By Sallai Meridor
While
everyone is watching events unfold in Libya, Syria and the rest of the Arab
world, Iran is watching, too. And the leaders in Tehran may decide that this is
the time to rush for the bomb. Moammar Gaddafi gave it up. Bashar al-Assad fell
short of getting it. Would they be next?
The
mullahs probably ask themselves a fair number of “what if” questions. What if
Gaddafi had had the bomb? Would NATO have dared to bomb Libya? Would the
Europeans even have thought to take Gaddafi on if he had had nuclear-armed
missiles aimed at Italy and France? And what if Assad had the bomb? Would
Syria’s leader be as vulnerable? Would Turkey be able to act independently if
Ankara and Istanbul were within the reach of Syrian nuclear weapons? Would
Israel be so concerned at the prospect of being targeted by Syria that it would
have asked allies not to pressure Assad?
As
they watch this year’s developments throughout the Middle East, Iran’s leaders
see the potential for great gains and losses. They took over Iran in 1979, the
same year Egypt signed the first-ever peace treaty between an Arab state and
Israel. Where will current events take the region? Which of these two opposite
trends will prevail?
On
the one hand, a moment of great opportunity for the Iranian regime could
emerge. Pro-Western Arab autocrats are falling; Sunni leaders who hate Shiites
are shaking; rivals for hegemony are weakening. The Israeli Embassy in Cairo is
under siege, while the Egyptian secretary of the Arab League has called for a
review of the peace treaty with Israel. The possibility of the old structures
being replaced by weak systems, or merely removed, presents Iran with a sizable
opportunity to develop non-state actors as its partners and agents throughout
the Middle East.
On
the other hand, this moment could deal a significant setback to the Iranian
regime. Syria is Tehran’s only Arab ally and is its partner in backing and
strengthening the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. What will happen to
Iran’s interests if Assad loses control over Syria? New forms of less
fundamentalist Muslim political expression may emerge in the Arab world, making
the Iranian model less attractive. New Arab regimes may be less hated by their
people and thus less vulnerable to Iranian pressure.
Above
all, the mullahs must prioritize the future of their regime and the Islamist revolution.
What will happen to Iran if the rage sweeping the Arab world inspires Iranians
to take to the streets again, aiming, together with mounting international
pressure, to oust the mullahs? Will they follow in Gaddafi’s footsteps? Will
they be better prepared than Assad?
While
the world might be looking elsewhere, the Iranians have boosted the production
of enriched uranium, upgraded the level of enrichment closer to weapons-grade
and are reportedly moving essential production aspects to a well-protected
underground facility. To the mullahs, who face growing uncertainties and are
trying to draw their own lessons from events around them, what could better
protect them and enhance their clout than the possession of a nuclear bomb?
While
the Iranians are watching the Arab world, the world should watch Iran.
-This comment was published in The Washington Post on 03/09/2011
-Sallai Meridor served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2006 to 2009, and is the chairman of Glilot Venture Capital Fund
-Sallai Meridor served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2006 to 2009, and is the chairman of Glilot Venture Capital Fund
No comments:
Post a Comment