• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

NEGOTIATIONS THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITUATION

RIA Novosti

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Pyotr Goncharov).

President Bush's comments that the US hoped to solve the problem of Iran's nuclear program through diplomacy, while not discarding other options, have kept the world talking for more than a week now. And not without reason. The world took Mr. Bush's options primarily as a transparent hint about a US military operation against Iran.

Washington has had its say and left others guessing if the US is indeed hyping up the Iranian issue like it did with Iraq in 2003, or is just bluffing. Vice-President Dick Cheney added oil to the flames. He expressed fears that Israel might act against Iran in a bid to eliminate the nuclear threat against Israel. And although Israel's deputy prime minister, Shimon Peres, warned his own country, the US and other nations against any strong-arm tactics vis-a-vis Iran without exhausting all diplomatic measures, this did not take the edge off the issue.

Israel is known to consider Iran to be the main problem in the Middle East and a regional center of terrorism. In Israel's opinion, Iran is not only seeking to develop its nuclear potential, but also trying to give it a religious green coloring. Mossad chief Meir Dagan recently told the Knesset's commission on foreign affairs and defense that already in the near future Iran inevitably crossed the line in its nuclear program and started making nuclear weapons. Since even Israel cautions against hasty military action against Iran, and especially warns the US, it means the concern is well based.

Many Russian experts believe the US is not ready or willing to mount a military campaign against Iran, given the present alignment of both political and military forces. It would be foolish for the Americans to launch another military operation after the one in Iraq. Furthermore, this applies both to a large-scale action involving ground forces on Iranian territory, and to an operation limited to "pinpoint" air strikes against Iranian "nuclear" facilities. Given what the US has on its hands in Iraq, it is time for Washington to think about how to extricate itself from the Iraqi situation rather than extend the conflict to Iran - a militarily and economically strong country. Alexei Arbatov, the head of the international security centre at the Institute of International Economics and International Relations, believes that a major operation will be beyond the US's strength. Iran is unlike Iraq in every respect - in terrain profile, national mindset, character of the population, and the nature of the regime. Iran would resist desperately, and analysts in the US armed forces and CIA are well aware of that.

As regards possible air strikes against individual Iranian facilities suspected to be involved in the nuclear program, this would be enough for Iran to decide on war. Iran would not be left wanting, and would do all it could to inflict maximum damage on US troops near Iran and American occupational forces in Iraq, and will start directly supporting groups fighting American troops in Iraq, Arbatov believes.

Vladimir Sazhin, another Russian expert and a professor of Oriental studies, thinks along the same lines. In his opinion, air strikes on "suspect" Iranian facilities will not be effective. Iran, remembering Iraq's dismal experience of Desert Storm, when 14 Israeli aircraft wiped out the Oziraq nuclear center in one sweep, dispersed its facilities across the mountains, making them practically inaccessible to aviation. On the other hand, the US simply cannot ignore the fact that an 800,000-strong contingent of Iranian armed forces and Revolutionary Guards has 75% of its land and air units and formations concentrated on the western, Iraq-centred, sector. That this would be used in Iraq against the US is beyond doubt. Nor should it be forgotten that the level of the Iranian armed forces' military training is way above that of the Iraqi troops who surrendered Baghdad without putting up a fight.

The conclusion is self-evident. If the US dealt a blow to Iran, this would inevitably lead to a vast part of the region, including Iraq, Iran and, in all probability, Afghanistan, turning into a zone of instability for a long time. As a result, the US, in place of a democratic region, as it plans for the Middle East, risks seeing Islamic radicals strengthening their power. Is the risk worth it?