By VK
The tension in the Middle East grows by day. The regional crisis is deepened as Israel threatens to deliver a military strike against Iran and Syrian inner conflict gets worse. In the frames of the video conference Moscow-Brussels “Middle East crisis in European policy. One step to the catastrophe” Russian and European experts shared their opinions on the current Middle Eastern situation and made some prognosis.
Vladimir Sajin, senior scientist of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
There is a very complicated situation around Iran. I am confident that the oil embargo against Iran is nothing more than propaganda, mainly for an internal audience. The UK and France hardly use Iranian oil exports, the UK shares only 1% of oil imports, France uses a bit more, but both states have good strategic supplies of oil. So this step by Iran would be no worse than a “mosquito’s bite”; it is pure propaganda. Iran had to respond to pressure from the EU. The first idea was to block the Hormuz Strait, but I believe that would result in an inevitable war with the US, which promises to unblock the strait in any event. Iran decided not to make the situation more tense and declared an embargo earlier than the European one. It was initially announced against all 27 states of the European Union, then against 6, but ended up against only 2 states. I reckon that Tehran understands that the embargo against the most needy states, Greece, Italy and Spain, would not correspond to Iran’s interests. What will Iran do with the extra oil? Changing purchasers and storing it is very costly, and besides, an embargo against the state would require Iran to pay compensation for cancelling contracts. This is why Europe postponed the embargo until June 1, when all contracts on Iranian oil supplies expire. The Europeans will not sign new contracts. So it is purely a propaganda-based step needed in the complicated domestic political situation in Iran. There will be parliamentary polls on March 2 in the light of a hard struggle between President Ahmadinejad and Larijani’s parliament. The president will need to take a notable step to demonstrate power. In this case, it is the recent threats of General Hajazo and the weird embargo against the UK and France.
Firuze Nahavandi, Director of the Center for the Study of International Cooperation and Development of the Brussels Free University:
Europe’s position on the issue reflects the desire to prevent escalation of the conflict. I believe all European leaders about their willingness to avoid a military conflict and calm Israel down one way or another. No one wants an uncontrollable situation in the region. The repercussions of such a military conflict would be felt in the Middle East, Russia and South Caucasus. The conflict would affect world oil prices, Europe would end up in a very delicate financial situation. This is why Europe is using all diplomatic means of resolving the problem.
Sami Andura, leading expert of the “Our Europe” Research Center:
The European position is very logical. The EU has been taking the open path of political dialogue since 2003. But Iran has not held any negotiations on the nuclear program for a year, so Europe sees a tendency towards confrontation. I believe Iran fears the repercussions of the embargo on its energy sector, which is why it wants to demonstrate that it would not be the only one to suffer. But even if Iran imposes a full embargo on exports of oil to the EU, European states are not that dependent on those oil supplies. Certainly, Greece is already in a very complicated economic situation and there is European solidarity towards it. The International Energy Agency in Paris said that strategic reserves could be used if oil supplies from Iran stop. But the embargo has another aspect to affect the EU and the US – risong prices for oil and gas. Blocking of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would trigger a rise in oil prices to the level of 2008 or even more, increasing 40-60%. It would be a major blow on European projects to renew economic growth.
Anton Khlopkov, Director of the Center for Energy and Security:
The first undeclared nuclear activity in Iran was found in Iran in the 1970s, during the Shah’s regime. Iran has been developing nuclear technologies ever since and has never ruled the opportunities out. So how does the situation then and now differ? Unfortunately, in my opinion, the level of Iran's nuclear potential is being widely discussed these days, but there is hardly any discussion on the presence or lack of stimulation to use the potential for military purposes. In other words, we need to understand what to do to prevent Iran from making a political decision on construction of nuclear weapons. Experts and officials dismiss the issue these days. Technologically, Iran is close to building nuclear arms, but it is not a matter of months. We should not over-exaggerate the technological potential of Iran. It would still take years.
Yevgeny Satanovsky, President of the Institute for the Middle East:
A nuclear bomb in Iran in modern conditions is the only way of preventing attacks from the West and the monarchies of the Gulf. Regarding the political decisions of Rahbar Khamenei, I do not think that the world information community is better informed about them than, let’s say, the decisions of Stalin or Mao Zedong. Doubtless, Iran is affected by economic reasons, but the problem is that no one has thought about what could be offered in order for Iran to abandon development of its nuclear program. It is the same as trying to talk Stalin, or Pakistan with its confrontation with India or Israel out of nuclear programs. The level of Iran’s confidence in Europe and the US is below zero. This is why Iranian military and economic potential can be destroyed and nothing can be done about it. We are reaching a world where various states would have nuclear weapons, where the nuclear non-proliferation treaty would be worth no more than the paper it was written on and where the limitations to using nuclear bombs would be very low. We will reach a new level of developing military technologies, this time in terms of their use.
Firuze Nakhavandi:
The history of the nuclear program in Iran is old, it goes back to the 1950s. It was started by the Americans within the framework of their strategy to confront the USSR. “Atom for peace” – this was the title of this operation. Iran was not really interested in it. But indeed before the revolution of 1979 there was already an interest to the nuclear program because its presence was the sign of power and the current regime simply continues what the previous regime was doing. Now concerning the event in Syria. If the Syrian regime falls we still need to see what comes instead if it. You understand that it is said that Muslim Brothers can come to power. There can be different scenarios. But if this regime falls Iran will lose one of its most important allies in the region. A lot has been said about the destruction of the Shiah axis, but we need to remember that the Syrians and Alawites and it is not that classical Shiah Islam as in Iran. Another ally of Iran, Hezbollah, they are certainly Shiah, but there is also Hamas that is not Sunni movement. All this situation creates a fragile picture in the region. Some experts believe that this hurry with Syria is not because if Syria but because it concerns Iran that is today presented as the most evil.
Sami Andura:
I would like to come back to the question of Iranian nuclear program. It is not sure, and the justification of the IAEA control is exactly this need for certainty. The prognosis… So far the level of enrichment is not enough but indeed there is an intention to work on missiles and warheads. Dilemma concerning the international community is the following: is the danger in the capacity of Iran to create these weapons or in the realization of this military program. From the position of Israel, the possibility to possess the nuclear weapons is already the threat big enough to attack Iran for Americans and Europeans or there is no necessity to attack Iran until the military program starts to be implemented. On the other hand, no state that reached this level of nuclear development ever refused the idea of creating the nuclear weapons. If Iran gets nuclear weapons then other countries in the regions will also want to have and this is very disturbing. What can be offered? There is a pessimistic dimension, conflict with Israel that will develop into a broader conflict and the destruction of the Iranian regime. The sanctions, and it is even officially declared, have an aim to destroy the regime. But we are not sure that the next regime will abandon the nuclear ambitions. What positive can be offered? It is necessary to return to the table of negotiations, have constant contact, this is minimum. It is a question of negotiations to forbid the nuclear weapons in a region [очень неразборчиво, 5:30]. Architecture of security in the region and the question of energy. We could have elaborated some cooperation in the sphere of energy because Iran has big deposits. We are still far from the reality when Iran will have nuclear weapons. Syria and Iran are of course very close countries and this is an additional threat for Iran to lose the Syrian ally, because Iran will be cut from the Middle East. But the attacks against Iran are not connected to what is happening in Syria from the tactical point of view.
Anton Khlopkon:
I cannot agree with the point about the domino effect in the region, meaning that if Iran gets nuclear weapons that others will also want it. There are several reasons. The lack of the technological potential. It is often said that Saudi Arabia will simply buy it or get in Pakistan. So far they cannot get it so Iran will not be key factor here. There are some agreements between El-Riyadh and Islamabad. What concerns the potential of creation… In my opinion, Egypt has the biggest potential, but it will take at least 10-15 years, should there be a political decision. In my opinion we should not exaggerate the potential threat of the sread of the nuclear weapons in the region. I want to stress that it does not that we should not do everything to prevent Iran from taking decision to create nuclear weapons because it is clear that Iran creates technological basis for it and within several years it will be a question of political will.
Vladimir Sazhin:
The question of Iran approaching to the red line in on agenda in Tehran. It is said, especially in Israel, that there are just some months left until Iran gets nuclear bomb. They say that Iran accumulated enriched uranium with certain quantities of 3.5% and 20% enrichment and they mathematically calculate how much will Iran need to create 1-2-3-4 bombs. I would say, it is a scholastic approach, purely mathematical. In order to transform all this uranium into a bomb, the advanced technologies are needed that are lacking in Iran, as far as I know. They are of course going in this direction but in my opinion in the nearest 5-7 years Iran will not approach the line that I was talking about – the creation of the necessary infrastructure.
Evgeny Satanovsky:
Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear bomb, he did not have time to get it, his country was occupied and he was hanged. Muammar Qaddafi had guarantees after his agreement with George Bush to reject the development of the nuclear weapons that opened the black market of materials and technologies, so called IQH [?]. Then the next president came, Barack Obama, and destroyed his country and lynched him. North Korea, the regime that from my point of view is cannibalistic, compared to which Qaddafi and Hussein were more than decent members of the international community, is suspected to have one or two nuclear bombs. But nobody touches it. This will be considered in Tehran, the reasonable attitude to the guarantees of the West. The guarantees are worthless. And the leadership of the Islamic republic of Iran understands it very well the same as the offers to buy the transformation of the military program into a peaceful one.
Sami Andura:
The EU wants to develop the Southern corridor to deliver gas and oil from the Caspian region and Central Asia. There is of course Nabucco, our leading project. It encounters many problems. It can potentially accumulate Iranian resources that are huge but they are not developed, Iran needs technologies and international finances to develop these deposits. Syria can play a role of the important transit country for the resources from Iran and Iraq to Turkey and European resources. In the situation of the economic sanctions against Syria this project is totally blocked. Until the solution of the conflicts, meaning the current military conflict in Syria and political conflict in Iran, there are little prospects of development . Russia continues to develop energetic projects with Syrian and Iran in a way replacing Europe on this market.
