Bowling for Iran [By Jiao Haiyang/China.org.cn]

On Nov. 6, Israeli President Shimon Peres delivered a remark about Iran's nuclear drive, saying that an attack on Iran is becoming "more and more likely." This, together with the allegation of Iran's assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., the latest IAEA report and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's two recent interviews respectively with VOA and BBC, has brought new volatility to the troubled region.

As many American policymakers have often pointed out, armed intervention is always a possibility when the U.S. and Israel confronts Iran and its nuclear program. However, Iran's nuclear pursuit is a complicated geopolitical issue with global implications, and it is premature to seriously consider military solutions.

First, opponents lack sufficient legitimacy for military actions. Iran has long regarded itself as a legitimate regional power with the size of its territory and population as well as its cultural influence. The harsh rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even enhanced such a belief in the international community that it is logical of Iran to develop nuclear weapons in order to solidify its regional power.

Yet it is one thing to hold such an ambition but quite another to put it into practice. Iran has to consider the political costs of making a nuclear bomb. As a party in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), testing a nuclear weapon is crossing a serious line, and Iran will have to withdraw from IAEA six months ahead of time. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, has repeatedly stressed that the nuclear bomb is against Islamic spirit, therefore his credibility and political reputation is also at stake.

Second, the feasibility of an armed assault is still in question. Israel's preemptive strike on Iraq's undefended nuclear facility in 1981 has long been considered an exemplary success in many modern military strategy textbooks, which contributed to the myth of Israel's supposed legendary military capabilities. According to intelligence reports, however, Iran's key nuclear sites are not only built deep under mountainous grounds but are also themselves strongly fortified. From the very beginning, Iran has taken into account possible attacks – in particular from Israel – and it certainly has learned lessons from its Iraqi neighbors.

Some western scholars have persisted in the belief that a war like the one against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's Libya could dissolve Iran's nuclear problem once and for all. That has always been an attractive idea for American neo-conservatives.

However, neither previous conflict gives any real insight into the potential conflict with Iran. Saddam's Iraq had never been a stable nation state despite its wealth and iron-fist rule. Instead, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds maintained an uneasy truce, while both Shiites and Kurds were less than thrilled with being ruled by the Sunni minority. Gaddafi's Libya was similarly divided into tribes with deeply rooted hatred toward one another.

In contrast, Iran is much more homogeneous. Approximately 60-70 percent of Iran's population is Persian, with more than 90 percent of them Shiite Muslims. Though many of the younger generation dislike the restrictions of religion on their daily lives, they identify with Islamic values. This social unity makes Iran a formidable foe even in the face of more advanced weaponry.

Another problem for military actions is the uncertainty of their outcome. The Iraq War has shown that it is much easier to topple a regime than to rebuild one. Even more costly is a failed attack, which would certainly strengthen Iran's resolve to weaponize its nuclear program. Furthermore, according to the NPT, a nation under military threat can withdraw from that treaty, giving Iran legitimate cause to build the bombs.

Finally, while major world powers generally agree that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, they disagree on the methods. China advocates for resolution of international disputes through diplomatic channels, and Russia wants order in its South neighboring area and no western troops close to its home. After all, Iran is still far from being able to build a nuclear bomb.

For the U.S., the bitter aftertaste of the Iraq War remains even after eight years. Its lack of a legitimate cause has been one of the most important reasons for the Iraq quagmire. Sober as U.S. President Barack Obama is, he should hold on to the lessons from Iraq. Without backing from China and Russia for legitimacy, a potential war on Iran will become another strategic burden.

Though military actions do not seem imminent, it does not mean that the West will stay put on Iran. Since December of last year, the so-called Arab Spring has dominated media headlines, and Iran's nuclear program was put on the back burner on the global agenda. But Israel and the West has not forgotten about Iran. Tougher measures such as further economic sanctions are very likely to ensue.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit http://www.jhzsvip.com/opinion/jinliangxiang.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.