17.05.2007

The Geopolitical Stakes of a Nuclear Iran

Frédéric Encel
Professor of International Relations at Science-Po, and at ESG

Ethics has its place in geopolitics, contrary to popular belief. Ethics form a fundamental part of politics – otherwise a criminal relativism lies in store.

Iran is gaining nuclear power of a specifically military type. This is their openly stated aim, even though Iranian diplomats currently claim the opposite. Iran is currently the third biggest oil-producing country in the world, the second biggest supplier of natural gas and, in addition, it is a country that could very easily install hydroelectric power stations. Nuclear power stations for civil purposes, as the UN would clearly permit, does not appear necessary. Behind the smokescreen of a civil nuclear development, there is clearly the desire to gain nuclear power for military purposes.

Any Iranian bomb would proliferate. The current regime in Tehran (and in particular, for the past year and a half, the government dominated by the Pasdarans) has fully shown that its geopolitical stance was not merely Persian-nationalist, but above all pan-Shiite, and aims to destabilise a certain number of Middle Eastern States, some of which host Shiite minorities. This can clearly be seen in Lebanon, but is also evident in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bahrain. The development of a “dirty” bomb –a modified atomic bomb– is not a mere fantasy. The regime in power in Tehran would initially be happy giving such a bomb to terrorist groups and/or movements in countries they would like to see being weakened.

Still on the subject of this second point, we should add that at least two countries –Saudi Arabia and Turkey (favoured allies of the United States of America under the Quincy Agreement of February 1945 and allied with Europe under NATO)– have already warned us that they will under no circumstances tolerate a nuclear Iran under any circumstances and that they would immediately undertake a process of proliferation. We can add Egypt, which is slightly further away from possessing an atomic bomb, which would very probably join in such a proliferation. We should examine the definite opposition currently in place between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia is currently asking Washington –its biggest ally– and the West in general, to take a solid, determined line against a nuclear Iran. Israel is not the only State worried by the Iranian nuclear policy.

For some years now, we have witnessed the blatant flouting of international law: first of all, the Non- Proliferation Treaty of 1970 has been openly breached by Iran for at least the past year and a half. This is clearly shown through the opening of a heavy water production plant and by the breaking of the seals on a certain number of facilities –an act that was explicitly forbidden.

Finally, we should remember that recently we have not been repeating the fact enough that the Charter of the United Nations, drafted in 1945, formally prohibits a sovereign political regime from calling for the destruction of another State. In this case a State recognised by the United States.

Contrary to what we often say –whether through naivety, a lack of geopolitical awareness or cowardice (the worst of the three possibilities)– sanctions are clearly an option. Sanctions are geographically and politically possible against an Iran which, in these two spheres, is extremely isolated in the Middle East. Other than the impoverished Armenia (not a major power in the region), all the States –and I do mean all the States surrounding Iran are currently militarily linked to the United States.

Geographically speaking, it would therefore by extremely easy to subject the country to both a gas and an oil embargo if Iran does not submit to the wishes of the UN and the IAEA. It is true that this would have consequences for us. The per barrel price of crude oil would probably see a rise on the global markets. Here is just one figure, though: only four years ago, the price of a barrel of crude oil stood at 18 dollars. Just a few months ago, it was 70 dollars. I do not see that our economies have collapsed. Of course, there would be effects particularly on big business (in Germany, the UK and France) –just among the Europeans– if we went ahead with these sanctions. But then again, we must have priorities.

Finally, we must bear in mind that there are no absolutes from this standpoint, in particular for international business. People say: “Why don’t we take military action in North Korea and action –possibly military action– against Iran, if trade, economic or diplomatic sanctions aren’t enough?” North Korea has a huge strategic ally in China. It is extremely difficult to take action against the North Korean regime at the moment without coming up against China. Iran does not currently have a military protection treaty with any other State, including Russia.

Just because we cannot wipe the dictatorial or genocidal hopes of all dictators off the map, we should at least start with the most dangerous of them. Recall Pascal’s words –that everyone knows by heart: “Not being able to fortify justice, they justified force.”

FRÉDÉRIC ENCEL, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS