Iran

Will they or won’t they? Most political parlour games involve a question of this kind and the one about whether Israel will strike Iran – played out regularly in Washington, London and Paris – is no exception. The last couple of days have seen more sabre-rattling than before. Israeli Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, who heads the Strategic Affairs Ministry, and is a former commander of the Israeli military, said all of Iran’s nuclear installations are vulnerable to military strikes while the US defence secretary was quoted as saying he thought Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months. They may or may not, but it is unlikely they will communicate through the voice of Leon Panetta or even in the pages of US newspapers.

The Syrian situation is worsening by the day. Now the Arab League has pulled back its monitors in recognition of their failure to ease the violence. Foreign Secretary William Hague has said he is ‘deeply concerned,’ while the Gulf states are pushing for the whole mater to be referred to the UN Security Council. But the chances of a ceasefire and the start of a transition are low. The Russian government is growing tired of Bashar al-Assad but does not want to condone any kind of intervention, which they think is likely if the matter is referred to the UN Security Council. Russia still regrets backing the Libya resolution, believing they were hoodwinked by the West into allowing a military intervention against Muammar Gaddafi.

With the EU agreeing a new round of sanctions on Iran – outlawing European oil and gas purchases from Iran in six months, freezing Iran's Central Bank and banning trade in gold and other precious metals with any state-related bodies – tensions between Iran and the West are increasing. An Iranian MP has – again – warned that Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz and the US administration has – again – said that such an action will be countered. But what would happen if Iran carried out its threat? Iran has noteworthy littoral warfare capabilities, including mines, anti-ship cruise missiles, and land-based air defence.

The year has begun with Iran and the United States circling each other in the Straits of Hormuz; like two boxers before a bout, seeing who will strike first and working out where a blow could land. The immediate cause has been Iranian manoeuvres in the Arabian Gulf, and a visit to the area by the American aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis. Iran's army chief has said that his country will take action if a US aircraft carrier returns to the Gulf. Oil prices have shot up as a result. This could be the worst time to goad a Democratic president facing pressure from those Republicans currently trying ‘out hard’ each other in Iowa. Barack Obama has, throughout his tenure, tended to ignore bullyboy behaviour.

An Israeli strike on Iran has to be the most over-predicted event of recent years. It was meant to happen last year. And the year before that. But now there are reasons why 2012 could, indeed, be the year when Israel will find it propitious to take overt military action against Iran's nuclear programme. (Everyone assumes that a range of covert activities, from assassinations to cyber attacks, are already ongoing). The Iranian government is moving closer to having the requisite capabilities, and can reasonably be expected to take the final steps towards nuclearisation.

The year is ending not with a successful US withdrawal from Iraq — as President Barack Obama claims — but with what amounts to a coup d'etat by the country's Shiite prime minister (and former ally of the US) Nouri al-Maliki. Less than 24 hours after the last US soldier left Iraq, the country's Sunni vice-president Tareq al-Hashemi was wanted on charges that he led death squads, in a case most observers think could reignite the sectarian slaughter of 2006-07. Violence in Iraq has subsided since 2006-07, when Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen killed thousands of civilians each month — but, without U.S. troops to act as a buffer, many Iraqis now fear a return to those days.

It's been 25 years since the Iran-Contra affair – the scandal about the US government selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan rebels. It saw Ronald Reagan's approval rating drop from 67 per cent to 46 per cent, and fourteen memebers of his staff were indicted. In a piece that appeared in The Spectator exactly a quarter of a century ago, Christopher Hitchens explains how the Reagan administration was unable to contain the story. The end of the line, Christopher Hitchens, 29 November 1986 If you wish to understand the fire that has broken out in the Washington zoo, and penetrate beyond the mere lowing and baying of the trapped and wounded beasts, you must master three key concepts in the capital’s vernacular.

The pressure is piling up on Iran – from below, as people demand greater freedoms; from the region, where Iran is about to lose its one ally, Syria, to a popular revolt; and from the international community, which is tightening the economic sanctions in response to Tehran's illegal nuclear programme. So Iran is hitting out the only way it knows how – through the use of state-sanctioned and illegal violence. They hope to divert attention from the country's problems and internecine struggles, reheating old tropes about Britain as the 'Little Satan' and maintaining the decades-old decolonialisation rhetoric that all the problems of the region can be explained by outside interference.

This week there were rumblings that war with Iran may be closer than most people thought. In a piece for the Spectator in 2004, Andrew Gilligan argued that even with a nuclear bomb, Iran would not be a threat to us: The case for not attacking Iran, Andrew Gilligan, 27 November 2004 Do the last few days remind you of anything, by any chance? Presidential heavy breathing about a ‘rogue’ Middle Eastern state; a supporting chorus of exiles with dramatic new claims; and a senior member of the US government bearing intelligence which turns out to be more spin than spine-chilling. Less than a month after the presidential election, the Bush White House has begun its campaign against Iran.

Yesterday — as Pete pointed out earlier — the Obama administration filed criminal charges against two individuals, Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri, claiming that they worked with Mexican criminals and for the Iranian government on orders to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The plot has met with denials from Tehran, which “categorically and in the strongest terms condemn this shameful allegation.”     But, if true, the plot would only be the latest in a long-standing feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The struggle between Riyadh and Tehran has become the Middle East’s central conflict, overshadowing even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The escalating crisis in Gaza and Sinai is worrying. Egypt is to recall its ambassador to Israel after 3 security personnel were killed in confused scuffles after an Israeli bus was bombed near the Sinai border; the Israeli embassy in Cairo has also been the scene of ill-tempered demonstrations and vandalism. Israel denies responsibility for the three deaths. Meanwhile, the Egyptian army is also conducting operations against Islamist militants in the increasingly lawless Sinai desert. Finally, the Arab League has called an emergency meeting after Israel retaliated to 30 rocket attacks by launching stiff operations in Gaza.