So, is Iran going to be attacked?

Anita Pratap

Nuclear bombs: So, is Iran going to be attacked ? Across the world, this seems to be the most oft-asked question at seminars and dinner parties. Most people assume journalists have all the answers, when in reality, we only have questions.

Of course, that is not to say we don't have opinions!

I am certainly no expert on Iran or nuclear issues. So like ordinary viewers and readers, I watch television news and read newspaper articles and I have to admit, I am confused.

I don't understand what is really going on. I have no answers. But I certainly have many questions - as an ordinary reader, not as a journalist.

My questions are all utterly basic. And perhaps I have these questions only because I have absolutely no links to any lobby or ideology. I am not pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim, pro-American or anti-American, pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. I feel there is good and bad in everything. American intervention in Iraq pains me, but I still love Americans, their universities, their music and stand-up comedians.

I love the sound of the muezzin but I am wary of the muttawahs. I am proud to belong to a nuclear-capable nation, but I can't help being convinced that it would have been far more appropriate for India to provide health care and education to rural poor than building nuclear bombs.

My first question with regard to Iran, is simply this: "Why can't Iran go nuclear? Why is it wrong, bad or dangerous for them to have nuclear weapons? If the west and east can have the bomb, why not the middle east? If the anglo-saxons and the hans can have it, why not the Persians? If the capitalists and the communists can have a bomb, why not an oil-economy ?

If the Christians, the Hindus and the Secularists can have the bomb, why not the Muslims? What is so particularly horrific about an Islamic bomb? Anyway, Pakistan has the bomb, so it's not as if Muslims don't have it per se. If the Christians, Hindus and Sunnis can have it, why can't the Shias? I don't have a clear answer to this.

Is it the fear that the Iranians may leak their nuclear secrets to terrorists? Clearly, the nuclear powers don't have much faith in the restraining powers of the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty). And how can they? Despite the NPT, nuclear materials have been smuggled to and fro, across the world, from the nuclear supplier groups to non-nuclear nations.

But then, the Americans, the Brits, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis have all supported, trained, armed, funded terrorists at various points and we have still not seen any terrorist group detonate a bomb. So why should that happen only if Iranians get the bomb?

Or, is it the fear that the Iranians may drop the bomb on Israel ? Clearly there is no love lost between the two, but if Iran seriously wanted to "wipe >off Israel from the map", they could have tried to do it with a range of existing conventional weapons.

Enmity exists between nations and when India and Pakistan detonated their bombs in 1998, relations were not very good and it deteriorated drastically to an almost-war in 2002, but no nuclear bombs went off. So from having the bomb, to dropping it, is a huge leap of expectation that appears unwarranted...at least in the case of the half a dozen nations that do have the bomb.

Of course it is equally understandable that the nation that has indeed dropped the bomb would psychologically expect others to do the same.

It is therefore understandable that America contemplates war and surgical strikes to put out Iran's nuclear plant. But the question then is, why is America leaking all its war plans in detailed magazine articles and press releases about a demo nuclear strike on an underground mock facility in Nevada? This doesn't make sense. No nation reveals its war doctrines.

Through history, the main strategy in war is surprise. You can't wage war after ensuring your enemy is fully prepared to meet your threat. So then the explanation seems to be sabre-rattling, a game of shadow-boxing. America is only waving swords in the air to rattle the Iranians into submission. But then, far from submission, why are Iranians being deliberately provocative at this juncture ?

Declaring that they have entered the nuclear club seems like cheekily waving the red rag to the raging bulls. But it could be Iranian sabre-rattling, playing to their own gallery while simultaneously sending some warning smoke signals to the international community: "We are already nuclear, so let not the Americans or the Israelis dare mount a surgical strike against our underground nuclear plant, because if they do, they will invite a nuclear retaliation."

Or it could be a preamble to a different game: "Now that we have achieved our nuclear goals, we will voluntary declare a moratorium on further tests." They could be borrowing a leaf from India's nuclear book.

After all, they can say, we have now addressed Iranian national pride with our declaration on uranium enrichment and now that the purpose has been achieved, we are happy to give up trudging that path and will return to talks and abide by international rules.

Those who ask the question: "Will Iran be attacked", don't really wait for an answer. They have it already. Nobody believes there will be a war. And the reason is simple logic - After having made a big mistake in Iraq, there is no way America will invite a catastrophe by attacking Iran.

Most people had warned Bush that invading Iraq would be a mistake. He still did it. The only difference now is that EVERYBODY is warning that attacking Iran would be a BIGGER mistake. So let's see.

Having covered war and politicians for nearly three decades, there is only one thing I am somewhat certain of. Political analysts tend to be cleverer than politicians. Commentators ascribe clever and complicated reasons for political actions. They are usually projecting their own shrewdness onto the ministers.

Politicians are rarely that smart. And they are certainly not that complicated. Besides, before taking a decision, they are pulled and pushed by competing interests. One of the few clever politicians I have met in my life was the assassinated Sri Lankan Defence Minister, Lalith Athulathmudali.

He once laughed at my analysis of his war strategy on the LTTE and told me: "That's brilliant. I wish I had thought of it. But anyway, now I am going to let everyone think this indeed is my strategy.

But let me tell you something in all honesty and humility - in politics, we BLUNDER into situations. And then we desperately try to scramble out of it. We don't usually succeed and that's why someone else follows to clean up the mess."

So when it comes to Iran, are politicians blundering their way into war? Or are they blundering out of war? I told you, this time I have only questions.