The consequences of future military action against Iran could be ”wholly counterproductive as well as highly dangerous”, according to a report published on Monday.
The report, Time to Talk: The Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran — published by a ”crisis group” comprising think tanks, aid agencies, trade unions, religious organisations and others mostly based in the United Kingdom — urges the UK government to engage the United States and Iran in ”face-to-face talks” to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.
”The ramifications of military action are grounds for deep anxiety,” the report states, adding that a grave concern is that ”arguments for military action against Iran might gain traction before a sober analysis of the consequences of such action has taken place”.
According to the report, military action against Iran could boost instability in the already volatile region; escalate the ”war on terror”; strengthen Iran’s nuclear ambitions; and provoke its withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
It would also pose extreme risks to the country’s civilian population and cause environmental decline, an energy crisis and economic instability, since Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer.
The report says one of the least discussed effects of military engagement in Iran is the harsh effect it would have on the GDPs of developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa.
A military strike could increase oil prices up to $10 a barrel. This would have a significant impact on sub-Saharan Africa where, the report estimates, GDPs could drop by about 3%. In turn, this would cause a decrease in health spending, exacerbate poverty and undermine debt relief in the region.
”The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted. At present, this is not the case.”
Weapons
Iran is legally developing a nuclear fuel programme, following its stated intention to become self-sufficient in nuclear fuel production. However, many in the international community are concerned that it could be using this nuclear power programme to conceal its development of nuclear weapons.
Senior religious and political leaders in Iran have publicly declared that they do not intend to build a nuclear bomb. However, Iran’s previous misleading of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about its nuclear weapons programme has fuelled distrust and eroded international confidence, adding to the possibility of future military action against it.
Iran would also never consider relinquishing its right to nuclear technology, the report states, as this would be seen as a ”national humiliation” and is a move that neither conservatives nor reformists within the country would endorse.
Warning that US or Israeli military engagement remains a ”real possibility in 2007”, the report states that there needs to be a ”formulation of serious incentives to induce Iranian cooperation” and resolve the crisis.
It presents a history of the Iran nuclear issue, and outlines recent and potential diplomatic measures, focusing on the crucial role the UK can play in getting diplomatic solutions between the US and Iran to work.
The report states that 2006 saw an increased US commitment to diplomacy, but the US government still hasn’t had any direct diplomatic relations with Iran since 1980.
”Some within President [George] Bush’s circle of close advisers believe that only regime change in Iran can guarantee a long-term solution to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran,” the report states.
It adds: ”2007 is the penultimate year of President Bush’s second term and it is reported that he feels duty-bound to stop Iran’s nuclear programme.”
Consequences
”I think our decision makers have yet to appreciate the full consequences of a military attack against Iran. As this report shows, such an attack would open a Pandora’s box. The view held by some in Washington that all diplomatic and political options have been exhausted is a palpable nonsense that needs to be challenged,” said Dr Ali Ansari, director of the Institute of Iranian Studies at St Andrews University, a stakeholder in the report.
”The diplomatic track is clearly fraught with difficulties,” the report admits. But it adds: ”The time available should be used to build confidence between the negotiating partners, helping to break cycles of mutual hostility.
”Despite the US administration’s rejection of the term, a resolution to the current standoff could well take the form of a ‘grand bargain’ … [and] cannot be rejected outright.
”Only through direct US-Iranian engagement can an agreement be found and the potentially devastating consequences of military action be avoided,” the report concludes.