Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 23, 2010. Photo: UN photo, Richard Drew
Tensions between Iran and the West are heading towards crisis point, commentators warn, after the UN nuclear agency declared the latest inspection of the country’s facilities a failure. According to The Guardian, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors were denied access to “a key site suspected of hosting covert nuclear weapon research”.
The news of the failed inspection came at a time of heightened rhetoric and fears of conflict in the region. Tehran has blocked crude oil exports to France and Britain in response to European sanctions aimed at disrupting the country’s nuclear programme; Iranian officials have warned that further countries may be added to the embargo. The relationship between Iran and Israel is also under serious scrutiny. Israel accused Iran of orchestrating a terror campaign against Israeli diplomats after explosions in Thailand, Georgia and India, and there are reports that Israeli officials are keen to strike against Iranian nuclear facilities despite US insistence on taking the diplomatic route. Tehran has blamed Israel for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and warned that the country is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes in defence of national interests.
So what are the possible consequences of recent events?
Oil ban will have minimal impact. “Iran’s decision to pre-empt the EU’s oil embargo by halting crude shipments to the UK and France is unlikely to have much of a permanent price impact,” said Kevin Allison at Reuters, pointing out that neither country depends on Iranian crude imports. Allison predicted that the embargo may cause a temporary oil price spike but is unlikely to have any impact on the global economy.
Consequences of the failed nuclear inspection. Rather more worrying is the political impact of increased tensions with Iran. “In the end, an inspection that was designed to lessen tension over Iran will instead almost certainly increase it,” wrote Michael Adler at The Daily Beast. “The IAEA, accustomed to long, drawn-out inspections, seems to have lost its patience.” According to Adler, the consequences of the IAEA setback will be most evident in the US, given that it is an election year: “It may reinforce battle lines being drawn between a U.S. Congress more hardline than the Obama administration, and give ammunition to Republican candidates staking out hawkish positions against a president they portray as weak on Iran.” What’s more, said Adler, the failed inspection risks undermining Tehran’s insistence that the country has nothing to hide over its nuclear facilities.
Internal divisions. The tense situation is complicated by internal divisions within the major players, said Ian Black in The Guardian. There is “uncertainty over who calls the shots in Tehran, where [President] Ahmadinejad is locked in a power struggle with the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who controls the Revolutionary Guards,” wrote Black. And in Israel, “Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, insists that sanctions are not working, while Ehud Barak, his defence minister, says he thinks they are starting to be effective”. Black quoted Emile Hokayem of the Institute of Strategic Studies as saying the West has a tendency to overestimate Iran’s power: “If you look at the substance, Iran doesn’t come across as a particularly powerful country. It’s trying to find its place in the international system and it’s failing,” said Hokayem.
Attacking Iran would mean disaster. Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix wrote in The New Statesman that “bombing Iranian nuclear installations may be a path to disaster rather than to a solution… After armed attacks the Iranian government, which many now hate, may get broad support in a nation feeling humiliated by the attack. If there was not already a decision to go for a nuclear weapon it would then be taken.” Blix argued that the West should take a more conciliatory tone during negotiations with Iran, rather than appearing “condescending” and emphasising future sanctions.