The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency says it believes Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons. This means that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism could end up with the bomb. Iran supports Hamas which the US and EU list as a terrorist organisation. It supports Hezbollah which has carried out kidnappings, airplane hijackings and rocket attacks against civilians. Analysts also believe that Iran is directly involved in attacks such as the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires which left 85 people dead. Argentina has accused Iran of directing and Hezbollah of carrying out the attack.

On 11 October the Obama administration accused Iran of attempting to carry out a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US in a Washington DC restaurant. Of two men accused of trying to carry out the plan one of them, Manssour Arbabsiar, a naturalised US citizen originally from Iran, is in custody. Not all the evidence has been made public to protect sources and avoid prejudice to the court case against Arbabsiar, but what has been revealed has created scepticism among Iran experts who think such a plan could not have been approved by Iran’s top leaders.

The assassination plan was carried out in what has been described by the sceptics as a reckless manner inconsistent with Iran’s usual rational mode of conducting covert operations. The fact that Arbabsiar is accused of trying to employ a member of a Mexican drugs cartel to carry out the assassination is cited as an example of improbable behaviour.

The regime’s behaviour is, however, ultimately determined by its goals. No matter how sound of mind the individuals in charge may be, if the goals are crazy rationality will not always guide their behaviour. Eradicating western values from the hearts and minds of its own citizens is an aim of many hardliners which can’t be achieved without triumphing over the source of the contamination, the west itself. These are not rational aspirations.

The hardliners’ behaviour is also influenced by narrowing options. Under domestic and international pressure the regime has fewer channels open to it for maintaining unity and its remaining legitimacy. It is no longer able to promise domestic reform and the Israel tension- release valve is harder to manipulate with its ally, Syria’s President Assad, under even greater pressure than Iran.

The elite feel compelled to use those channels left open even if the level of risk is high.

One of the results is that there is no guarantee of safety from the regime even in the west. Iranian dissidents have known this for years; others are now discovering it to be the case. Consistent rational behaviour is a luxury of rulers who have wide support. On the 18 November the UN General Assembly voted 109 to six to condemn the alleged assassination plot, without naming Iran but urged Iran to cooperate with any investigations seeking to bring those involved to justice.

A regime which has to gamble is unlikely to become more cautious through possession of nuclear weapons. It may instead be emboldened. The hardliners want the bomb not just for protection in the abstract but to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. In order to avoid these consequences they may behave erratically and unpredictably in a variety of ways.

Take a regime which is reckless and has a long history of involvement with terrorism. Now imagine it with the bomb.

In response to the IAEA’s 8 November report on Iran’s nuclear weapons programme,  the US, Canada and Britain have imposed new sanctions with the EU soon to follow. These steps are necessary under current conditions.

—————————————————————————————

Photo: David Holt