Iran Reckons with the High Price of Building a Nuke (Die Welt,
Germany)
"Will the United States and its allies succeed in intercepting Iran's grab for the
bomb in time, and without incalculable military involvement? Nuclear weapons are the great equalizers: whoever has them and the necessary support systems need fear no one. ... Due to its gloomy economic situation, Iran must fear renewed unrest. The mullahs are learning that nuclear bombs demand a high price. How high? That depends on whether
there is war, or non-war."
A demonstrator protests Iran President Rouhani as he arrives back in Iran after speaking at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 28. The sign reads: 'Death to America.'
On
stage at the U.N. General Assembly, the issues were the legacy of the Syrian
civil war and power in the Persian Gulf. For more than three decades, the
region has been one of the world's political hot spots. Peace is a big word
here - non-war would already be saying a lot. However, over the last few days,
there have been a few developments in this regard.
The
historic telephone call between the presidents of the United States and Iran,
the first since 1979, is interesting as a gesture of détente, but was not a
breakthrough toward peace. It raises more questions than it answers.
Washington
says it was Rouhani who took the initiative for the
phone call. How was it prepared? What was there of substance other than good
wishes? And who benefited? Surely the Iranians more than the Americans. What
does the rest of the world think about it, from Moscow to Riyadh, and in
Jerusalem? Was the world changed by it, even a little?
Iran aspires to
be a great power with a veto
What
looks like a duel between Obama and Rouhani is
actually a fierce struggle between the United States and Russia. At issue is
the Middle East, the future of political Islam, oil, and weapons of mass
destruction.
This
is about chemical weapons, which the Syrian regime has by the ton and has used
in the suburbs of Damascus; and the nuclear bomb that the Iranian government
publicly rejects but secretly develops in underground caverns.
Nuclear
weapons are the great equalizers: whoever has them and the necessary support
systems need fear no one. He is in charge at home and in the neighborhood. However,
this neighborhood has long since gone global.
Since
Shiite Iran is and will remain the main sponsor of the regime in Damascus, the
two issues are inseparable. For the regime in Teheran, this is about maintaining
its status as a nation with influence and veto power; for the warlord in
Damascus, it is about survival.
For the moment,
Putin is the big winner
Will
the United States and its allies succeed in intercepting Iran's grab for the
bomb in time, and without incalculable military involvement? Conversely, will
the man in the Kremlin succeed in promoting Russia to the position of Middle
East referee that commands Western respect?
With
his intervention for the "100 percent" destruction of Syria's
chemical weapons, Putin has won time for Syria, saved the U.S. president from a
defeat in Congress, and underscored Russia's great power claims. However, while
for the moment he is the winner of the double crisis, at home he must be
concerned about Islamist contagion from the North Caucasus to Tatarstan.
Whether
the Iranian president is among the winners is little less certain. It is true
that the tone and message of his appearance in New York were more obliging than
the quasi-insane self-styling of his predecessor Ahmadinejad. The substance,
however, remains the same: deny, delay, and carry on.
The
tightened sanctions are painful - Russia is taking part as well, because Iran's
bomb would alter every map. Due to its gloomy economic situation, Iran must fear
renewed unrest. The mullahs are learning that nuclear bombs demand a high
price. How high? That depends on whether there is war, or non-war.
*Michael Stürmer author is an historian and chief correspondent of
the Welt Group and writes in alternately with Lord Weidenfeld.
