The US Minister of Defense Robert Gates tried to reassure his colleagues among the Ministers of Defense and security officials of the Gulf region during the convention organized by the "the International Institute of Strategic Studies" in Bahrain that the policy of his government vis-à-vis Iran "did not change" following the issuance of the latest report of the US secret service bodies. The report created waves of criticism and concern among these allies and equal waves of acclaim among the allies of Iran and the advocates of its projects in the region.
By Elias Harfouche
The US Minister of Defense Robert Gates tried to reassure his colleagues among the Ministers of Defense and security officials of the Gulf region during the convention organized by the "the International Institute of Strategic Studies" in Bahrain that the policy of his government vis-à-vis Iran "did not change" following the issuance of the latest report of the US secret service bodies. The report created waves of criticism and concern among these allies and equal waves of acclaim among the allies of Iran and the advocates of its projects in the region.
The US warned, as voiced by Gates, that Iran still represents a threat for the Gulf region and that it might have re-started its military nuclear program despite what was mentioned in the intelligence agencies report that it ceased this program four years ago. Despite that, President Bush's administration will have a hard time convincing its allies in the region of the seriousness and credibility of its policy vis-à-vis Iran. Moreover, these allies will realize from now on that it is in their interest to look for other methods to deal with Tehran other than the US "stick" method. The purpose is to avoid the repercussions of this policy thereon should Washington decide to conclude a truce and leave its allies alone in dealing with their problems, as it usually does.
Therefore, it seems that Gates' plea to the Gulf people in Bahrain to exert pressure on Iran to prompt it to reveal its former nuclear plans and cease its ongoing uranium enrichment agenda is a means to drag these countries into an unwanted standoff with Iran. This comes at a time when these countries are becoming increasingly suspicious of the seriousness of the US policy and its willingness to eventually confront Iran.
The truth is one would have to be extremely naïve and "stupid" to believe the theory of President Bush and the members of his administration that a report put forth by 16 intelligence agencies in the US and opens the gateway to a political upheaval of this caliber could be issued without the approval or against the will of the administration. Despite the analysis published by the US press that tackled the fact that the report was issued in the framework of a wave of pressure (some labeled it upheaval) on the US president and his vice-president Dick Cheney to back out on the set scheme to militarily strike Iran next spring, the political repercussions of the conclusions reached by the US intelligence men are farther and much more dangerous than that. They do not only hinder the military strike, which wasn't sought-after by anyone in the Gulf in any case. But they will hinder the possibility of an international consensus on a sanctions policy that can prevent Iran from completing its program, which no one believes that it has actually ceased to wait for the proper opportunities to pursue it.
Thus, if Iran is ready to proceed with a military nuclear program of 2003, i.e. in the light of President Mohamed Khatemi, can anyone be convinced that such a program could have come to an end in the light of Ahmedi Nejad, as the US intelligence agencies want us to believe? Can anyone "sain" be convinced of that, even if he is ranked as a spy in the US intelligence agency? Doesn't all this lead to suspicion about the credibility of the latest report and the political motives behind its issuance? The motives of saving Bush from his Iranian "impasse" and opening the door for the new policy vis-à-vis the truce with Tehran will be shouldered by the Gulf region in first place, because they will be at the expense of their own interests and may be at the expense of their security too.
Isn't it offensive and dubious that the friends of Iran in our region, who criticized the former reports of the US intelligence agency and described them as having political motives because they paved the way for President George Bush's Administration's catastrophic invasion of Iraq, are the ones who now find that the latest report is "accurate and scientific"? They considered it as such for the mere fact that it led to the conclusion that "peaceful" Iran ceased its program to manufacture a nuclear bomb. If Iran is so peaceful and opposer of the nuclear armament, why does it need to produce nuclear energy in first place for peaceful purposes, especially that it is one of the biggest owners of huge reserves of oil and gas in the world, which provide it with such an energy at much lesser prices than the costs of nuclear production?
