Plot thickens in Iran nuclear drama

NUCLEAR STANDOFF: On the eve of being sworn in as US President George Bush's National Security Advisor some time back, present US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying that the chief goals in US foreign policy were "finding peace, security and opportunities for entrepreneurs in other countries".

The statement throws considerable light on US policy on a number of thorny questions including the Iranian nuclear issue. To be sure, establishing "peace and security" in the Persian Gulf region and South West Asia has been a long-term US objective but what is finally desired is a "placid patch of earth" in this region which would facilitate US economic penetration and control over the area's oil reserves.

This is the reason why Washington is constantly haunted by the spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran. An Iran possessing nuclear weapons would tilt the power balance in the Persian Gulf region in favour of Iran and make economic penetration of the region by the US a tough proposition.

Interestingly, it was speculated in some informed Western circles at the height of the US-led invasion of Iraq that what really took the US into that oil rich state were fears that some powerful Russian oil companies had already got into Iraq for the purpose of oil production.

So, "peace and security" are indeed aims which are cherished by Washington but only insofar as they facilitate economic penetration and the conduct of big business.

All this should not come as a surprise to those who have been observing the conduct of US foreign policy over the decades. The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 put paid to US hopes of keeping the Persian Gulf region within the US sphere of influence.

Until then, the Shah of Iran was the instrument through which Washington secured its interests in the region. Since the ousting of the Shah, the US has been having an uphill struggle to maintain a substantial presence in the Gulf. It is these power considerations which reportedly induced Washington into backing Iraq in the early years of the Iran-Iraq war.

The crumbling of the Cold War has facilitated US economic penetration worldwide but Iran has remained a sticking point on account of the lingering suspicion that the Islamic state was intent on developing a nuclear arsenal. Accordingly, in the US scheme of things, the only tolerable Iran would be a denuclearized Iran.

Hence the US-Iran nuclear standoff. Of late, however, the Iran nuclear issue seems to be taking on some further interesting dimensions. The first of these is the US-Europe convergence of positions on the question. Despite being exponents of market economics, the US and the EU have drifting apart on economic issues, particularly on account of growing EU protectionism against US economic penetration.

However, over the Iran nuclear issue there has been some commonality between Europe and the US, barring some not too contentious differences, because a nuclear-armed Iran is seen as a threat to Western economic, political and military dominance in general.

Hence the coming together of the US and Europe over Iran.

What the observer should find most intriguing, however, is a recent consensus between China and Germany that Iran should not possess the nuclear bomb. This emerged during talks German Chancellor Angela Markel had with the Chinese leadership.

An intensely engaging issue to flow from these now developments is whether China is making common cause with the West over fears that its own economic prospects abroad are dampened by nuclear-armed states.