The Dream of "Pax Persica"

The Dream of “Pax Persica”

Ali-Asghar Kazemi
18 April 2006
___________________________________________________

April 2006 will be remembered in contemporary history of Iran as a landmark. In this month Iran has become once again the focus of attention in international media. At the end of this month the fate of Iran‘s nuclear ambitions will be decided upon by the U.N. Security Council.

While waiting for a deadline to comply with the demand of this world body to halt its presumed peaceful nuclear activities, the Islamic regime has opted for a policy of defiance and confrontation. Claiming that it has reached the full cycle uranium enrichment, it has said that the breakthrough was for the benefit of peace and security of the all Moslem nations, leaving the impression of “big brother” trying to bring the region under its nuclear protection. This reminds the unfulfilled dreams of the old regime that, according to antagonists, wanted to revive the Persian imperium by ascending to regional supremacy and becoming “gendarme” of the Persian Gulf region. Now as a self-claimed member of the nuclear club, the Islamic fundamentalist regime contemplates the vision of achieving that objective by establishing what I venture to call “Pax Persica” among the Moslem community (Umma’h).

Once the Persian Empire ruled the largest known political dominion of the ancient times and challenged the Greeks and Romans on land and at sea. Persian supremacy in those days was not merely backed by the audacity and courage of its warriors or instruments of war but transpired from the leadership, tolerance and ingenuity of its rulers. Jewish people still remember and celebrate the memory of the Persian king, Cyrus the Great, who liberated them from the tyranny of Pharaohs in ancient Egypt.

Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were indeed the product of wisdom of great diplomats and politicians who guaranteed the capacity to tip the scales by allying themselves with the weaker nations of their times against whatever state or coalition of states threatened to become predominant. The whole idea relates to the concept of “balance of power” as a prerequisite to avoid crisis escalation and to establish a durable peace and order or to preserve the status quo in a vulnerable region.

The balance of power system was a process of checking power with a counterpower. The suitable method to accomplish this end was the formation of alliances. One chief alleged benefit of the balance was to guarantee the survival and independence of small nations who were protected by the “balancer” from being overwhelmed by the large ones or, otherwise saying, to ensure peace and stability in an anarchic world.

A careful scrutiny of this theory in the current state of affairs in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, leads one to believe that the present international relations fall short of proving the validity of balance of power. This is especially true at this critical time with respect to the Islamic regime in Iran that not only lacks the world support and that of the Islamic community in the region, but also is far beyond the current state of art and technology needed for a power to be reckoned with. Furthermore, to act as a “balancer” a state should not be guided merely by national egotism but by universal values and international altruism. In other words, if the endeavor reduces to self-interest for survival, any such plan or strategy is doomed to failure and my further aggravate the situation.

“Pax Americana” is a good example which, despite its worldwide hegemony, earnestly seeks the support of other great powers in the Security Council and elsewhere in order to form a viable coalition against the presumed threats of the Islamic regime in Iran; whereas this latter even lacks the support of Moslem nations. We should recognize that in the chaotic state of world affairs, it is not much difficult for a superpower to deal with a threat of minor magnitude in the military scale. This means that no matter how powerful a nation might be, it has nonetheless the need the support for its plans and strategy.

If a political entity is caught in the obsession of challenging the power or the very existence of other nations, surely it has to be either supported by some unknown forces beyond the actual equation of balance of material power or it should be devoid of conventional wisdom and common sense. Indeed, the power and merci of the Almighty God is not the monopoly of a specific religion, sect or creed. No single nation can claim to represent the true path to salvation and preach the other the accepted norms of ethics.

“Pax Persica” can be reached only through tolerance, compassion and sympathy towards other nations in the tumultuous region of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Great powers should abstain from aggravating the already volatile situation of this area. Since, this will only benefit the adventurers who would like to escalate the crisis situation to the threshold of an unwanted war in order to consolidate their power and guarantee their own survival. The dream of “Pax Persica can turn into nightmare if not properly handled. /

Euphorie Nucléaire de l'Iran...

Euphorie Nucléaire de l'Iran

Vers une Confrontation avec l'Occident!

Ali-Asghar Kazemi

12 Avril 2006

___________________________________________________

Les Iraniens ont beaucoup d’étapes dans leur longue histoire. En fait, l'histoire de l'Iran est pleine des étapes importantes, des héros et des idoles qui ont aidé à sauver cette nation dans les vicissitudes des temps passes. Les Persans doivent leur survie dans l'histoire à ce don merveilleux. Beaucoup d'occurrences telles que la "nationalisation du pétrole," la révolution islamique, et la fin de guerre entre l'Iran et l’Irak, sont parmi les événements plus récents qui sont considérés en tant que tournants en Iran contemporain.

L’étape contestable la plus récente est le prétendu plein accès à l'enrichissement en carburant nucléaire qui a été déclaré avril 11, 2006. Ceci s'est produit à un temps critique au milieu la crise nucléaire, alors que le monde compte en bas les jours de délai accordes par le Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU au gouvernement islamique pour stopper toutes ses activités nucléaires. En ce jour, le président controversé de dur ligne a solennellement annoncé que l'Iran à acquérir la capacité de l'enrichissement nucléaire sur l'échelle industrielle et a déclaré la date comme "jour national de fierté et prestige."

Le public moyen cependant, impatient au sujet des impacts plausibles de l'événement sur leur vie quotidienne, a montrés peu d'enthousiasme pour les nouvelles. Des citoyens plus instruits et plus expérimentés ont secoué leurs têtes et ont tranquillement exprimé des inquiétudes concernant les conséquences graves de l'entreprise. Les groupes d'opposition, étonnes par la charge lourde d'avertis la couverture médiatique et la propagande, ont exprimés leur mécontentement au sujet de l'effet néfaste du jeu sur les intérêts nationaux de l'Iran.

Il y’à beaucoup de doutes que cet événement pourrait être considéré comme borne limite et être classé comme percée dans des possibilités scientifiques du pays. On croit que la déclaration était une manoeuvre délibérée afin d'atteindre un certain nombre d'objectifs en ce moment critique: a) la consommation domestique pour ceux qui deviennent de plus en plus frustré au sujet de la réalisation du président de ses promesses de faire face à la pauvreté, à la corruption, aux inflations et à d'autres maux sociaux; b) pour encourager le directeur général de l'AIEA (attendu visiter l'Iran en 12 avril ) pour noter son rapport sur le cas de l'Iran au Conseil de Sécurité en quelque sorte pour éviter des sanctions certaines sous chapitre VII (article 41) de Charter l’ONU.; c) pour envoyer un message sombre à l’ONU le et les membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité que dorénavant elles font face à un fait accompli et devraient faire attention en faisant face à l'Iran nucléaire.Pas étonnamment, sur l'annonce de cette déclaration, tous les membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité ont pris garde et ont averti l'Iran au sujet des conséquences négatives du fait.

Seulement quelques heures après la déclaration, le prix du pétrole sur le marché international et le prix de l'or et du dollar dans des transactions domestiques ont sauté à un nouveau haut record.Les observateurs politiques croient qu'en réalité la fin de la commande réformiste dans le gouvernement iranien devrait être considérée comme borne limite importante dans la mesure où le destin politique de l'Iran et sa place dans la scène internationale sont concernées. En effet, pendant l’ autorité des progressive dans les branches exécutives et législatives du gouvernement, l'Iran à pu survivre au-dessus de beaucoup de menaces et calamités qui pourraient mettre en danger l'existence même du régime islamique. L'ouest et le monde en général ont espéré que la tendance mènerait finalement à la société civile d'épanouissement et aux établissements démocratiques qui laisseraient des idées obsédantes et fondamentalistes. Mais, l'apparition du nouveau conservateur président de dure ligne était un coup sérieux aux idéaux progressif qui a tourné les rêves doux des naïves au cauchemar.

Dans le camp des Etats Unies aussi, les Hawks néo--conservateurs semblent être déterminés pour contenir les ambitions nucléaires de l'Iran, qu'ils ont pensées pour être une menace sérieuse à l'ordre du monde. En fait, la déclaration provocatrice récente sur le plein cycle d'enrichissement est susceptible pour lâcher une vraie confrontation entre les deux camps conservateurs. En outre, le défit de l'Iran du rapport du Conseil de Sécurité et de l'infraction réclamée l'accord de Paris avec EU3 aussi bien que le protocole additionnel au NPT, pourraient préparer le terrain pour que les Américains convainquent la Russie et la Chine qu'un règlement politique n'est pas possible et elles devraient atteindre un consensus sur une résolution grave sous le chapitre VII de la Charte de l’ONU.

Peut-être maintenant les Etats-Unis ont une évidence et une justification plus persuasive pour pousser des membres du Conseil de Sécurité pour entreprendre des actions sérieuses contre l'Iran. Les Américains ont averti que s'ils n'obtiennent pas une résolution forte ils pourraient essayer de former une coalition séparée pour faire face aux menaces de l'Iran. Ainsi, il semble que si les deux adversaires conservateurs ne sont pas contenus par un certain genre de médiation ou de négociation directe, la situation pourrait escalader et mener au désastre.

Pour les raisons pratiques cependant, les chefs iraniens ne semblent pas s'inquiéter beaucoup d'un embargo certain ou des sanctions économique, bien que ceci sûrement cause un bon nombre d'ennui et de dérangement à la nation entière. Mais, ceux qui souhaitent par la suite que le peuple révolte contre le régime islamique en cas de blocus économique devraient se rappeler que depuis la révolution, ce pays a été sujet à des toutes sortes de sanctions pendant la guerre de l'Irak et Iran et après, et aucune telle chose s'est jamais produits. Au contraire, Iraniens ont prouvé qu'ils ont une tendance à consolider pendant les périodes difficiles.

En ce qui concerne les frappes de préemption sur les installations nucléaires de l'Iran ou les installations pétrolifères sur la terre ou en mer, directement par les Etats-Unis ou par l'Israël, il y’à peu de chances que ces opérations pourraient produire les résultats prévus. Ceci peut seulement produire des résultats contradictoires: réveille le nationalisme iranien en consolidant la nation contre l'invasion étrangère, ou donne un dessus au régime islamique pour augmenter plus loin sa poignée domestique.

Le gouvernement islamique a réclamé dans plusieurs occasions que s'il perçoit une vraie menace dans le golfe Persique ou ailleurs sur son territoire, il a la capacité de rendre la région entière dangereuse pour tous. L'exercice naval récent en golfe Persique, détroit de Hormoz et mer d'Oman, où un certain nombre de nouvelles armes ont été examinées, était organise' assurément pour envoyer le signal que l'Iran peut engager dans une série d'opérations peu usuelles qui pourraient décourager et intimider tous les adversaires potentiels. En fait, l'Iran a déjà montré à d'autres occasions, (en Afghanistan, en Irak, au Liban et en Palestine) qu’elle est capable pour frustrer la stratégie ou les actions des Etats Unies dans toute la région.

Si l'euphorie nucléaire de l'Iran a n'importe quelle justification raisonnable autre que l'agitation et l'irritation autour du monde et si les actions intrépides et provocatrices récentes pourraient décourager l'ouest ou il peuvent aboutir au désastre, nous n'avons aucun autre choix que pour attendre et voir comment les politiciens compétents contrôleront sagement la crise imminente. ___________________________

Iran's Nuclear Euphoria...

Iran’s Nuclear Euphoria
Heading for a Clash with the West!

Ali-Asghar Kazemi
12 April 2006
_______________________________________________________________________



Iranians have many landmarks in their long history. In fact, Iran’s history is full of milestones, heroes and idols that helped to save this nation through the vicissitude of times. Persians owe their survival in history to this marvelous gift. Many occurrences such as “oil nationalization,” Islamic revolution, termination of Iran-Iraq war, are among the more recent events which are considered as turning points in contemporary Iran.

The most recent disputable landmark is the so-called full access to nuclear fuel enrichment which was declared on April 11, 2006. This happened at a critical time amid the nuclear crisis, while the world is counting down the time limit set by the U.N. Security Council to the Islamic government to halt all its nuclear activities. On that day, the controversial hard-line president solemnly announced Iran’s enrichment capability on industrial scale and declared the date as a “national day of pride and prestige.”

Average public however, anxious about the plausible impacts of the event on their daily life, showed little enthusiasm about the news. More educated and experienced citizens shook their heads and quietly expressed concerns about the grave consequences of the venture. Opposition groups, surprised by the heavy load of media coverage and propaganda, voiced their discontent and warned about the detrimental effect of the gamble on Iran’s national interests.

Whether the event could be considered as a landmark and be filed as a breakthrough in scientific capability of the country, is subject to doubt. It is believed that the declaration was a deliberate maneuver for the purpose of achieving a number of objectives at this point of time: a) domestic consumption for those who are becoming increasingly frustrated about the president’s fulfillment of his promises to cope with poverty, corruption, inflations and other social evils; b) to encourage the IAEA Director General (expected to visit Iran on April 12) to write down his report on Iran’s case to the Security Council in a manner to avoid eventual sanctions under Chapter VII (Article 41) of the U.N. Charter; c) to send a somber message to the U.N. Security Council and its permanent members that henceforth they are facing a fait accompli and should be careful in dealing with nuclear Iran.

Not surprisingly, upon the announcement of this declaration, all permanent members of the Security Council condemned the action and warned Iran about the negative consequences of the deed. Hours after the declaration, oil price in international market and the price of gold and dollar in domestic transactions jumped to a new record high.

Political observers believe that in reality the end of reformist control in the Iranian government should be considered as an important landmark as far as Iran’s political fate and position in the international scene are concerned. Indeed, during the progressive rule in the executive and legislative branches of the government, Iran was able to prevail over many threats and calamities that could endanger the very existence of the Islamic regime. The West and the world in general hoped that the trend would ultimately lead to flourishing civil society and democratic institutions that would leave behind obsessive and fundamentalist ideas. But, the emergence of the new hard-line president was a serious blow to the progressive ideals that turned naives’ sweet dreams to nightmare.

In the US camp too, the neo-conservative hawks seem to be determined to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which they believed to be a serious threat to world order. In fact, the recent provocative declaration on the full enrichment cycle is susceptible to unleash a clash between the two conservative camps. Furthermore, Iran’s defiance of the Security Council Statement and the claimed breach of Paris Accord with EU3 as well as the Additional Protocol to the NPT, could pave the way for Americans to convince Russia and China that a political settlement is not possible and they should reach a consensus on a severe resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter. Perhaps now the United States has more persuasive evidence and justification to push members of the Security Council to undertake serious actions against Iran. Americans have warned that if they fail to get a strong resolution they might endeavor to form a separate coalition to face Iran’s threats. Thus, it seems that if the two conservative opponents are not contained through some kind of mediation or direct negotiation, the situation could escalate and lead to disaster.

On practical grounds however, Iranian leaders do not seem to worry much about an eventual embargo or economic sanctions, though this surely will cause lots of trouble and inconvenience to the overall nation. But, those who eventually wish that the people would revolt against the Islamic regime in case of an economic blockade should remember that ever since the revolution, this country has been subject to all kinds of sanctions both during Iraq-Iran war and after, and no such thing has ever happened. On the contrary, Iranians have shown that they have a tendency to consolidate during the hard times.
With respect to an eventual preemptive strikes either on Iran’s nuclear facilities or oil installations on land or offshore, directly by the United States or through Israel, there is little chances that these operations could produce the expected outcome. This may only generate contradictory results: either awakens Iranian nationalism by consolidating people against foreign invasion, or gives an upper hand to the Islamic regime to further expand its domestic grip.
The Islamic government has claimed in several occasions that if it perceives a real threat in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere on its land territory, it has the capacity to make the whole region insecure for all. Recent naval exercise in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormoz and Sea of Oman, where a number of new weapons were tested, was undoubtedly organize to send the signal that Iran can engage in a series of unconventional operations that could deter and intimidate any potential opponents. In fact, Iran has already shown on other occasions, (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine) that it is capable to frustrate U.S. strategy or actions throughout the region.
Whether Iran’s nuclear euphoria has any rational justification other than stirring up irritation around the world and whether recent bold and provocative actions could deter the West or it may end up to disaster, we have no other choice than to wait and see how competent politicians will wisely manage the impending crisis./
___________________________

Strategy of Asymmetric War

Strategy of Asymmetric War
Iran’s Mixed Signals to the West

Ali-Asghar Kazemi
7 April 2006
________________________________________________________________________


While the count-down of the remaining 30 days for Iran to comply with the demand of the United Nations Security Council to halt its nuclear activities has started, the Islamic regime has been giving mixed signals to the international community. On the one hand Iranians took a conciliatory and cooperative stance urging the Western powers to continue their negotiating efforts within the IAEA for the benefit of world peace and order, and on the other hand they embarked on a bold and confrontational venture in the Persian Gulf.

A major naval exercise was carried in this strategic region, including the Straits of Hormoz and the Sea of Oman, where an assortment of new weapon were brought into play. Among these, a new version of ballistic missiles (Shehab III) with multiple warhead or MIRV (Multiple Independently targeted Reentry Vehicle) capability and a very high speed torpedo, both of which claimed to have radar and sonar hidden ability. A number of other new weapons and platforms of rather offensive character were also demonstrated in the week-long maneuver.

The media coverage of the exercise was rather unprecedented, leaving the impression that the Islamic hawks intended to send a strong message to the West, especially the United States, that they must think twice before deciding to pass a harsh resolution against Iran in the Security Council or threaten the survival of the revolutionary regime. In fact, the defense doctrine of the Islamic Republic is based on a Qur’anic verse that commands the Moslems to acquire all sorts of weapons and equipments they can afford in order to deter and scare their opponents and the enemies God. Not surprisingly, this canon is coined as the symbol of the Revolutionary Guards and appears as an emblem on their flag and as a badge on their military uniform.

One important aspect of this exercise which eventually escaped the eyes of observers was the almost total absence of the regular Iranian navy whose functions are normally limited to classical tasks of sea denial and power projection ashore in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormoz. We know by experience that in a purely classical naval engagement the Iranian navy would not be able to sustain combat capability and will soon be out of effective operation. That was the case in the late 1980s where Iranian navy lost some of its warships in an unequal interface with the American units.

That experience led the defense planners to devise new tactics with limited but effective light and fast units to hit and run, which was initially termed as “guerilla warfare at sea.” In fact, like operations on land, when two unequal opponents face each other, the best way for the weak side is to recourse to war of attrition and guerilla operations. In an enclosed narrow and rather shallow region such as the Persian Gulf, this tactic can be very decisive against large units and can deny the enemy from effective deployment, sea lines of communication and power projection.

Thus, the rationale behind the April 2006 Iranian joint forces maneuver in the Persian Gulf should be found in the strategy of “asymmetric warfare” carried by the Revolutionary Guards with the objective to deter the Americans from risking any adventurous plan to ultimately topple the Islamic regime as they did in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time Iran is taking up other long-term strategy in the region which relates to confidence building and gradual rapprochement with the Persian Gulf littoral states pursing the following objectives:

- Inhibiting more and more the U.S. presence in the region of the Persian Gulf;
- Making the future American interventions in the region much more difficult and costly;
- Building an anti-American shield against the United States policy of “forceful democratization” in the region;
- Narrowing down the gap between the Iranian regime and the conservative Arab States;
- Encouraging the Persian Gulf States toward Asian markets and other world great powers, such as Russia, China, India and Japan, while limiting economic interaction with the U.S.;
- Making the strategic environment much more difficult for the United States force deployment in crisis situations.

All these would suggest that it would indeed be hard for the United States to bear the consequences of a serious entanglement with Iran in the near future, unless the American policy with respect to Iran and the Persian Gulf changes its contents and context. That is to say, the American objectives and therefore ways and means to reach them should be adapted to the new emerging environment. The new environment is not necessarily in favor of the American military presence in the region. It is not however quite certain that Iran’s hostile signals during the April 2006 exercise would deter in any way the neo-conservative hawks in Washington who are leaning toward the use of hard power to achieve their objectives.

However, we should recognize that there is a major difference between “force” and “power.” A nation may have one but not the other, since for example, sea force is only one of the many composing elements of sea power. Geographic position, indigenous technological base, industrial productive capacity, scientific potentialities, strong communication and economy, wisdom of leadership and above all domestic and international supports are among other prerequisites of power. Failure to comprehend these principles together may lead a nation to the “illusion of power” and consequently to risky situations which could jeopardize the vital interests of a nation.

Whether the Islamic regime will surrender to the demand of the U.N. Security Council in order to avoid further escalation of the nuclear issue, is a matter of threat perception of the Iranian decision makers and their capacity to manage the crisis. Indeed, if they realize that the risks of defying the U. N. demands are much too high and beyond their endurance, they will surely come to their sense and do whatever necessary to avoid the worst to happen./

___________________________