War on Iran not necessarily inevitable

The tepidity of the US' relations with Iran dates back to the country's 1979 Islamic revolution and the days when the US' diplomats were held hostage in Tehran causing serious embarrassment to a superpower. The revolution also overthrew the Shah, an US ally and caused major setback to the US' sway in the region. Iran was the only Muslim country to give a bloody nose to the US -- a fact the Americans still find hard to forget. It wasn't absolutely without a reason that in 2002 the US first included Iran amongst the 'axis of evil' countries. On the part of Iran its criticism of the US stems from her deep nexus with Israel which Iran terms as 'fake state' that "cannot logically continue to live."

In return Israel upped the rhetoric when its Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated Israeli determination 'to make sure that no one has the capability or power to commit destruction against us.' Except for some years in 1990s under the reformist president Muhammad Khatami a fierce war of words continued between the US and Iran.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

With the election of President Mahmud Ahmedinejad in January 2006 Iran's belligerency has grown stronger. His fiery statements on Israel viz 'wiping off the face of the earth' or 'a tu mour' that should be relocated, has unnerved both Israel and its western patrons.

Iranian President's inflammatory speeches are, no doubt, offending but can be rationalised when seen in the backdrop of Bush's neoconservative ideology. Like a committed revolutionary President Nejad wants to distance himself from both Rafsanjani and Khatami -- both former Iranian presidents -- who allegedly made substantial concessions to the US thus vitiating the 'spirit of Islamic revolution.' He also wants to win the support of Muslim masses throughout the world who are smarting under the US' occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Given this background of US-Iran relations the fears of another war or military strike against Iran by the US and Israel combine, with or without consent from UNSC, China, Russia or even the EU or at least UN sanctions abound -- even if a myriad of arises are already raging in the region.

But the driving power behind the forces arrayed against Iran -- the US itself -- is not happily placed to say the least. Its trade imbalance with the rest of the world is around $700bn and likely to reach the astronomic figure of $1 trillion by the time George Bush leaves the office. Its army is bogged down in Iraq in ways reminiscent of Vietnam. It has antagonised the Muslim world with its apathy for the Palestinians, brutal treatment of alleged Al-Qaeda prisoners and 'colateral' damage caused to thousands of Afghan and Iraqi civilians in the name of war on terror.

On the contrary it has by its default given a new lease of life to Al-Qaeda terrorists and ensured its globalisation. Before long the US will have to recall its army out of Iraq in response to its own public pressure. The situation is getting far worse in Afghanistan with the resurgent Taliban already in clash with Karzai's reluctant defenders from the international security forces.

In the meantime a war weariness has already set in America with 2400 body bags already sent there from Iraq alone. The US has apparently failed to make any dent either in the ferocity of insurgency or the sectarian violence facing Iraq. It is difficult to understand how will they have stomach for another war in far more tricky terrain of Iran. The question is often asked: Can America undertake any kind of military action in Iran with continued bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan where its hands are still full with unfinished agenda.

It is clear that Iran will not yield so easily to the west's demand to stop uranium enrichment. It will possibly lay a 'beartrap' for a bungling US to provoke it into acting rashly and make fresh mistakes. Driven by its present predicaments the US has, at long last been exploring the possibility of direct talks with Iran on the Iraqi situation. It is pointer both to her deepening problems in Iraq and willingness to come to terms with Iran's burgeoning clout. Although the pessimists already called the ensuing talk 'a dialogue of the deaf,' the very fact that Iran and America are going to open a channel of communication is a positive development with regard to solving the imbroglio facing the western world on Iran's nuclear ambition.

Iran's supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei has said that Teheran will not accept American 'bullying' and will use the occasion of probable talk to make them understand Iran's views. And the Americans will surely find Iran's Mullahs the hard nut to crack. There is however vital meeting point between the two: neither side wants Iraq to descend into a civil war for their own reason.

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.