The latest on the Iran nuclear situation has the Russians and Chinese joining the E.U. and the U.S. in demanding the Iranians cease their nuclear activity. While this appears to be cooperation, and to some extent it is, the problem remains that the countries involved have divergent interests. The U.S. is less vulnerable to the economic disruption that would be caused by military action or severe economic sanctions against Iran than the E.U., for example. The Russians have an interest in continuing to do business with Iran at all levels, while the Chinese need ever larger supplies of oil to feed their growing economy. Therefore, it is entirely possible that while they all agree on the referral of the case to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Administration), once that body meets they may not be able to agree to put the case to the U.N. Security Council. In fact, I believe they will not be able to agree on that point (not to mention the other members of the IAEA, like Syria, that will certainly oppose the action). Expect no resolution leading to the Security Council and sanctions.

This situation, of course, is inextricably linked to the political situation in Israel. Arnaud de Borchgrave details the Sharon strategy, and the fallout from his being taken out of the equation. Ariel Cohen, also writing in the Washington Times, describes Sharon's extraordinary life and his significance to the Israeli people. Sharon's strategy of walling off his people from the Palestinians and leaving the Palestinians to find their own way to statehood might have worked, since Sharon had the power and credibility with Israelis to get most of them on the right to accept the fact that the settlers would need to leave some areas, and those on the left to accept the fact that there could never be a negotiated settlement with a Palestinian partner for peace. Without Sharon it is highly unlikely that any Israeli leader will be able to garner a consensus on the Sharon strategy, therefore, it will collapse (my guess is that Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next Prime Minister, and he will be unable to unify the country on the Palestinian question).

All of this may be a moot point. If the Iranians are allowed to build a nuclear weapons capability by the world community, then the Israelis (no matter who is PM) will be forced to act unilaterally with military force. After all, they are the ones being threatened with annihilation by Iran's president. The consequences of that action are unknowable, but chilling to contemplate. This drama will overshadow the other likely, and unsavory, outcome in Middle Eastern politics, which is the coming to power of Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

In fact, if I were the Iranians, I would be prodding my Hamas allies to launch an all-out "Third Intifada" against Israel, shortly after the Palestinian elections next week. The effort would be aimed at fomenting anti-Israeli feeling in the Middle East (as, inevitably, pictures of dead Palestinian children, allegedly killed by the IDF, would dominate television screens in the region and worldwide), and bogging the IDF down in operations to defend their borders and settlements. It might not work, since the IDF's air assets would still be free to organize an air campaign against Iran, but it would cause extra political problems for the Israelis domestically as well as internationally.

As always, George W. Bush is the wild card. While much of the opinion I've been reading recently says he cannot afford to launch a military operation against Iran, for a variety of reasons, I'm not so sure. Would he be willing to aid the Israelis in their air campaign, especially if U.S. forces come under increasing attack in Iraq? Maybe so, especially if he thinks the Iranians government can be decapitated as part of the operation. These are, indeed, interesting times.