Hervé de Carmoy

On the surface, since April 2006, fundamentals have hardly changed : – There is no change in America’s essential nature; For the last century, America has believed that it is and that it must remain the locomotive of the world. It has always exercised as much power as it could to fulfil its mission : spread freedom. The US military strength remains without rival. Its economy is humming nicely, largely because of the US unique ability to attract the best scientific and managerial talents from the world at large. The US also generate an environment conducive to wealth creation. So what is happening today in the Middle East can be interpreted as just another chapter in a long history of expansionism. – The chapter of Afghanistan and Iraq is immensely difficult. The US army is bogged down. The US influence has declined. But, marginally. Let us remember that , in 2006, 95% of the population in the Middle East had already strong anti American feelings. – The world geopolitics continue to be unhelpful to America.

With differences in style, both Russia and China are bent on a more assertive policy towards the US. Russia is continuing to pursue an assertive policy, notably through increasing their level of exports of arms and nuclear technology to the Iranians. They are attempting to transform the Persian golf into their own "mare nostrum". Within the UN they are slowing down the process of sanctions. China follows a parallel rout to Russia. They are increasing their direct investment in Iran, witness their recent 100B$ deal in oil and gas. Both may be providing indirect, covert support. Both are likely to continue to display the same reluctance towards the implementation of harsh UN sanctions, as the Russians have shown recently, by diluting the EU draft resolution. – European countries assume that Iran is de facto a nuclear power. They acknowledge that the Mullahs are a theocratic totalitarian movement. Its recent up-tick is reminiscent of Nazism and Stalinism. But they are still unwilling to define Iran nuclear power "as a decisive ideological struggle"; The construction of the European Community may have convinced European leaders and their populations that over time " trade softens up standards of behaviour" ( le commerce adoucit les moeurs-1720 Montesquieu). Their conviction may be that diplomacy is the only viable option compared with a head-on conflict with Iran and possibly with the rest of the Islamic world. – But, over the last year, Iran’s Islamist hard-liners have further consolidated their grip on all the major sources of institutional power; in addition, the provocative rhetoric of the President of Iran has gained support even in the Sunni Arab street. Shi’te militancy is at work in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria. It could attempt to destabilize Western Sunni Arab regimes. In 2006 extremism and anarchy have been on the rise, witness civil wars in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan. It could become worse in 2007, for the invasion of Iraq has unleashed a process of Sh’ite empowerment that is spreading through the region. However we must recognize that the Iranian internal political situation remains complex. There are tensions within the ruling elite. The regime ’s corruption, incompetence, and crony capitalism continue to create unemployment and dissatisfaction; But nothing suggests that the regime’s collapse is imminent; As long as the reformers within Iran are not able to alter the constitution, it is unlikely that there will be a democratic breakthrough. Everything militates in favour of facilitating a regime change. Overt and covert means should be used. The objective is clearly, through propaganda, psychological warfare, finance and other means, to make the regime fall. This course of action is not "mission impossible". The real commitment to that alternative has not been made.

In 2006, we witnessed more of the same. The US are sending 22000 additional troops. There appears to be no alternative strategy for the region. Is it not the sharp rise in the price of oil, that has enabled countries such as Russia, Iran to further postpone the day of structural reforms towards a democratic society and a market economy; Generals and a few politicians have been removed in the US and Israel, but the resolve of the key players to persist in their line of conduct, has not been dented. Both sides have massive human, financial and political resources at their disposal. They appear willing to play for increasingly risky stakes.

Nobody should underestimate the risks associated with a military intervention against Iran’s nuclear installations; They are enormous. They range from killing and wounding hundred of thousand of civilians, because several nuclear facilities are located in densely populated areas, to environmental damages, greater instability in the region and the risk that an act of war against Iran be perceived as an aggression against the Moslem world at large. This process could trigger world wide political, social and economic disorders.

The Europeans and the Japanese need to face a reality. The present US government does not share yet the view that military action is a last resort in self defence or to prevent an imminent threat. It has sidelined the Baker/Hamilton report. It has sofar rejected direct negotiations with Iran. For the current leadership the electoral calendar is of the essence. Given the deep rooted sense of "mission freedom" of the American people at large and of their leaders across the political spectrum, given their past success through massive military commitments, given their traditional ability to accept without blinking, high foreign civilian casualties, given the pressure of time with the planned Russian delivery in 2007 of nuclear fuel to Busher, we have to envisage the hypothesis of a US lead military action against the Iranian nuclear sites, as a distinct possibility. Such a course of action could be viewed as another miscalculation, something of a reckless gamble. It would leave behind it a world more inclined towards violence than diplomacy.

Assuming no change in strategy over the next twelve months, it is likely that the war in Iraq will be viewed as a historic political and moral mistake. A costly mistake indeed for all parties concerned. In Iraq millions of displaced people and hundred of thousand of civilians killed or wounded. In the Middle East the sh’ite metastasis has further spread bringing to nought near term prospects of pacification and democratisation.

This scenario makes it all the more important to insure that all diplomatic options be explored urgently, notably through direct talks between the USA and Iran. Robust diplomatic engagement could be stepped up with full support of the UK and other key parties. A compromise must be found to allow the US and Iran to enter into direct negotiations without having conceded on their respective red lines. The first issue should be mutual security guaranties for the US, Iran and Israel. The key elements of the P5+1 of June 2006 should be developed to address many of Iran’s interests.

We need to have used all of the resources of forceful and imaginative diplomacy, like it was recently developed with North Korea to clarify a possible way forward with Iran, before we rush off to search for other options.