The European Union has increased hostilities toward Iran on the nuclear program issue. Together with the U.S., the European troika countries are pressing the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to bring the case up to the UN Security Council. This change of strategy, which began last summer, has become so unrelenting that caused IAEA director Mohammed El Baradei’s irritation. El Baradei noted that the U.S.-European demands go beyond the Non-Proliferation treaty.
Europeans don’t have the support of China and India (Iran’s economic partners) or of the non-aligned countries which are afraid of an Iraqi-type scenario. Accusing Baghdad at the Security Council sparked the beginning of a war campaign that made the Iraqi threat legal in the eyes of public opinion. Former IAEA deputy director Pierre Goldschmidt – member of the board of directors of Eurodif (a nuclear consortium once associated to Iran) – tried to lessen his worries in the New York Times and then in the International Herald Tribune by requesting the case to be filed with the Security Council. Wishing to calm down those who want to avoid the worsening of the crisis, Goldschmidt said that lodging the case with the Council would not necessarily lead to an Iraqi-type scenario but, on the contrary, it would reinforce the IAEA inspectors’ action. This argument is strangely similar to the one used by some atlantist sources before the war on Iraq took place, which affirmed that the U.S orchestrated military pressure around Iraq and the international sanctions would strengthen the inspectors’ work of disarming Iraq thus keeping the spectre of war away.
That same day, in the very same International Herald Tribune, Philip H. Gordon of Brookings Institution and Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, wrote a call signed by great atlantist figures among whom was Francis Fukuyama. That call was the result of a work by a group within the Brookings Institution dedicated to the transatlantic rapprochement, that is, the alignment of Europe under the “U.S. umbrella”. The text aims at finding a solution to the Iranian crisis through cooperation between Europe and the U.S. In fact, by spreading Washington’s anti-Iranian classical propaganda and asking the EU to be ready for the application of sanctions in case Iran does not accept the unilaterally established conditions, the text intends first of all to get Europe and the U.S. committed to take action against Teheran. So, the signatories of this text don’t doubt that Iran attempts to have the nuke disguised in the appearance of a civil nuclear program; that Iran supports international terrorism and undermines the peace efforts of Israel and Palestine. The writers of the text call both Americans and Europeans to turn formally to the UN and then organize their own sanction system regardless of the international law. Many signatories of this document participated in the intoxication over the Iraqi mass destruction weapons two years ago. The same people who are trying today to talk Europeans into how well founded the Iranian threat is. And some of them helped write the report published by the IISS of London.

France’s strategy in this issue is hard to understand. After having opposed the war in Iraq, Paris is now taking side with Washington in relation to Syria and Iran and handling bad faith arguments. We cannot forget the early stages of the Iraqi case when France first supported the opinion that there were mass destruction weapons before opposing, based on the UN resolution, any military intervention in Iraq. What’s the French strategy today, if any? This question grows even more meaningful after reading the debate published in Le Monde by former French Ambassador to Iran François Nicoullaud. His knowledge of the present crisis and the real intentions of France as to this topic is of greater value considering that he served in Teheran until his retirement in July 2005. Nicoullaud has made a very pragmatic analysis of the Iran situation. He declared himself in favour of the enrichment of uranium by Iran on the condition that this is used only for generating power and not for manufacturing nuclear weapons, and as long as the whole process is supervised by the IAEA. Using technical terminology, he noted that if it’s true that most nuclear technologies are dual, (that is, they can be used for both civil and military purposes), their use is not the same according to the goal pursued. That’s a precision perfectly well known to an expert the size of Pierre Goldschmidt, but which was hidden by the latter in his column. For Nicoullaud, there is no harm in Iran producing enriched uranium, provided that Teheran does not break the rules. Otherwise, there would be more than enough time to punish Teheran before it effectively gets the nuke. The militarization of Iran’s nuclear program cannot escape the IAEA if strictly controlled.
Such a pragmatic analysis has found little impact on the European press, which would rather give the floor to “experts” who denounce the imminence of Iran’s nuclear peril.

U.S. hawks have already adopted a tougher position wondering when Iran will be attacked. The coordinator of this movement Franck J. Gaffney Jr. thinks that striking Teheran cannot wait longer, and he contributes to magnify the image of a threatening Iran in the Washington Times. However, his weekly space saved some room to insist on other things that he considers highly important. So, Gaffney Jr. added that Iran could induce a high magnitude electromagnetic pulse on the United States as a result of its nuclear arsenal and thus get Washington on its knees. This would take of course a rapid preventive attack on Iran. Regrettably, U.S. weapons are equipped with a German program for Germany’s own convenience. This has led Gaffney Jr. to infer that Berlin has the means to prevent Washington from attacking Iran; which Gerard Schröder won’t hesitate to do. It’s not entirely clear to us how Germany could stop the U.S. from doing something through the sale of a program; his reasoning seems rather shady. However, let’s have mercy on the neo-con analyst. In only one column he tried to instigate a war against Iran, and cover the U.S. anti-missile defense, the patriotic sale in terms of armaments and the need to have a submissive Germany. So much effort could only end up in an argumentative summary.
However, although the hawks have already pictured an attack on Iran, a war against the Islamist Republic won’t be easy at all. That’s what Syrian analyst Mohamed Ajlani of Alquds Alarabi, has tried to prove. Ajlani recalled that Iran has an ideal strategic position which causes great covetousness for its wealth. But Iran is not an easy opponent. The Iranian army has never gone through an embargo and has the people’s support; it’s not considered a regime’s army. Besides that, Iran can summon the Shiite help, and benefit from its alliance with China and India. Under such circumstances, the U.S. would bite the dust attacking them. However, Ajlani still fears that Washington might be willing to do it.

Obviously Iran is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Iran has much more international support and shows greater ability than Iraq in the face of invasion. Aware of its strength, Teheran intends to drive a counter-campaign aimed at Europe. While the Atlantist media is stirring up Iran’s nuke threat and calling the “western world” to unity, Iran on its side is calling an alliance to face the U.S. dominance.
Iran’s Ambassador to London Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli regretted in The Guardian the European Union’s attitude toward the nuclear issue as well as its obedience to the U.S. For the diplomat, relations between Iran, the U.K., France and Germany used to be good until Washington managed to modify the European positions. The ambassador reasserted the traditional position of his country: the nuclear program is only a civil one and the need to diversify energy sources has been long been recognized by westerners. Concerning this last point, he based himself on a BP study which says that Iran could become a net oil importer in 2024. This study has been considered as optimistic by those who think that Iran could import oil from 2015 on. The ambassador equally noted the legitimacy of his country’s nuclear program and encouraged the Europeans to keep their distance from the U.S. The daily which brought out this text is not of neutral choice. The Guardian is the daily which most condemns the U.S. control over the British foreign policy. The same thing happens whenever there are rumours of confrontation within the Labour government about the Iranian issue, which appear on British papers.

In its attempt to get closer to Europe, Iran can count on Russia and especially on Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic action. The website has reproduced the main excerpts of an interview granted by the Russian President to Fox News. In it, Putin advocated the implementation of Iran’s nuclear program, declaring himself firmly against nuclear proliferation… without connecting it explicitly to Iran. He also expressed his satisfaction at his relations with Mahmud Ahmadineyad, Europe and the U.S. First of all, Putin made an appeal to respect international law and set his country up as a guarantor of it – a position he would like the European troika to take.
On the same site, the president of the Russian Nuclear Energy Agency Alexander Rumiantsev went even further saying that Europeans should join the Moscow-Teheran association for the development of Iran’s nuclear program. On the other hand, he adopted the typical Russian diplomatic position: Iran has all the right to own a civil nuclear program and this right must be respected, provided that the program is not diverted.