Iran standoff, war of words and the Armageddon
Nuclear facilities in Iran.Photo: AFP
For the last couple of years, people have been tired of reading and watching a few phrases in the reports of news-media when it comes to the Middle Eastern (ME) affairs. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapon and Iran is seeking peaceful uses of nuclear technologies: these are the two contradicting propositions that the news-medias have been feeding their readers/spectators. The first statement is being pushed forward by the US and its Western allies, and the latter is the refusal from Iran to defend the allegation. Regardless of the intention of either party's statement, after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya war, the world is apparently approaching towards another imminent military confrontation. If, for the sake of argument, we maintain the proposition of the US-led block that Iran is really approaching to build a nuclear weapon, even then it would be difficult for the US to answer why it refrains from taking any hard line on India, Pakistan or Israel's nuclear capacity. It is very hard to accept Israel being the lone nuclear power in the ME when the region has already experienced several wars that spilled over boundaries. The US-led allies' implied acceptance of Israel's nuclear superiority in the ME has overwhelmingly imbalanced the balance of power in the region, but nobody seems to acknowledge any danger of it. Now what if Iran truly acquires the nuclear weapon, although it vehemently denies the allegation? If we take the US-led allies' arguments into consideration, then the possible scenario will be that if Iran has been able to acquire nuclear weapon that would open the floodgate of nuclear arms-race across the ME region as many countries in the region are interlocked with conflicts with each other. That may pose a big threat to global peace and security since the ME has been feeding the large chunk global energy demands for decades. However, some would argue that India and Pakistan's acquiring of the nuclear weapons actually reduces the chance of any wider confrontation for trivial issues (take a note of Kargil war). Well, these are all possibilities. Things can even turn worst. However, the interesting point is the kind of bizarre arguments from the global advocates, including IAEA, that they could not do anything when some countries arbitrarily strive to dangerous nuclear technologies and even sought nuclear weapons because they were not the party to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Now, for a reasonable argument, if you cannot punish a country that is not even bother to sign the NPT, how come you can punish a country who honoured and obliged international commitments? Another strange development that we have been witnessing is the fuss the Israel is making about Iran and that it will bomb, attack, or destroy Iranian nuclear sites etc., and how the global advocates are forbearing such ado. Israel itself has violated UN resolutions for more than 35 instances and we could not see any sanction whatsoever has been imposed from the rest of the world to punish the defiance. Ironically, the question is now being under consideration is not that whether Israel or the US has the legitimate right to strike preemptively on Iranian suspected nuclear sites but whether Israel is going to send the bomber jets or whether US's Fifth Fleet has to carry out the attack! You must say it is a strange world or a world of might per se! Iran is not going to be a cakewalk in any case. Perhaps, Iran, other than the superpowers, is the only country in the world that maintains some very strong proxies across the region that can inflict much harm. Therefore, if you are thinking of a war with Iran, you are actually opting for a regional war. Besides, the sophistication of high-tech war-game that played bigger role in the recent success stories of warfare is going to be less effective against the war with Iran. Iran itself developed some kind of home-grown medium to long-range missile technologies along with massive arms stockpiling from Russian and Chinese purchase that may prove strategically very significant. Although, Israel and the US recently succeeded convincing Russia to scrap a deal and not to sell S-300 surface to air missile, one of the best technologies in air defense and which is a nightmare to even the most advanced air forces of the world, to Iran, there is a hush-hush that Iran somehow acquired the technology, may be from black market. If that is the case, the US or Israeli jets won't have a free fly in Iranian sky. Without the air superiority, winning Iran relying on marine or infantry is more than a dream. Besides, nobody actually has the right information what kind of missile technologies has been handed over to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite-militia group, a deadly Iranian proxy who recently reiterated that it will launch an attack on Israel if Iran is being attacked. Palestinian Hamas, another heavily armed Iranian proxy, has also issued the same threat. It would be interesting to see how the US or Israel would contain such deadly proxies that can take the war to Jerusalem and make the lives of Israelis close to hell. For mostly, apart from the US naval fleet or aircraft carriers being under the range of Iranian missiles, the Strait of Harmuz is the last, and perhaps the most effective card the Iranian will want to play. Iran will play the card when it will be in a desperate position and all other options are exhausted. All that means is that the war with Iran will not simply be confined within certain territorial borders; rather it will engulf the entire region and might open other vulnerable war fronts that may engage disgruntled superpowers too. What one can expect from such a catastrophic development? Now for the US and its allies, attacking and winning Iran may give them an upper-hand in the Middle Eastern affairs but not winning it all the way may cost their already ebbing global stature and could end another hegemonic chapter of the world history. Are we sensing what is coming?
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments