Iran's nuclear facilities would not all be successfully destroyed in a military attack. These facilities are scattered all over the country, many of which are buried deep underground, and so are certainly not easy to annihilate. It is true that low yield nuclear weapons could be used on these nuclear facilities but this would be very risky indeed - besides posing some ethical and moral questions.
Most of the nuclear plants are located near populated areas - imagine the international outcry - not to mention Muslim public opinion - if large numbers of innocent Iranian civilians were killed in a nuclear bomb attack allegedly designed to prevent Iran from possessing such weapons.
Of course, a nuclear-armed Iran would be a very dangerous development and we should not fool ourselves here. President Ahmadinajad, who has called the Holocaust a 'myth', has threatened to "wipe Israel off the face of the map". Furthermore, a nuclear-armed Iran would be a much bolder Iran, one that would not think twice to continue to radicalise Muslim international public opinion and to export its brand of radical Islam and its opposition to any kind of reconciliation with Israel. A nuclear-armed Shi'ite country such as Iran is also bound to encourage Sunni countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia to follow suit, thus creating a new and dangerous arms race in the Middle East.
One can also argue that an Iran with nuclear weapons could be contained by the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), which kept the peace between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Both countries knew that a nuclear attack by either would have resulted in retaliation by the other, which would then have led to the destruction of both.
Can this doctrine be applied to Israel and Iran? To a certain extent, yes, but there are a number of differences between these two countries and the two former Cold War enemies. Iran is a huge country with 65 million people while Israel is a tiny country with a population of about six million. Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former President, once remarked that "an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world".
Because of its small size, some argue that Israel would be immobilised in a first strike and thus unable to retaliate. On the other hand, Israel is believed to have about 200 nuclear warheads, certainly enough to destroy Iran, some of which are buried in underground silos and others believed to be based on submarines. So Israel could be able to retaliate against a nuclear attack, but this is not an absolute certainty. There is also the probability that a nuclear attack on Israel would result in an American retaliatory nuclear attack on Iran, so that is something Iran will definitely have to consider.
Western intelligence reports are not clear about just when Iran will acquire a nuclear bomb, some point to 2010, while some say that Iran will become a nuclear power by 2015. So it's just a matter of time. At this point in time, I still think that despite Iran's reluctance to compromise over its enrichment programme, the international community should continue with further economic sanctions coupled with incentives, such as a promise that the US will never go for regime change in Tehran if the country co-operates over its nuclear programme.
After all, there have been some voices in Iran calling for the government to be more flexible on this issue. Furthermore, who would have imagined North Korea promising to shut down its nuclear programmes in return for diplomatic recognition, oil and other aid? True, the situations in Iran and North Korea are very different, but diplomacy seems to have won the day in Pyongyang - if the North Koreans can be trusted.
There is no guarantee that a diplomatic approach to Iran will work, but military action in today's circumstances is simply far too risky.