David Farrar in Iran: many locals see leader as a clown

As the author is close to the end of a month in the Middle East, the usual focus on New Zealand politics is temporarily sidelined for a column on Middle East politics.

Among a myriad of smaller issues, there are two dominant issues. The first is that of the Iranian nuclear programme, and the second is that of Palestine.

Having spent three days in Iran, it was useful to be able to talk first hand to several Iranians about their politics, plus various diplomats from Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The dominant impression I got is that the Iranian President is quite unpopular, and most Iranians disapprove of his antics – especially around holocaust denial. Much of the Iranian population is very well educated, and see him as a clown.

However, there is near unanimous support for Iran to develop nuclear energy, and on that issue he has over whelming support.

The fear of Israel, and much of the West, is that the nuclear energy programme will turn out to be a nuclear weapons programme. If that is the case, and Iran develops a nuclear strike capability, the best case scenario is that it will be extremely destabilising to the region.

The worst case is that Iran would threaten to use it against Israel – or actually use it.

This worst case scenario is very unlikely. Informed opinion was that the President himself might be irrational enough to take such an act, but that the Supreme Leader would not allow it.

The unknown is how long the current Supreme Leader will rule for, and who might replace him. Some of the potential candidates make the President seem a moderate.

No one knows if Iran is actually building a nuclear weapon capability, or if like Saddam in Iraq, they just refuse to co-operate with international inspections to keep other countries off balance.

The question then is how do you stop the nuclear weapon capability, if that is being developed? The UN sanctions can have some impact but Russia and China drag their feet on it.

Some would advocate that if Israel got rid of its undeclared nuclear weapons, then Iran would no longer desire them.

This argument is unlikely to be the case. One expert said that it was Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons that is the catalyst for Iran’s programme. They see the weapons as getting status and influence for the country.

Iran is a proud Persian country, often at odds with its Arab neighbours. The worst sin you can do in Iran is refer to them as Arabs.

The final option is that Israel could take unilateral action against Iran, as it did against Iraq in 1981 with a bombing of Iraq’s nuclear programme facilities. Putting aside the military aspects of whether such a strike would be successful, this would be the one act that would unite the country behind the President.

I suspect in the Iranian President's dreams, he hopes for an Israeli strike against Iran – his power base would be cemented.

It would also destabilise the region. Every country would condemn Israel, even if one or two privately might offer quiet thanks. Terrorism and extremism would rise up, and Israel might itself face sanctions. Osama bin Laden would be delighted.

If Iran doesn’t accede to full inspections, or some compromise to reassure other countries its nuclear programme is only for energy, not weapons, then I would say there is a greater than 50% chance of Israel bombing Iran within eight months.

It will be a sad day if they do, as most of the Iranian population do not support the extremism of their President. But almost any country under attack will rally behind its leaders, not the attackers – no matter the justification.

So the prognosis on the Iranian nuclear programme is quite gloomy. Somewhat more optimistically I touch on the Israel and Palestine issue.

Just yesterday the Israeli Prime Minister agreed to a freeze on settlements, which will allow the Obama administration to pressure the Palestinian Authority to resume negotiations.

In Israel, I have met with various figures from the government, the military and Likud (the party of the Prime Minister). I was surprised by the degree of pragmatism by many of them.

They seem weary of the conflict. While their first sentence might be that they do not support an independent Palestinian state, they will quickly concede it is likely, and even talk quite freely about the likely division of Jerusalem.

A Palestinian state is also greater than a 50% chance, but only in the medium term of the next 5-15 years. While Hamas is in charge of Gaza, progress will be difficult.

But there was one interesting suggestion I heard from a senior figure. Security lies at the heart of Israel’s concerns, and the issue of who will guarantee security, if tens of thousands of hectares of land are surrendered is paramount. The US will not want to do it, and the EU can’t do it.

The suggestion was that part of any final peace settlement would be that both Israel and Palestine become members of Nato, which would then guarantee the territorial integrity of both countries.

Israel’s fear is not so much an attack from Palestine in the future (as they do not have the resources or military strength) but an attack through Palestine into Israel from a unfriendly neighbour. Having both Israel and Palestine as members of Nato would protect them not just from each other.

For those who deem this unlikely, it is worth remembering that Turkey is a member of Nato, which has a proud record of defending Muslims in former Yugoslavia.