John Rapley

The irony is striking. Nearly five years ago, after launching his war on terror, U.S. President George W. Bush declared Iraq, Iran and North Korea to be an axis of evil that had to be neutralized. The Taliban was crushed in Afghanistan and Iraq was taken out. Speculation heightened that Iran would be next.

But yesterday, London's respected Royal Institute of International Affairs issued a report which started bluntly: 'Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East.'

While it can appear vulnerable and isolated from Washington, the Iranian theocracy is actually sitting kind of pretty in its own neck of the woods. Often overlooked is the fact that both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were arch-foes of Tehran. They're gone now. Yet in neither case have the allied invaders succeeded in replacing them with stable, pro-Western regimes.

Instead, in Iraq's chaos, Shi'ite militias with varying degrees of ties to Iran are emerging as key players. Washington's ham-fisted approach to the occupation has only worsened its image in the region. And it made matters worse with its recent interventions in the Lebanese war.

Western influence rising

Western influence seemed to be rising in Lebanon in recent years. However, Hezbollah's recent triumphant performance against the Israelis vindicated the confrontational strategy of Iran, its patron. Not only have the Iranian hardliners gained legitimacy, but their foes in the region - governments like those of Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states - are reluctant now to take them on diplomatically.

As for the Americans, they indeed have the world's most formidable military. On any battlefield on the planet, they could crush the Iranians. Their problem is, the Iranians don't need to fight them on any battlefield on the planet; just in their backyard. And they don't need to win; they only need to make life miserable for the Americans.

And in Iraq, they are doing just that, through their proxies in the militias. Stretched to capacity and unable to recruit enough new soldiers to maintain its ranks, the U.S. military has been compelled to extend tours of duty and recall reservists who had already served their time. The metaphor is apt: the U.S. is in a bog. Bluster all it will, it can scarcely afford to open a new front in Iran.

From stick to twig

So Washington's stick has become a twig. Unwilling to resort to a carrot, the U.S. is still trying a confrontational approach by enlisting its allies. Determined not to allow the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, the U.S. has built a coalition at the United Nations, securing a key Security Council resolution earlier this summer: if Iran does not suspend its nuclear programme, it will face sanctions.

Not surprisingly, Tehran feels sufficiently emboldened that this week, it effectively snubbed the UN's nose. Iran is calling the UN's bluff. Now the UN Security Council faces a choice: back down, or ratchet up the pressure.

It is far from clear that the alliance will hold together. It was shaky at the best of times, but it is probably safe to say that some countries which supported the tough resolution against Iran expected it to retreat when faced with a united front. A report this week in the New York Times indicated that some of the smaller countries on the council are now angry with the U.S. and France over their handling of Lebanon. This may give cover to the Russians and Chinese to back down from firm action.

It must be terribly frustrating for President Bush. But he may have no choice but to negotiate with the Iranians on terms he doesn't like.

John Rapley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.