Political analysts who speculate
about the United States' options for stopping
Iran's nuclear program often
point to two alternatives: economic sanctions and surgical military strike
against Iran's nuclear cites.
Iran has been well aware of these
alternatives and has tried to discourage them by a series of diplomatic moves
and military posturing. To reduce America's chance of obtaining the United Nations'
support for a worldwide international economic sanction, Iran has offered economic incentives to European Union, Russia and China through
attractive trade and investment opportunities. These incentives include a $75
billion long-term oil and gas development package for China, an attractive contract for
Russia to develop the Bushehr nuclear
reactor (and purchase of weapons systems). Yet the largest economic incentives
have been offered to European Union, which is Iran's largest
trade and investment partner.
In order to deter a possible U.S. or Israeli military strike against its
nuclear facilities Iran has
threatened to retaliate against U.S. interests in the region. It has
also developed long-range missiles capable of reaching Israel. In
addition to these steps Iran
is likely disrupt oil shipments from the Persian
Gulf if it comes under military attack. The combination of these
threats and the U.S.
difficulties in Iraq has so
far discouraged the U.S. from using its military option.
The U.S. efforts to gain
international support for economic sanctions against Iran have also been frustrated by the opposition
of Russia,
China and to a lesser extent
Europe. The U.S. now finds
itself in a situation that the economic sanction option seems unattainable and
the military option appears very costly and uncertain. The Iranian government,
however, is making a big mistake if it assumes that these are the only options
available to the U.S.
Several recent developments suggest that a third
option is available to the U.S. and some initial stages of this
option might already be underway. The oil-rich province of Khuzestan suffered several explosions and
ethnic unrest in June 2005. These events were followed by more explosions in
October 2005. There was also some ethnic unrest in Kurdish areas of
Iran earlier this year.
Iran has accused the
U.S. and the
U.K. of supporting separatist
movements among Iran's various ethnic groups. Both
countries have denied these accusations but creating large-scale ethnic unrest
could very well be America's third option that so far no
one has paid much attention to. The
logic behind this option is that by creating ethnic unrest and pushing it
forward to the point of civil war, the U.S. can force the Iranian government
to divert its resources away from its nuclear program. A more ambitious goal of
such an initiative might even be to bring about the total disintegration of
Iran into several small and
ineffective states.
It is in the context of this option that we might
understand why suddenly out of nowhere Michael Ledeen, a neo-conservative
American intellectual and a close supporter of Israel, has expressed concern for
Iran's ethnic groups and has
called on Iran to adopt a federalist form of
government. (He organized a conference titled "The Unknown Iran:
Another Case For Federalism" in late October in American Enterprise
Institute.) Ledeen has been an advocate of regime change in Iran for several years, but this is the first
time that he has focused on Iran's ethnic minorities. This
conference and the growing media attention to this issue will further provoke
ethnic nationalism among Iran's diverse ethnic groups that by
some accounts make up close to 49% of the country's total population.
In the past few years Iran has devoted its attention to deterring and
countering America's first
two options but perhaps it is now time to think very seriously about
America's third option, which
could pose a far more dangerous threat to Iran than either
economic sanctions or surgical military strikes. These two conventional options
could impose heavy economic and even human costs on Iran but they do not necessarily threaten
Iran's unity and territorial
integrity. The ethnic option, however, could lead to the break up of the
country.
The third option is not only more dangerous for
Iran but it is less costly
and easier to implement for the United States. The U.S. needs international support for economic
sanctions but China and
Russia are likely to oppose it. The
military option is very risky and Iran could retaliate by helping the insurgents in
Iraq and attacking
U.S. interests throughout
Middle East. Providing assistance to separatist
ethnic groups on the other hand could be done covertly and at a much lower cost.
It does not even have to be a major group with a large number of supporters. The
U.S. could arm a small group of
separatists with advanced small-scale weapons such as shoulder-based anti-tank
and anti-aircraft missiles and provide them with logistic support. Such small
groups proved very effective against the revolutionary government of
Nicaragua in 1980s. The fact that
U.S. now has military
presence in most of Iran's neighbors allows it to easily
transfer material and human support to such groups.
Iran must conduct its foreign policy and its nuclear
program, which has angered the U.S. with an eye to the potential
threats and risks. While developing nuclear technology and supporting the
Palestinian struggle are worthwhile objectives, both must be conducted in such a
manner that does not provoke a destructive response and threaten the country's
territorial integrity.
About the author:
Nader Habibi is economist with the Middle East and North Africa Service of the consulting
firm Global Insight.
