Defiance Iranian style

By M Saeed Khalid

Diplomatic manoeuvres around Iran’s nuclear programme have gathered pace in recent weeks, creating suspense and anxiety about a looming showdown between Iran and the United States. Washington’s efforts to bring greater political and economic pressure to bear on Iran could reduce the short-term risk of a military clash, which could result in an uncontrollable hike in oil prices, with frightening consequences for the global economy.

Even limited strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites are bound to draw retaliation from Iran’s considerable missile defence system. The US is, therefore, trying extra hard to carry along the four other permanent members of the Security Council and Germany in devising a new set of UN sanctions on Iran. Top emissaries are logging extra air miles to power centres like Brussels and Beijing to find a formula which can satisfy Iran’s national pride while fulfilling non-proliferation goals set by the leading powers.

The origins of the complexities of the imbroglio are deeply rooted in history. The year of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election also witnessed the publication of British historian Tom Holland’s book Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West.

Echoing American Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations, Holland traces the origins of East-West tensions to the epic battles between the Persian Empire and the Greek city-states 2,500 years ago. After recounting the emergence of the Persian Empire in the sixth century BC by Cyrus, and its extension into Central Asia and Africa and beyond the Danube, Holland takes the reader to the clash with Greece. He acknowledges Persia’s status as the first great empire and notes that, in many ways, Greek culture was more primitive compared to Persian civilisation.

Relying largely on the narrative of Herodotus, Holland recounts how the revolt in some of the Greek areas under Persian control led to an unsuccessful invasion by Xerxes against Greece and provoked the Spartan expedition under Alexander, which brought Persia to its knees. Holland goes on to conclude that by virtue of their victory over Persia, the Greeks succeeded in carving a destiny for themselves and Europe while intentionally denigrating Eastern culture.

The cumulative effect on Iranians’ psyche was a constant urge to reassert their cultural identity. But it also extends to defending national sovereignty over their resources, as witnessed in the challenge launched by Mohammad Mossadeq. The Shah’s efforts to Westernise the Iranian people while assuming the role of a Western post in the region met a terrible backlash in the form of a leftist movement and eventually by the Islamic revolution. Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear capability and the West’s efforts to thwart that plan represents the latest episode in the age-old rivalry.

In 2005, after the US and allies had overrun Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran was identified as the next target by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. However, an important development took place at the time as Iran went through the spectacular shift of power with the election of Ahmadinejad, a hardline Islamist, populist, ultra-nationalist and anti-reformist.

No one was surprised at his vocal pride in Iran’s glorious past, but many eyebrows were raised at his assertion that a clash with America was not a matter of “if” but of “when.” In a change of policy, Iran assigned the highest priority to the attainment of nuclear capability. To ensure success Ahmadinejad undertook the parallel effort of keeping Iran’s defences prepared for any showdown along the way.

Iran’s latest bout with the West has two important new features. The first is Europe’s aversion to military operations. Trying to enlist European nations in another war would only accentuate divisions among them. Their preferred solution is to give Iran sufficient inducements to give up nuclear-weapons development. The second feature is the role assumed by Israel in the American calculus to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability.

While time is a critical factor in further actions contemplated by Tel Aviv and Washington, the Europeans could counsel the US to give greater emphasis to diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran than military pressure, since any military action is unlikely to discourage Iran from continuing on its path. Ahmadinejad’s critics in Iran say that confrontation with the US is his calculated tactic for projection of an external threat so that the revolutionary regime receives a new lease on life. If so, he has found the perfect cause to rally support, that of Iran’s right to nuclear technology.

Viewed from Pakistan’s perspective, no discussion of the Iran-US confrontation is complete without reference to natural gas from Iran to meet our pressing needs. Our final decision on the gas pipeline project will have a bearing on Pakistan’s future. To put it plainly, friendship with America is a requirement for our immediate economic well being but assured gas supplies are vital for Pakistan’s long-term economic survival.

We should look at the way Turkey made the right choices to ensure gas supplies. In the days of the Cold War, Turkey, like many other European nations, built a gas pipeline with Russia. Then, the Turks did not hesitate to open negotiations with Iran for a second source of gas, even while they accused Tehran of fomenting trouble in Turkish universities.

By virtue of these timely decisions, Turkey enjoys gas supplies from Russia as well as Iran, while remaining a key Western ally and a member of Nato. The writing is on the wall. By exercising our sovereign right to build the gas pipeline with Iran without losing time, we will go up, rather than down, in America’s estimation. The world respects only the courageous.

The writer is a former ambassador.