However, Washington does not want to go it alone on the path of confrontation with the Islamic Republic; nor does the American administration want to resort to a military option early in the way of other deterring sanctions. Yet, there is enough evidence for American readiness for alternatives if negotiations falter between Tehran and the UN Security Council.It is easy to understand why Israel is acting the way it does. Israelis see Iran as an existential threat to the Jewish state. So a pre-emptive strike before its archenemy takes the upper ground is logical. However, Israel’s striking power with its delivery and ordinance capacity may not be sufficient to deliver a fatal blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities because they are heavily fortified and well hidden. So if all other options fail, the US has to step in to restrain Israel from acting rashly, which would be very costly in the post-strike period.
It seems that the US administration will put more emphasis on diplomatic efforts in the first place while it continues developing contingency plans. However, Iran’s maneuvers to buy time are wearing thin the patience of Western nations, which charge Iran for with developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. Iran denies the charges as usual but still continues with its program, accompanied by harsh anti-Western rhetoric against interfering in Iran’s internal affairs.
Nuclear weapons are hardly an internal affair, and Tehran has not been on good terms with the West since the installment of the Islamic regime. Nowadays the US is leading efforts to enforce a fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran after it failed to meet an end-of-the-year deadline whereby a deal was offered to Tehran by the five permanent UN Security Council (UNSC) members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.
Iran is playing the role of the “brinkman.” It does not budge an inch before it reaches the edge of the cliff. In response to the UNSC declaration, Tehran gave its own counter-proposal that aimed to buy more time. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly declared that Iran would not back down one iota in the face of international pressure over its atomic program.
This intransigence and the belligerent rhetoric accompanying it at the domestic scene aimed at forging a nationalist reflex among divergent political groups including the opposition further convinces foreign actors of the fact that Iran has a strategic plan to develop nuclear weapons. However, by launching diplomatic campaigns outside the country and defensive rallies within against “foreign involvement” is viewed as a psychological cover-up, especially when it is supported by an explicit threat that a likely intervention will be “very destabilizing” for those who dare.
Now, conflicting sides are calculating which is more destabilizing: Iran with nuclear weapons or Iran lashing out with all its terrorism-generating capacity after losing its nuclear capability.
Hence, in order to avoid instability by a wounded Iran, an alternative option is being considered by the US decision-makers: to emphasize the brutality of the theocratic regime by way of exposing human rights abuses, the repression of freedoms of the citizens and liquidation of the opposition. Supporting the indigenous freedom movement will be another option besides continuing economic sanctions.
It seems a tug-of-war over and with Iran will intensify, and Turkey will have a difficult time positioning itself between the disagreeing sides.
