Geroge Kerevan: Strict sanctions are the way to halt nuclear Iran

Published on Thursday 9 February 2012 03:19

Bombing Tehran is not the answer as the stakes are raised in the standoff between bitter rivals Israel and Iran, writes George Kerevan

THE single most important issue on today’s political agenda is not bankers’ bonuses, the economy, the carnage in Syria, or even – dare I say it – the referendum. It is the danger that some time very soon Israel will launch an all-out air strike against Iran’s nascent nuclear weapons facilities. Welcome to Disaster 2012.

While Europe has been immersed in its winter economic blues and America in its navel-contemplating presidential election, Israel and Iran have being playing a deadly game of nuclear poker. Neither side is blinking.

Washington and Jerusalem are awash with orchestrated media leaks concerning an imminent Israeli attack before Tehran passes the point of no return in creating a viable nuclear weapons capacity – April, May or June, according to a leading commentator on the Washington Post. But is this merely a sophisticated political bluff aimed at pressuring America and the EU to apply economic sanctions that force Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions?

The Obama regime has been reticent to choke off Iranian oil exports and force up oil prices in an election year. Israel believes the only non-military way to influence Tehran is through Iran’s desperate need to sell oil to pay for food and materials for its ramshackle economy. Otherwise Israel will protect itself. Iran has countered with its own sabre-rattling, threatening to close the vital Gulf sea lanes to oil tankers. Result: yesterday the price of Brent crude hit a six-month high.

The crisis kicked off in November, when the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a report finally proving that Iran was lying when it said it was not building nuclear weapons. Iran has mastered the uranium enrichment process. Experts vary, but the consensus is that Tehran needs a year or less to assemble a crude, air-transportable device, and another year or two to manufacture a warhead that can fit a ballistic missile.

Following the IAEA report, and under Israeli pressure, president Barack Obama imposed new sanctions designed to make it difficult for Tehran to sell oil abroad for hard currency. At the same time, there was a sudden increase in sabotage aimed at disrupting Iranian nuclear activity, including bomb explosions at key research centres and the assassination of leading scientists working on the programme. The hand of Mossad, Israel’s legendary intelligence agency, is suspected.

The last few days have seen a bevy of Israeli politicians and military brass fly into Washington to turn up the heat on the White House. Obama cancelled joint US-Israel military exercises last month in case Tehran thought they were a prelude to a joint attack. Israel remains suspicious that Obama is soft on Tehran. Leading American newspapers such as the New York Times have been filled with stories about Israel’s determination to attack Iran, forcing Obama to announce further sanctions against Tehran at the weekend.

Tehran is counting on China and India to provide a back door to avoid sanctions biting. The Chinese have rejected an outright oil embargo – China normally gets 11 per cent of its oil from Iran. But wily Beijing is looking after its own interests. China has reduced oil imports from Iran in order to force Tehran to cut the price – sanctions by another name. India, which has the second largest Shia population in the world after Iran, has picked up some of China’s slack, but again at a discount. Meanwhile, Tehran’s arch enemy Saudi Arabia has announced it will pump more oil to make up for any loss from Iran.

Should we care about a nuclear Iran? Yes, because it will be tempted to sell its nuclear technology and missiles to other regimes. Yes, because Tehran’s theocratic rulers are not bound by the rational calculations that underpinned the Cold War balance of nuclear terror, but by apocalyptic visions. Yes, because it will further destabilise the Middle East, especially as Saudi Arabia will follow suit. Yes, because it will give Tehran the domestic security to throw its weight around using foreign proxies.

But bombing Iran is not the solution. Already there are signs that sanctions are working. Tehran is finding it difficult to access the hard currency it needs to import food for its 75 million people. This week Iran defaulted on payment for 200,000 tons of rice from India. Rice is Iran’s staple food, and 45 per cent of the 2.9 million tons consumed annually is imported.

Of course, food shortages could unite Iranians behind their increasingly shrill and bellicose theocracy. On the other hand, the unpopular regime of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only won the 2009 elections by massive fraud. Since then, Ahmadinejad has become even more hated after removing subsidies on daily essentials such as gas, water and flour.

Two-thirds of Iran’s population is under 25 and increasingly dissident, at least in the major cities. They have experienced no life except under a corrupt, misogynistic, despotic theocracy. Regime change cannot be far away and is a far better bet for removing Iran’s nuclear threat than starting a war that could lead anywhere – not least to oil doubling to $200 a barrel.

Besides, successful military strikes against Iran’s highly dispersed and protected nuclear facilities are now next to impossible. Last month, Tehran began production of highly enriched uranium at a new bombproof facility hidden deep underground near Qom. Attacking might delay Iran’s nuclear capability, but not block it indefinitely.

My gut feeling is that Iran is too big for Israel to contemplate taking on alone. The trick in preventing an overt Israeli attack is to ensure sanctions bite. The EU should enforce its ban on Iranian oil imports immediately, not wait until July. And when Iran comes back to the negotiating table, as it will, the regime should not be allowed to play for time. Sanctions should not be eased until Tehran is willing to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.