Read the original article at Public Service Europe.
Should military action be taken against Iran’s nuclear facilities then the consequences could be grave and widespread
On June 14, Dr Hassan Rouhani emerged triumphant from the Iranian Presidential election in what was a self-proclaimed victory of “moderation over extremism”. Rouhani has pledged to reengage with the west so as to ease the burden of sanctions that are crippling Iran’s economy. Although western governments must remain wise to the fact that it is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ultimate control over Iran’s nuclear programme – so too must we fully comprehend what a failure to find a diplomatic solution could mean for the Middle East.
Dr Rouhani’s election is an opportunity for diplomatic reengagement that should be pursued with both caution and determination. So what are potential consequences of failing to reach a negotiated settlement regarding Iran’s nuclear programme? Last September, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Iran’s nuclear programme would pass a “red line” when it amassed enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon at short notice.
The red line now appears more of a grey line, as accounts differ as to what constitutes the ability to quickly build a nuclear weapon and the extent to which Iran has progressed. However, should the point be reached at which Israel feels compelled to attack – the potential for military escalation and economic destabilisation would be huge. Iran has threatened to retaliate against American military forces in the Persian Gulf should it come under military attack. Internal Look, a United States war game held in 2012, revealed that American military planners fear this could occur even if the US took no direct role in the attack.
Furthermore, it is feared that Israel would give the American military very little advanced warning before launching strikes against Iran – which would give US forces a minimal amount of time to prepare for an Iranian retaliation. If America fails to restrain Israel, then it could find itself dragged into a war not of its own choosing. The potential economic impact of a conflict would be similarly unpredictable. Iran has warned that it will blockade the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an attack. Between 35 and 40 per cent of the world’s sea-borne oil trade passes through the strait, which at its narrowest point is only 21 nautical miles across.
With its Fifth Fleet based at nearby Bahrain, the US undoubtedly possesses the capability to reverse a blockade. Although, the potential increase in oil prices depends not only upon factual restrictions in supply but also upon market expectations. Last year Bloomberg reported that an Iranian blockade could cause the price of oil to increase by between $20 and $40. American President Barack Obama has repeatedly stressed his desire to take every opportunity to reach a diplomatic settlement. But if the point is reached at which the US fears that Israel can no longer be restrained, then the Pentagon may perceive an advantage in leading the attack itself.
This would prevent an Iranian retaliation from catching US forces off guard and would limit Tehran’s ability to set up a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Such action would fuel anti-American unrest across the Middle East and would have its own impact upon oil prices. Military action is a very unattractive option. Conversely, allowing Iran to proceed towards acquiring nuclear weapons would entail its own set of problems.
Over the last decade the Gulf States have made huge arms purchases to protect themselves in case of a conflict with Iran. What is more, Iran’s nuclear programme presents the country as the sole power willing and able to stand up to US hegemony in the region, which gives it increased influence over militant groups such as Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia has increasingly tried to counter Iranian influence across the Middle East by supporting its own proxy groups in countries including Syria and Lebanon. The confrontation between Sunni Arab states and Shia Iran will only grow as Iran’s nuclear programme progresses.
Should military action be taken against Iran’s nuclear facilities then the consequences could be grave and widespread. This would be particularly true if Israel launched an attack on its own. If the nuclear programme progresses, then the confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran will become more intense, manifesting itself most vividly in areas where both sides can project power, such as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Hassan Rouhani’s election represents an opportunity that should be leapt upon by the west, not out of naïve optimism but for fear of the alternatives to reaching a diplomatic settlement.
John Watts is a researcher the Bow Group and author of the paper Iran’s nuclear programme – the importance of diplomatic re-engagement