The Iranian nuclear standoff is akin to a snowball tumbling down a hillside, ballooning with every roll of rhetoric. What’s clear is this: Iran will not halt nuclear enrichment as a perceived national right to nuclear power, no matter how much the U.S. ramps up the rhetoric and threats - or the UN its sanctions.
Not even negotiations will stop Iran on its pathway into the nuclear club. All the West can do is try minimizing the risk of nuclear weapons development.
But how? I’ll return to this point in a moment.
Only a few weeks ago, after the first U.N. sanctions were leveled, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took great pleasure in announcing that Iran's enrichment had proceeded to "an industrial scale." The E.U., Australia, France and Russia, have cast doubt about the claim. But the likelihood of increased U.N. sanctions and the probable American response are merely increasing Iranian determination.
Faced with the likelihood of American military action, Iran has only hinted that it may suspend its enrichment program to allow negotiations to be conducted in good faith. To this day, nobody knows whether Iran speaks the truth when saying the nuclear program is for civilian power purposes only. However, given hard-liner Ahmadinejad's world view - specifically his rhetoric of wiping Israel off the map, their regional tussle for hegemony, and Israel's sizeable nuclear arsenal - I’m forced to admit that if Iran's enrichment does reach an "industrial level", an Iranian nuclear bomb may be less than a year away.
This changes nothing. Iran's enrichment cannot be halted by the current Western approach, whether a weapons program exists or not. According to many analysts, even air strikes only delay the process, and in doing so would guarantee Iran's resurgent nuclear program focuses on developing weapons.
An invasion may succeed. At their recent meeting the UN put the military option on the table, but given conditions in Iraq, it’s unlikely that anybody would willingly send their forces there. Probably the U.S. would have to go it alone again. But the U.S. military is already overstretched, and given Hezbollah's skinning of Israel's nose in their summer war in Lebanon, the U.S. faces the humiliation of an Iranian defeat in addition to fierce domestic opposition.
So, what should be done? The first thing is removing the precondition for talks. As Iran's Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, told the ISNA news agency: "We have a superior position. We have passed the stage of setting conditions for talks. We believe that other parties should move forward based on new realities."
Article comments
1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I have a stupid question for you. If George Bush is bending rules like the US constitution in his own country, why should he act rational with someone like Ahmadinejad, or even the mullahs puling his chain?
If you are right, and Iran's nuclear enrichment reaching an industrial level means that its nuke is only a year away - or less - why should Bush be a nice guy to Tehran? The simplest solution to dealing with Tehran is to wipe it out with nuclear weapons. End of Iranian command and control: end of Iranian nuclear development. NO INVASION NECESSARY.
Mind you, I'm not recommending this. But your words slowly uncover the awful beast coming round to be born in this neck of the woods. Yeats was more prescient than he knew.
2 - Paul2
The articles I've read suggest that Iran will need another four to five years to obtain nuclear weapons.
The Iranians do have every right to obtain nuclear capacities for energy purposes and if they decide to drop out of the NPT they can also obtain nuclear weapons as the US, France, the UK, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, North Korea and soon India have done.
I do believe that diplomacy is the only way in successfully dealing with Iran and to ultimately diminish it's isolation. A stronger support of Ahmadinejads predecessor Khatami, who was clearly reform-oriented, offered such a possibility. Iran even offered help in defeating the Taliban, but that offer was blatantly denied. That is one of the reasons why Ahmadinejad was elected.
I think that Iran is interested in nuclear technology because it is a symbol of modernism to them. Weapons technology may appeal to them, because they feel threatened by the invasions of two neighboring countries - Afghanistan and Iraq - both a result of serving the interests of the US for access to natural resources. And to have nuclear weapons seems a successful mean of securing their national security, as North Korea has shown.
Nonetheless, even if Iran actually obtains nuclear weapons --and I generally oppose them--, the chance that they will actually use them is not higher or even lower than any other country that possesses these weapons.
3 - troll
*The simplest solution to dealing with Tehran is to wipe it out with nuclear weapons.*
that would solve nothing
you want a solution - ?
get the countries that have 'em to release all of their biologicals and eliminate humans - now there's a final solution worthy of a vindictive prankster deity
4 - MBD
The simplest solution to dealing with Tehran is to wipe it out with nuclear weapons.”
Yeah.
Right after the Berlin Blockade the simplest solution to dealing with the Soviet Union would have been to wipe it out with nuclear weapons.
Right after the Chinese poured over the Yalu River in 1950 the simplest solution to dealing with the Chinese would have been to wipe out China with nuclear weapons.
Right after the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam the simplest solution to dealing with the North Vietnamese would have been to wipe the country out with nuclear weapon.
And now we have Iran…
Dr. Strangelove is alive and well…
And so is Major T.J. 'King' Kong…
YEEE HAAA!
5 - Mark Schannon
I think they've got you, Ruvy. As much as I despise the rules of Iran, I know too many Persians to think of Iran the way I think of...hell I wanted to say Arabs, but that's not fair either.
The problem is that our beloved president (someone must love him...) has so destroyed America's moral standing in the world, has so fucked up our foreign policy with Cheney's my way or the highway, that I can't imagine what we can do...except wait two years and hope we don't elect another asshole.
I gotta side with troll & MBD on this one. We're the only country that every used atomic bombs on an enemy. Having done it once--for the wrong reasons--I couldn't support us doing it again for any reason.
I understand where you're coming from emotionally, & I share some/a lot of it...but we need a better solution. Like starving them to death. Or putting acid in their water so they're stoned for years. Or sitting down and talking with them...nah, forget that. Stupid of me.
But...remember..
In Jameson Veritas
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Liams's article attempts to deal with the potential defeat of the US army in invading Iran and suggests diplomacy as an alternative - a policy of negotiating from weakness because it accepts that the mullahs in Tehran should have nuclear weapons. A lady who occasionally comments here who writes under the screen-name "Gazelle" points out (on Blogcritics e-mail) that the strategies of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan have come close to breaking the American army. Additionally, only yesterday, tours of duty for American soldiers were extended in Afghanistan.
All this indicates that a ground invasion of Iran would be a disaster. And Liam does not echo the Iranian propaganda line that all this nuclear enrichment is for peaceful purposes only. He grants that it is clear where the Iranians are headed - nuclear weaponry.
Only a fool would suggest that Iran would not attempt to do this. Under any leadership, Iranians would want nuclear weapons. The difference is that a country not under the rule of the Shi'ite theocracy would not talk about erasing their neighbors from under face of the earth. Whatever one thinks of Pakistan's "Islamic Bomb," or Pakistan's policies generally, no Pakistani leader talks about wiping his neighbors off the face of the earth.
But only a fool would accept that the Islamic Republic, with its declared intent to erase Israel (and who knows who else?) off the map, should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. That is a recipe for a major war down the line, in two or three years at most.
If negotiations are a policy of weakness, and an invasion is a potential disaster, what is left is bombardment. The most effective bombardment policy is to destroy the command and control of Iran's military - the regime in Iran. That means turning Tehran into nuclear glass. That is not nice, it is ugly, but that is the hand dealt to the Americans.
I do not recommend this. You would have noticed that if any of you were actually reading what I wrote, instead of assuming what I intended and picking lines to pick on. The consequences of a nuclear attack - indeed the consequences of any attack on Iran - would be to free HizbAllah to use its missiles, and free the Syrians to attack my country. In addition, Hamas would start to use its missiles as well. It would set into motion a whole series of events that would turn very ugly indeed.
So I'm calling it. In three years or less, there will be a major war here that will make this region unrecognizable to most of us. Troll, you said you're a farrier, right? If so, stock up on your materials. Get a hold of a few generators and keep them well prepared. I suspect that you will be a very prosperous man.
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Oh, BTW, Mark. I have real respect for Persians, and little hatred, if any. Persia was once a shelter to the Jews. I'm not talking about vengeance or anger, but business. In the end, all murder - and war is murder organized on a vast scale - is business. Sometimes, in business, you have to make ugly decisions for survival.
and MBD, Mr. History Expert; had the Americans decided to bomb Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Magnetogorsk and other places where Stalin had stuck the Soviet war machine with their atomic weapons in 1945-46, or even as late as 1947, there would have been no Cold War, no Berlin Wall, no civil war in Greece, no communist regime in Cuba, no Korea, no Vietnam. There might have been democracy throughout Europe and Asia a long time ago. Millions of lives would have been saved, including all the millions killed by the communist regime in China in the 1950's and 1960's, and a lot of suffering would have been averted.
You're an idiot not to see that. Why am I not surprised?
8 - STM
"YEEE HAAA!"
Slim Pickens riding the bomb, especially the moment when it dislodges. One of the best cinema scenes ever. The producers of the movie asked the US Air Force if they could get a look inside one of the then-top-secret B52s, so they could mock one up for the film set.
Of course, they were refused permission ... so they went with Plan B and mocked one up anyhow, thinking that that was how it MIGHT look (and using other Boeing cockpits as a guide).
It was so accidentally authentic, the USAF launched an investigation to find out who had leaked the details to the Strangelove producers.
And Peter Sellars - what a genius.
9 - Roger Choate
Another thought-provoking article, Liam. The basic gist of your piece will certainly deserve elaboration in future articles - that the US and others have no real choice when it comes to nuclear enrichment in Iran. Diplomacy aimed toward a mutually desirable result, rather than saber-rattling, may be the key.
Another interesting point in your article was the British démarche to get the prisoners released. Britain is a very old and experienced player in the Middle East. What are the chances that Britain can seize the day and push actively for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? It's the one Euro country with influence in Washington in addition to whatever credentials it may have in the Middle East.
Having gotten some kudos for the Northern Ireland deal, maybe Tony Blair & Associates would want to polish off their term honorably by pushing very hard for an independent Palestine and Israel with political guarantees and eoonomic incentives from major powers.
Since you're based in the UK, Liam, maybe you might want to explore the thought in a future contribution?
Roger Choate
BC Intl Politics Editor
10 - troll
good work Liam...but too late
I'm calling it - the Iranians will develop newclere weapons...and this article and the comments following it are the reason
I have it on good authority that Iranian religious leaders had decided nukes are a sin to be avoided but then one of them discovered Ruvy's comments...now they're convinced that deity or no deterrence is a better path than dialog
and all because of a guy going through a paradoxical abreaction to a traditional jewish inferiority complex
(jus keeding comrade)
11 - steve
inevitable but negotiable...nothing but words coming from a white flag waving, bleeding heart liberal. Typical. Let the sh*t hit the fan and then attempt to clean up the mess.
12 - Dave Nalle
I hear they're going to put a nice marina in the new Gulf of Israel.
Dave
13 - MBD
I see all the combat veterans are coming out of their foxholes to charge forward.
14 - Clavos
Not this one...
15 - Liam Bailey
Paul2:
If you read the link I provided for Iranian weapons in a year you would know that if they manage to run the centrifuges they are proposing, they will master their working in around a year and weapons grade uranium would follow.
India already has nuclear weapons.
I think that Iran is interested in nuclear technology because it is a symbol of modernism to them. Weapons technology may appeal to them, because they feel threatened by the invasions of two neighbouring countries - Afghanistan and Iraq - both a result of serving the interests of the US for access to natural resources. And to have nuclear weapons seems a successful mean of securing their national security, as North Korea has shown.
Your in and out of logic there Paul, if the reasons for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq were access to natural resources, then North Korea's lack of said resources is the reason they are safe from U.S. attack, not whatever they have cobbled together as nuclear weapons.
P.S. There is widespread doubt over the North Korean nuclear test, i.e. if it was a nuclear device it didn't go off properly, or was the smallest ever yield nuclear device, under one kiloton.
Nonetheless, even if Iran actually obtains nuclear weapons --and I generally oppose them--, the chance that they will actually use them is not higher or even lower than any other country that possesses these weapons.
The chances are actually lower that they will use them, because they aren't manufactured using Uranium enriched in North Korea. They are estimated to have five nuclear devices, I might be wrong but I believe they are made from plutonium, but whether they are made from Uranium or Plutonium, the nuclear material was obtained outside North Korea. So if North Korea used its nuclear weapons that would be it.
Roger:
Thank you very much.
You are right, in Iran, Britain is called the old fox. Britain should take a more active role in diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program. But when it comes to the hsotage crisis, Ahmadinejad played us rather than the other way round. I tend to blieve an opinion piece I read, the gist of which: Iran released the sailors to get on good terms with Balir's successor, so as to have a sympathetic ear against the u>S. and U.N vis-a-vis the nuclear issue.
When it comes to Blair, I believe two possibilities apply:
Either, like Bush, he is so naive when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs that he couldn't tell by the lack of after war planning, that a: the Afghan and Iraq wars were for oil and b: that they would quickly turn into huge disasters militarily.
Or:
He knew that the wars were for oil and thought, if Bush wants to spend billions of dollars securing the future of western oil supplies, Britain might as well share the spoils. Saw a capitalist New World Order forming and wanted to make Britain a major player. I believe the latter.
Either way, the iraq and Afghanistan wars have so marred his image around the world that he cannot hope to bring any sort of resolution in the Iran crisis. Wait till, likely Brown takes the chair, or maybe someone else who knows, then, when they have shown their Middle East metal I will consider your article idea then.
Steve:
What do you suggest? Typical from a head banging conservative to spout insults about one man's views rather than take five minutes to come up with his own.
Furthermore, when there is talk of using nuclear weapons to achive something that really isn't all that urgent, I would far rather be a "bleeding heart liberal" as you call me, and fell that i was doing all I could to stop it, than show one ounce ofsympathy fr the motives of such a blatant atrocity as nuking Iran. Let me guess, you sympathize with Bush spouting that nukes lessen the possibility of collateral damage. Let me guess, you don't live anywhere near Iran?
Let me tell you something, if the u.S nukes Iran, thus retargetting its systems from the cold war, and uses anywhere near a significant portion of its arsenal in doing so. Should some significant amount of the inevitable fall out go anywhere near Russia, or damage Russian river fishing or the sea they share with Iran, there is a real possibility that Russia won't let it lie. There is a significant base of analysts that write articles on how, from Russia and China's point f view the cold war never ended, and that plans are in place for a massive conflict with the U.S. One such set of plans, coming from Chinese defectors, suggests that the two world powers have suitcase nukes buried around America, and Russian or Chinese operatives in place to unearth them and detonate them at key targets that would drastically weaken the U.S' capabilities to defend against, and retaliate for a join Russian and Chinese nuclear strike.
Remember the strain put on Russia and the U.S' relationship when the latter tried to install a missile defence system in countries around Russia. Remember that Russia has installed missile systems specifically designed to target American missiles and planes, not long before.
Everything points to both sides preparing for a major conflict, I mean, the world has never been big enough for two super-powers, has it? If the shit hits the fan, you will need to live on a deserted island somewhere not to be drastically affected by it. So, you just keep on with you're conservatism. Maybe if there were more "bleeding heart liberals" in government around the world there would be no such thing as a nuclear arsenal, no such proximity to Armageddon.
16 - MBD
“Let the sh*t hit the fan and then attempt to clean up the mess.”
-- Gavrilo Princip, June 28, 1914
17 - Dave Nalle
Oh, now there's a good role-model to follow, a stooge for the Russians who touched off a war which killed millions of people.
Dave
18 - Paul2
Liam, I ment that having nuclear weapons makes a country less likely to be attacked and the leadership less vulnerable to foreign interference with their internal affairs.
You're right that India already has nuclear weapons. Interestingly India -contrary to Iran- hasn't even signed the NPT and does not grant inspectors access to 33% of their facilities. A demand that the US continuously applies to North Korea and Iran.
The speaker for the IAEA Melissa Fleming has said that there is no evidence that Iran intends to built a nuclear weapon and the IAEA did say that they will need until 2011, if they were going to succeed. Keeping in mind that the Iranians might be exagerating their advances, this might very well be true. [I didn't find an English link]
19 - MBD
#12 Dave: “I hear they're going to put a nice marina in the new Gulf of Israel.”
#16 MBD: "Let the sh*t hit the fan and then attempt to clean up the mess."
-- Gavrilo Princip, June 28, 1914
#17 Dave: “Oh, now there's a good role-model to follow, a stooge for the Russians who touched off a war which killed millions of people.
Dave, if you want to create that nice marina you will have to go along with Princip and let the sh*t hit the fan.
You can’t have it both ways.