The possibility of a United States or Israeli war to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been an obsession among foreign policy wonks, diplomats and journalists for some time.

Many Iran experts believe such a war would be a disaster that would fail to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Michael Axworthy (pictured) is one of them.

During the 1970s, the British author and former diplomat traveled to Iran many times while his parents lived and worked there. He joined the British foreign service in 1986, serving as a head of the Iran desk from 1998 to 2000.

Over the last eight years he’s been writing books and teaching about Iran in the United Kingdom. His latest book, “A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind,” was released last month. It traces the country’s history from its earliest days,
emphasizing its religious, intellectual and cultural traditions.

Axworthy graciously agreed to an e-mail interview about Iran and its current confrontation with the West. “The crisis is a result of the hostility that has persisted between the U.S. and Iran since the revolution of 1979 and the hostage crisis.

“But it has its roots in the U.S.-Iran relationship earlier than that, notably in U.S. support for the regime of the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s, and the coup attempted by the British and the CIA against Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953. The prime reason the clerical regime in Iran might want a nuclear weapon is as a deterrent to the U.S. regime-change policy.”

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Is the U.S. going to launch a war against Iran?

MICHAEL AXWORTHY: I believe the costs to the U.S. of military action are too high, and that there have been at least two effective rebellions against that idea within the U.S. system already — the most recent being the National Intelligence Report report last November, in which the U.S. intelligence community declared that Iran had not been pursuing a nuclear weapon program since 2003.

But if the U.S. and the wider international community are unable to stop the Iranian program (whether by warlike or peaceful means) then Israel could take action unilaterally.

>

LAT: What are some potential consequences of a war meant to target Iran’s nuclear installations?

AXWORTHY: Iran would have a range of retaliatory options, include attacks on U.S. installations on the southern shore of the Persian Gulf, attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf, and attacks against Israel. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan could also change for the worse.

LAT: Could a war halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

AXWORTHY: Military action could not destroy an Iranian nuclear weapon program. The program could easily be dispersed to widely separated, secret locations, that could not be seen from the air, and repositioned deep underground, so deep that even nuclear weapons might not destroy them even if their locations could be hit.

Even if damage were done, once the applied knowledge of how to enrich uranium has been acquired, it is impossible to prevent the activity going ahead, if the will to do so is there. Military action against Iran is more likely to persuade ordinary Iranians of the need for a nuclear deterrent than anything else.

LAT: Do you think Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons?

AXWORTHY: Important Iranian religious leaders have declared that nuclear weapons, and all weapons of mass destruction, are immoral and unacceptable, and this matters. We should take those statements seriously (not least because, during the Iran/Iraq war, Iran refrained from retaliating with chemical weapons when Saddam Hussein used those weapons against Iranian troops, and against civilians. Many Iranian veterans are still suffering the after-effects of those weapons).

The NIE concluded last November that Iran had not been pursuing a nuclear weapon program since 2003. But western governments have good reason to believe that at various points they have pursued a nuclear weapon program. The explanation for this apparent contradiction could be that the Iranian leadership has wanted to develop a capability, short of an actual weapon, that would still serve as a deterrent. In other words, to have all the elements ready to produce a weapon if necessary, but not the weapon itself. The only practical value of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent, as is well known.

LAT: How can the West curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions without going to war?

AXWORTHY: Only by negotiation — direct, committed negotiation between the U.S. and Iran at an appropriately high political level, directed at a resolution of all outstanding disputes between Iran and the U.S.
LAT: What effects are sanctions currently having on Iran? Are they working?

AXWORTHY: Sanctions are having an effect on the Iranian economy, contributing to the high inflation and high unemployment that make miserable the lives of many Iranians (factors that were significant in 2005 in the election of Ahmadinejad). But sanctions are a blunt instrument, and whether they are working to produce the effects on Iranian government policy that the West hopes for is more uncertain.

The statement by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on June 3, restating Iran’s commitment to its nuclear program and saying that Iran seeks only civil nuclear power and not a nuclear weapon, would seem to suggest otherwise. This policy has broad support within Iran, irrespective of other political divisions.

LAT: What would it take to get Iran to stop supporting militant groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and possibly Iraq?

AXWORTHY: A ‘Grand Bargain’ of the kind proposed by the Iranian government (and ignored by the U.S. government) in 2003. The proposal suggested talks toward a resolution of the nuclear dispute, and de facto Iranian recognition of Israel, in return for an end to the U.S. policy for regime change in Iran, and a normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iran. Note that 2003 is also the date at which the NIE concluded that work on the Iranian nuclear program stopped. Although Ahmadinejad came to power after that, his significance is often exaggerated (not least by himself) and the other elements in the leadership group are much the same as they were in 2003.

Incidentally, I would applaud the reports … showing that the picture of support from Iran for insurgent action against coalition troops in Iraq has been greatly exaggerated on the strength of very little evidence; and that the much greater destabilizing effect of action by foreign fighters and suicide bombers on the Sunni side, especially from Saudi Arabia but also from other countries in the region, has been scandalously neglected.

LAT: How would you describe the state of Iranian society today?
AXWORTHY: That is a big question, and the Iranian people have a way of surprising pundits. I have mentioned the problems of inflation and unemployment already — there is also a serious drug problem, as a result of Iran’s position on the drug highway from Afghanistan to Europe.

There seem in addition to be a number of trends at work — away from religion and toward nationalism in politics, though there is also a mood of disillusionment and nihilism among many young people after the failure of the reform project under the Khatami presidency of 1997-2005.

A more optimistic feature is the growing role of Iranian women in education and the job market — 65% of university entrants are women, and many of them go on to well-paid jobs, often earning more than their husbands.
LAT: What are the chances that Iranians themselves will bring about a change of Iran’s policies

AXWORTHY: The ruling clique have become more adept at manipulating the electoral system, and it is hard to be too optimistic. But there is still genuine politics in Iran, and significant differences within the political class.

For example, the Majlis is now strongly conservative, but it has successfully resisted appointments and policies proposed by President Ahmadinejad at a number of important points. A range of judicious observers, from Paul Wolfowitz to the son of the last Shah, from the dissident Akbar Ganji to the Nobel prizewinner Shirin Ebadi, have urged against military action, in favor of allowing Iranians to develop freer, more representative government themselves, without outside interference.

Borzou Daragahi, in Beirut

By Robert Scheer

How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist—to a fault—opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.

On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.

Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.

Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran’s developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?

If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.

The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region’s key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.

To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States—which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and “usable” nuclear weapons)—as both their enemy and an example to emulate.

What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent” than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?

Originally published by www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080422_robert_scheer_apr_23_clinton_and_iran

WHEN: Thursday May 1, 2008 7pm
WHERE: All Souls Church; Reidy Friendship Hall
1157 Lexington Ave, @ 79th St. New York, NY USA

212-535-5530

SPEAKERS: Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammad Soroush, founders of the Society for
Chemical Weapons Victims Support www.scwvs.org

On tour in the U.S. from Iran, Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammad Soroush, have
many years experience treating victims of chemical weapons used in the Iran/Iraq war of
the 1980s. Speaking to both medical professionals and to the general public, they address
the short and long term medical consequences of chemical warfare hoping to heighten the
awareness of the devastation of weapons of mass destruction and to remind us that we
must work to abolish these weapons.

Tour Sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) www.psr.org and the
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)
www.campaigniran.org/casmii/

The tour sponsors hope this tour will increase efforts for diplomacy to between U.S. and
Iran and bring us closer to peace.

Co-sponsors: Peace Task Force of All Souls Church and Action For Justice of Community
Church NYC Info: russellbranca@yahoo.com tel. 718-843-0515