This comment was published in al-Hayat on 22/11/2010
I do not know how Iran will read the results of the NATO summit that was held in Lisbon – I mean a quiet reading behind closed doors. Had I been Iranian, I would’ve felt concerned, even if the President continues to brandish his fist in the face of the world and the Supreme Leader still renews his support to the President.
The summit didn’t take a decision regarding a war on Iran and didn’t hint at anything of the sort. It didn’t mention Iran by name, as per President Abdullah Gul’s request. It was obvious that Turkey wishes to maintain a delicate balance between respecting the obligations imposed by its NATO membership and keeping the ability to talk to Iran and perhaps regain the role of intermediary pertaining to its nuclear file.
Moreover, accusing Iran openly would embarrass Turkey, as it wishes to extend the “zero-problems” formula with its neighboring countries. Indeed, it is a formula cherished by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotoglu.
NATO’s summit in Lisbon was occupied with clarifying its new strategic concept. This is the third revision it makes in order to justify its continuity and its role in a world that has changed after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new and different challenges in the world – particularly after the September 11 attacks, and what followed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, what NATO avoided to mention in its paper was disclosed by President Nicolas Sarkozy with remarkable candor when he stated that Iran is behind the danger of ballistic missiles which threatens Europe. It was no secret in the summit’s corridors that most of the participants share Sarkozy’s view in considering Iran as a source of danger that requires the launching of the anti-missile shield project.
Had I been Iranian, I would’ve felt in danger, as some of the 28 participating countries have a great economic, military, and political weight and play a significant role in the Security Council and in international decisions. An additional reason for concern is the return of warmth or something like it to the relation between NATO and Russia, whose President Dmitri Medvedev was present at the summit. He responded positively to NATO’s call for Russia to cooperate in the anti-missile shield project. In fact, NATO explicitly called Russia to build “a real strategic partnership”.
What happened in Lisbon helps Iran understand Russia’s decision not to deliver to it S-300 air defense missiles, in accordance with the sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Iran because of its nuclear program. We are faced with a different international scene, and what used to apply during the Cold War is no longer valid today. The extent of Russia’s interests with the United States and Europe is much more important than weapons deals with Iran. What is true for Russia is also true for China, despite the different calculations and methods for managing relations.
Iran could act defiant and say that what happened in Lisbon is just ink on paper. However, the makers of Iranian policy need to remember that a combination of economic and political measures and a costly armament race caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and made it disappear from the map. They can also remember that the Soviet Union used to be a nuclear strike force that also invaded space and adopted hostile policies. And yet, its defeat took place when the model it built was unable to improve the conditions of those living under it, and guarantee their freedom.
Iran can affirm that it achieved during the first decade of this century many successes regionally and that it excelled in benefiting from the conduct of both Al Qaeda and the United States, and hence broadened its presence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. However, the coming decade could be tough on Ahmadinejad’s country. The stances of the front opposing its nuclear ambitions are becoming increasingly unrestrained. Also, the countries opposing its manner of imposing its role in the region classify it as a source of danger. Its descent into the armament race and increased obligations outside its borders will lead to additional economic difficulties that make way for more dissidents and disgruntled people. It is time for Iran to make a new reading of the international scene and the limits of its role in the region. Without this reading, the Iranian policy will clash with many on both the inside and the outside, with extremely high costs as a result.
I do not know how Iran will read the results of the NATO summit that was held in Lisbon – I mean a quiet reading behind closed doors. Had I been Iranian, I would’ve felt concerned, even if the President continues to brandish his fist in the face of the world and the Supreme Leader still renews his support to the President.
The summit didn’t take a decision regarding a war on Iran and didn’t hint at anything of the sort. It didn’t mention Iran by name, as per President Abdullah Gul’s request. It was obvious that Turkey wishes to maintain a delicate balance between respecting the obligations imposed by its NATO membership and keeping the ability to talk to Iran and perhaps regain the role of intermediary pertaining to its nuclear file.
Moreover, accusing Iran openly would embarrass Turkey, as it wishes to extend the “zero-problems” formula with its neighboring countries. Indeed, it is a formula cherished by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotoglu.
NATO’s summit in Lisbon was occupied with clarifying its new strategic concept. This is the third revision it makes in order to justify its continuity and its role in a world that has changed after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new and different challenges in the world – particularly after the September 11 attacks, and what followed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, what NATO avoided to mention in its paper was disclosed by President Nicolas Sarkozy with remarkable candor when he stated that Iran is behind the danger of ballistic missiles which threatens Europe. It was no secret in the summit’s corridors that most of the participants share Sarkozy’s view in considering Iran as a source of danger that requires the launching of the anti-missile shield project.
Had I been Iranian, I would’ve felt in danger, as some of the 28 participating countries have a great economic, military, and political weight and play a significant role in the Security Council and in international decisions. An additional reason for concern is the return of warmth or something like it to the relation between NATO and Russia, whose President Dmitri Medvedev was present at the summit. He responded positively to NATO’s call for Russia to cooperate in the anti-missile shield project. In fact, NATO explicitly called Russia to build “a real strategic partnership”.
What happened in Lisbon helps Iran understand Russia’s decision not to deliver to it S-300 air defense missiles, in accordance with the sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Iran because of its nuclear program. We are faced with a different international scene, and what used to apply during the Cold War is no longer valid today. The extent of Russia’s interests with the United States and Europe is much more important than weapons deals with Iran. What is true for Russia is also true for China, despite the different calculations and methods for managing relations.
Iran could act defiant and say that what happened in Lisbon is just ink on paper. However, the makers of Iranian policy need to remember that a combination of economic and political measures and a costly armament race caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and made it disappear from the map. They can also remember that the Soviet Union used to be a nuclear strike force that also invaded space and adopted hostile policies. And yet, its defeat took place when the model it built was unable to improve the conditions of those living under it, and guarantee their freedom.
Iran can affirm that it achieved during the first decade of this century many successes regionally and that it excelled in benefiting from the conduct of both Al Qaeda and the United States, and hence broadened its presence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. However, the coming decade could be tough on Ahmadinejad’s country. The stances of the front opposing its nuclear ambitions are becoming increasingly unrestrained. Also, the countries opposing its manner of imposing its role in the region classify it as a source of danger. Its descent into the armament race and increased obligations outside its borders will lead to additional economic difficulties that make way for more dissidents and disgruntled people. It is time for Iran to make a new reading of the international scene and the limits of its role in the region. Without this reading, the Iranian policy will clash with many on both the inside and the outside, with extremely high costs as a result.
No comments:
Post a Comment