Has diplomacy reached the end in the Middle East?

The Iranian nuclear program is firmly under the international spotlight as voices of discontent grow in Israel.

The US is keen to revitalise foreign relation ties in the Middle East. One of the historical keys to achieving this is finding an elusive long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However a growingly influential Iran, with its emerging nuclear capabilities, has only served to complicate the interconnected web that is the Middle East. How the US deals with a defiant hard-line regime like Iran, which has stated is only enjoying its natural right to nuclear development, may determine resolutions elsewhere in the Middle East.

Throughout history, the Middle East has proved a highly contentious stage for global instability. However, although there has been some bold initiatives by Western powers in recent years the Middle East continues to be a platform for anxiety and future wars.

A vital icon of the modern Middle Eastern landscape is Israel, the controversial creation in 1948 of which added fuel to the regional fire. In recent years, a prominent and confident Iranian regime with its own fair share of infamy has come to the fore as a key regional power and as a threat to the delicate balance.

Iran has pretty much been in diplomatic isolation since the Islamist revolution of 1979 dramatically propelled Ayatollah Khomeini to power. The perception of Iran as a threat is nothing new, however the original threat of Shiite Islamist revolutionaries threatening the whole framework of the predominantly Sunni Arab region, took on significant meaning in recent years, with its much debated nuclear program coming to the international fore.

The current nuclear crisis dates back to 2003, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had been hiding a uranium enrichment program for 18 years. Opposition to such an ideal grew fiercer with inception of a new hard-line regime in Tehran from 2005, resulting in a number of UN resolutions that applied broad sanctions against the regime for successive non-compliance.

Nuclear technology is hardly a new concept, and many regimes posses such a capability, none more so than Israel itself, who remains the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. However, the danger in the case of Iran is clear, a nuclear Islamist regime that is alleged to support a number of radical groups in the region and accused of been a “supporter of terrorism” rings obvious sirens.

Stand-off with Israel

Iranian antagonism towards the Jewish state is not new, however, ultra conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s brazen remarks towards the very existence of Israel as a country has ruffled many feathers in the international arena.

At a recent UN conference on racism in Geneva, Ahmadinejad’s denunciation of the “totally racist government” of Israel founded on the “pretext of Jewish suffering” drew condemnation and protests.

For Israelis, nuclear technology for a country that has already pledged to “wipe them off the map” is a chilling notion

Iran has long been accused as major sponsors of the Shiite Islamist Hezbollah stationed in South Lebanon, to Israel’s north. Hezbollah itself has become increasingly bold and determined in recent years culminating in the deadly conflict with Israeli forces in 2006. Hezbollah has an increasingly capable technological arsenal said to be supplied by Iran.

To the West of Israel in the Gaza Strip, Iran has also been accused of being major backers to Hamas, which only a few months ago was engaged in its own bloody confrontations with Israeli forces in the Gaza strip.

In 1981, a increasingly powerful Baathist nationalist regime in Iraq with developing nuclear capabilities prompted Israel to undertake preemptive air strikes on its nuclear facilities. Now the question is whether an ever-weary Israeli government could, or for that matter should, deliver another preemptive strike, this time on Iranian nuclear facilities and “neutralise” the source, as the new Israeli government seems to have hinted.

With the accession of US president Barack Obama to power, it was hoped that the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians would receive a much-needed jumpstart.

However, growing mutterings from the new Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened the peace process. The general consensus in Israel is that it would be impossible to resolve any problem in the region, without also finding a resolution to the Iranian nuclear headache.

However, for Iran where defiance against international objections has become a symbol of nationalism, giving up its nuclear program is most unlikely. It remains to be seen where this leaves the standoff, especially with many Western powers keen on a “grand bargain” with Iran over it nuclear program.

Has diplomacy reached an end?

While the former US administration under George W. Bush continuously emphasised that “all options were on the table” regarding Iran, at least for now, military strikes appear unviable as they could further stoke Iranian sentiments and also undermine regional support.

The new Obama administration emphasised that diplomacy was possible with Iran if it could “unclench its fist”. However, such unclenching of the fist would almost certainly involve concessions that are unlikely to be tolerated by Iran, such as the suspension of their much heralded uranium enrichment program.

While Israel has played down talks of imminent strikes against Iran, rumours of grand military drills and alleged Israeli capability to undertake multiple strikes within days of been given the go ahead, clearly signals that all options remain possible.

While the diplomatic channels may not have been exhausted, with Iran signaling its openness to negotiate with the US on its nuclear program, something will clearly have to give sooner rather than later. Though the Obama administration has sounded many positive overtures in luring the Iranian regime, it has been equally keen to note that it is also ready to respond to the issue harshly by acting as a catalyst for major economic sanctions, or possibly worse, military strikes.

A persistent thorn in the US side

Nuclear issues aside, the real problem is the Islamist regime in Iran where US-Iranian ties have never recovered since the US embassy hostage crisis which propelled relations to the current lows and led to the severance of diplomatic ties.

After much sacrifice in Iraq, the US slowly and painfully realised that the intertwined web that is the Middle East needed to be approached in a much more holistic manner.

The last several years in the Middle East has highlighted that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in resolving the issues. As such, the US acknowledges that however controversial the Tehran regime may be, it clearly needs Iranian support if to achieve these goals.

As part of Obama’s strategy of reinvigorating a tarnished US foreign policy in the region, and in reaching out to the greater Muslim world, it has deployed a more cautious card in dealing with Iran. While Israelis have linked the peace process with the Palestinians to resolving the Iranian nuclear standoff, the US has emphasised that to generate the needed political support, both issues must go hand-in-hand.

Iranians have long held a historic belief that they have a rightful place as a key power in the region. Their distinct non-Arab identity is only compounded by the fact that they are Shiite Islamists, in contrast to the Arab Sunni dominated, and largely more pro-Western countries in the region.

Iran has remained regionally isolated since 1979 and many neighbouring Muslim countries, not just Israel, remain highly suspicious and anxious of Iran.

Ironically, Iran has at times reveled in its isolationism which has served well to stoke national sentiments and also increase the foothold of Islamist theocracy. While the clerics may halt their program, it’s very unlikely that the US would halt its program for regime change.

Iranian resistance

Iranian persistence in not succumbing to what it sees as “bullying” tactics to end its nuclear program is enforced by international protocols that act as a guideline to nuclear development by any government which is a signatory to such pacts.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT), which Iran is a party to, a country has the right to enrich enough uranium to fuel civilian power stations, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guarding the principles of the treaty. So put simply, Iran does have the right in principle to pursue uranium enrichment, which has only raised tensions in Iran that the series of UN sanctions and the objections against its program are being driven by political agendas.

Orders from the UN council, however, supersede other rights and are fueled somewhat by the fact that Iran hid its enrichment program for 18 years. The plea to stop uranium enrichment is based on the lack of international confidence on Iran’s intentions. Iran is unlikely to be allowed to diplomatically pursue its nuclear program until the West is confident in the motives and shape of such a program. Ironically, such confidence will not be reached until the Iranian regime changes.

Though the IAEA has highlighted Iranian non-compliances and has stated that Iran has accumulated more low-enriched uranium than first thought, this is not “enriched” to the levels needed to make a nuclear device and has also indicated that it has found no evidence that it has diverted such materials for the pursuance of a nuclear weapon. However, some reports, particularly those emanating from Israel, paint a different story.

The practice of double standards?

Somewhat ironically, the idea of expansion of nuclear capability in the Middle East is not new. Egypt has announced plans to build a number of nuclear power stations to generate electricity. Egyptian plans have received backing from the US, which has stated that there is no comparison to the controversial nuclear projects of Tehran.

Saudi Arabia, even with the largest oil reserves in the world, is developing a civilian nuclear power supply, seemingly in response to its Iran. States which are part of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) have also signaled their desire to develop joint nuclear technology. Jordan has also signaled its desire to build its first nuclear power plant.

Clearly, the Iranian gripe is easy to see.

Even more ironic perhaps is the frequent notion that Iranian nuclear ambition is a new phenomenon. In fact, the birth of its nuclear program can be traced back to the onset of the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after 1953. A predominantly pro-Western state before 1979, much of the West scrambled to do business with Iran in that time including in the sphere of nuclear technology.

This shows that the nuclear crisis is evidently linked to politics or more specifically the regime in question, thus the argument of double standards is obvious.

By the end of 2009, Iranians hope to have the Bushehr nuclear power plant, built with the help of the Russians in spite of strong US objections, in full swing. This is in addition to two nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak

Iranian military arsenal

Iran clearly has a thirst for power and will continue to pursue advances to its military and technological arsenal. While Iranians in theory may be appeased to stop nuclear ambitions, the threat of Iran as a military force will continue.

To the concern of Israel, Iran ballistic technology is increasingly reaching greater distances, while earlier this year to coincide with the symbolic importance of the 30th anniversary of the Islamist revolution, it successfully launched of an Iranian satellite with its own rocket. This has only increased Western apprehension that the ground-breaking missile technology could be used in tandem with the delivery of nuclear warheads.

If the US and its allies are intent on resolving the most pertinent Middle Eastern issues, then they must show that they are ready to deploy a level of dialogue and diplomacy to find a long-term solution to such issues.