Source: TODAYS ZAMAN -http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=32290
21.04.2006
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Profesor Rik Coolsaet, professor of international relations at Ghent University, Belgium, and director of the Security and Global Governance Department at the Royal Institute for International Relations, Brussels argues that the US president who uses nuclear weapons without being attacked will be impeached.
Expert on international terrorism, Prof. Coolsaet says there is no way US will use nuclear weapons against Iran and if it happens, America will lose its world supremacy. Professor Coolsaet talked to ZAMAN in Brussels. Here are the excerpts:
Do you think war on Iran is imminent?
I don’t think there is, on the short term, a possibility of military showdown. The only ones who want a military operation is Americans and Israelis, however Americans are not willing to start a military operation as they are already involved in big military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ground forces are stretched to the limits, even a limited air strike against nuclear facilities is; a- not easy to do technically, a number of installations are underneath and they are not quite easy to wipe out, b- Americans recognize that they do not have sufficient information on the extent of the nuclear infrastructure. Basically that is a lesson learned from Iraq i.e. the scarcity of intelligence. There are still many questions unanswered concerning nuclear infrastructure, c- the most important element is the realization in Washington that whatever shape the military strike will take, be it a limited one or an all-out one, the political fall-out of such an operation will be high both for Iran and, in particular, for the U.S. If there would be a military strike, which would not ultimately mean a defeat and won’t stop the nuclear program. It will only stop it for several years, but reinforce the Iranian nationalism behind Ahmedinajad and give the argument that they need a program just for this reason i.e. not to be attacked again. They also realize that even a limited air strike will harden the resolve on the Iranian side to go with the nuclear program.
Israelis were successful in destroying the Iraqi Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and end the Iraqi dream of going nuclear.
The big difference is that it was one installation in Iraq and it was on surface. With the Iranian one the nuclear program is very widespread in a large landscape and part of it is built underground. This will hinder Americans to be a 100 percent sure -like Israelis were in 1981- that the nuclear program is completely destroyed. It is impossible to repeat what Israelis did basically because of what Iranians did, i.e. they built it on a large area of land.
What should be done to diffuse the tension?
People realize that it is not something easy, there is ‘no easy way out’, there is no silver bullet. The success of a military solution is not guaranteed and its fall-out cannot be assessed properly. The best thing that can be done right now is to heed Kofi Annan and El Baradei’s recommendations to heat down the rhetoric. First of all, what can be done is underlining the fact that we are not facing an imminent threat. There is no danger of waking up tomorrow and seeing Iran turned into a nuclear power. The predictions are ranging between 3 years minimum, 15 years maximum. So there is no urgency, no need to rush. The first thing to be done should be to lower the rhetoric. Secondly and most importantly you have to “de-westernize” the Iranian nuclear issue. By what I mean, the pressure has come from US and the EU so far, it is portrayed by Ahmedinajad yet another attempt by West to rein in another Muslim country. You have to give others the front line. In the first place the international organizations namely UN and its watchdog IAEA. They should take the floor and talk on behalf of the international community, not only the West. These organizations should make it clear that it is not the West vs. Iran but the world vs. nuclear adventures of a member country of the international community. This is the key issue, you have to put all possible pressure of the international community and secondly remind Iran its international obligations when she assumed signing the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), the promise not to join the club of nuclear weapons-wielding club.
Do you see any room for Islamic countries to contribute to the resolution of the conflict?
In my view, bilateral or multilateral contacts could be beneficial if done following Annan’s line but not unilateral attempts. For example, neighbors of Iran, even the non-Muslim ones, with the blessing of El Baradei, could send a delegation to Iran. Another one, I can imagine that IOC can gather with the request of some of its member states in collaboration with Annan and El Baradei. The fatwa, which was issued by Ayatollah Khamanei in August 2005, aimed at banning of using the nuclear weapons, this, is an excellent fatwa. One can also focus on the internal debate in Iran on Khamanei’s fatwa on the nuclear weapons.
Turkey tried it on the eve of Iraq with her neighbors but now US ambassador in Ankara is bluntly opposing Turkey’s endeavors to talk to Iran.
Let me reckon this point. US has no legitimacy whatsoever in this regard to prevent other countries to do things that they are doing. Who would prevent Turkey to do the things that others do in its best national interest.
Do you see a similarity between Hans Blix of Iraqi war and El Baradei of Iranian crisis?
No but I see the point. The two situations are too different to be compared. In the first case, Americans were clearly acting outside the international law and international organizations. So whatever Turkey was doing on the eve of the Iraqi war, US had an ideological approach and did not heed anything. But now there is an institutional willingness on the American side, which was clearly absent during the Iraqi war. Turkey, for example can feel nervous about having a nuclear neighbor like Iran. Iraq and Saudi Arabia can have the same feeling. So the neighboring countries have the same feeling of insecurity, if it is true Iran would go nuclear, these countries have all the right on earth to feel threatened.
Muslims, in general, are not convinced about the argument about Iran when it is an open secret that Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and developed its nuclear program and arsenal with Western help.
I think the point is not between Islam and the West but rather; being from a weak part of the earth, you should ask why the weak countries can not do whatever they want as the strong, powerful countries do. Though his Arab neighbors may not view Ahmedinajad very positively, nevertheless he is giving the message of the weak people rising against the strong and the powerful. That is his appeal. That is why you have to “de- westernize” the issue. You have to put international institutions on the agenda that speak for the whole community. So why Iran should not do what she is doing right now, because; a- she signed the NPT treaty and promised not to produce nuclear weapons, this is the legalistic approach and it is weak, b- it is dangerous for everyone including Iran.
Is signing the NPT alone sufficient to argue that Iran should not be producing nukes?
From a legal point of view, it is simple as that. India, Pakistan and Israel have the same situation. They did not sign the NPT; they have no obligation not to produce nuclear weapons so they have not acted against their obligations. The difficulty will be if Iran decides to leave NPT as North Korea has done. You can get out of the treaty; all you need to do is to give a warning some six months before. That is exactly what the US has done unilaterally with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile treaty) in 2002. It could happen that Iran can say “I go nuclear” and it is not that difficult.
While Pakistan faced embargoes, Israel was almost welcome by the West as a nuclear power.
The West is being seen as acting with double standards. Perception is sometimes more important than the fact itself. Israel started the nuclear weaponry program much earlier, in the 1960s and that time there was not pressure like today on nuclear weapons and Israel had a better image in Europe. India and Pakistan had this bad reaction because they tried to develop in the 80s when this stigma turned negative. I understand the perception. Western countries should not monopolize the issue that is why I insist that UN and its watchdog in Vienna should be in charge.
Why does not the international community insist on the inspection of Israeli nuclear facilities?
That is one of the criticisms in the US right now, about its stance vis-à-vis India. There are some countries, which are inspected, and some are not, that is why I understand the perception of double standards. So there is right now pending agreement with India in the US Congress. There are some members who say that ‘if you ratify this agreement then you will give Iran the necessary incentive to go nuclear’. This is a huge discussion, it is not clear if Bush will win.
Seymour Hersh argues that there are talks of nuclear strike against Iran.
A nuclear strike is impossible. It could have been mentioned as one of the options. I cannot imagine the US administration would use it, they will lose all the moral authority, it will be the end of American supremacy and there will be a huge reaction even within the US. That is unacceptable for American public. When this issue popped up in the Oval Office, I am sure the reaction was “are you mad or out of your mind?” I think an American president who use nuclear weapons, without being attacked, will be impeached.
Can Israel hit Iran alone?
I do not think they are capable of doing it. They do not have the means and the information to do it. Even the strongest military unit cannot do it alone. I do not think that the Americans would help Israel with that.
Cannot Iranians be telling the truth that they have the program just for energy purposes?
It could be technically possible. But why they did hide it for almost 20 years if it was only for civilian purposes, why they do not reply a number of questions of AIEA, why they do not allow inspectors even though they signed the protocol.
21.04.2006