Are the mullahs bluffing?

---

See the Sol Sanders Archive By Sol Sanders SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

When EU representatives sat down in early August to persuade Tehran to live up to the UN International Atomic Energy [IAEA] treaty, they were dismayed: the Iranians threw a passel of outrageous demands in their faces.

So much for European efforts to ÒtriangulateÓ WashingtonÕs tough line on Iranian nuclear proliferation ø pushed particularly by BritainÕs Foreign Minister Jack Straw. For months the U.S. reluctantly had gone along. President Bush ø badgered by Democrats and Old Europe friends to be kinder to our allies ø had talked up diplomacy. But the Iranian mullahs, despite rebellious youth and a dilapidated economy, simply ignored demands to end their nuclear arms program.

Instead, they wanted European assistance to build Òa full nuclear fuel cycleÓ. They called for an end to restrictions on dual purpose trade. They asked for a European pledge to flout any UN sanctions ø if and when. [The U.S. already imposes sanctions and would ask the Security Council to impose them for all UN members if the issue is referred there.] The mullahs want the Europeans to drop restrictions on conventional weapons sales. And they demanded European support for Òa nuclear-free MideastÓ, and a promise to block any Israeli effort to take out IranÕs nuclear plants [as it did the Iraqi reactor in 1981].

After catching their breath, the Europeans ignored the Iranian proposals and asked Tehran for a Sept. 13 meeting to allay suspicions it is on a weapons track. But even London is Ònot prepared to stand by and watch them collect the necessary technology to make a weapon.Ó

Is TehranÕs clerical hierarchy simply on a propaganda offensive, after months of contradictory declarations ø after a weapons program became apparent even to the weak-kneed IAEA? Or do they perceive the Europeans a pushover and the U.S. paralyzed by domestic politics, its hands full in neighboring Iraq, and an unresolved North Korean nuclear threat? Have the mullahs, watching the general turmoil, convinced themselves they now have a full hand to play?

Although TehranÕs present aggressiveness reflects high oil prices and a round of new deals with European and Japanese oil companies, sanctions would hurt badly. Even a Western embargo outside the UN ø for both Russia and China would probably veto a Security Council resolution ø would encourage internal opposition.

On the other hand, Tehran has much going for it. Moscow has just announced 90 percent of its $1-billion Bushehr reactor for Iran is completed, being assembled with 1500 Russian technicians. There is general agreement the Iranians are pumping money ø and perhaps weapons ø into dissident Iraqi ShiÕas now challenging the Baghdad interim government ø and the U.S. The Iranian [and Syrian] supported Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon could unleash a rain of missiles on northern Israel.

Tehran has warmed up relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, two of its neighbors with whom it has had problems. Probably having profited from the nuclear bazaar Pakistan was running pre-9/11, Tehran is cultivating India as well as Pakistan with the possibility of a gas pipeline. Even though Washington publicly has called on Japan to drop its intended $2 billion oil deal ø and switch to Libya, now that oil producer has dropped its bid for nukes ø there have been several recent oil deals with the Europeans and Russia.

Perhaps playing Ògood cop, bad copÓ, President Bush on the campaign trail has repeatedly called for a diplomatic solution. But National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, arguing support for the U.S. position has developed, said: ÒWe cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. The international community has got to find a way to come together and to make certain that that does not happen.Ó

Nor would she come out flatly against the Israeli card. Israeli intelligence has publicly warned Iran is its greatest threat since 1948, only two or three years away from a nuclear device. Recent reequipping of Israeli fighter-bombers theoretically makes an air strike a possibility, even though there seems disagreement about effectiveness of bombing heavily bunkered, widely distributed plants, many ÒshieldedÓ among civilians. And media reports the Israelis have a nuclear-armed submarine in the Indian Ocean off Iran.

Iranian Security Chief Ali Yunesi pooh-poohed Israeli capabilities, hinting the U.S. would block such an attack because of its political implications in the Moslem world. Tehran claims it now has a new missile ø based on North Korean and Chinese technology ø targeting all Israel. [In the Persian Gulf War SadamÕs Skud missiles unsuccessfully aimed at IsraelÕs nuclear center Dimona where the Israelis reportedly have now distributed anti-chemical weapon antidotes.]

Again, U.S. policymakers may face the kind of dilemma which preceded the Iraq preemptive strike. The world may not take a holiday for U.S. elections. Sen. Kerry has made an uncharacteristically unequivocal statement saying Iranian nuclear arms can not be tolerated. And it remains to be seen whether the problem can be left to the next presidency.