Other arguments have been made to further calm concerns of Iran becoming nuclear. One argument says that the US has it all wrong, Iran's quest is for peaceful nuclear energy for the Iranian people. Another says that the nuclear goal is really to help Iran gain more respect on the world stage (as stated by their own UN Ambassador). These points are at odds with each other - if the goal is peaceful energy, how would that give Iran any more respect as a country? Alternatively, Iran is already one of the most feared nations in the region, and they have plenty of trading partners among UN members (as evidenced by the UN's lack of willingness to support sanctions). So what kinds of additional respect are they trying garner exactly?
The fact is that if Iran really wanted to expand its energy resources and independence, they could build oil refineries to process all of the oil resources that are abundant naturally within Iranian borders into petroleum. Right now, Iran runs the (unlikely) risk being cut off from gas by UN sanctions. Some postulate that the Iranians are not interested in this idea as oil is not a clean technology. However, I've not heard any plans from Iran to stop drilling for oil once nuclear energy generation has been achieved, so clearly the concern for the environment isn't a driver in their quest to split the atom.
Bear in mind that a byproduct of even peaceful nuclear energy generation is plutonium. Over time it produces substantial amounts of Plutonium. Unlike Uranium, even non-weapons grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear bomb - weapons grade Plutonium just makes a bomb more powerful. The technology needed to create a plutonium based bomb is well within the capacity of a country that can generate nuclear energy. So let's be clear, nuclear weapons capability is an unfortunate byproduct of allowing a country to develop peaceful nuclear energy. If Iran can develop nuclear reactors, they can in very short order create a nuclear bomb.
There will be those who will cast me as a Neocon or some such label and suggest that I am advocating war with Iran. Interestingly, this logic belies their own fear of war as a driver for accepting something that our future selves might regret. And it's worth noting that I am not in favor of any war, unless as a last resort. However, I do see the value in keeping such options as well as all others, available.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - dee
Let them have nukes. Why do only certain so-called "good" countries get to have them?
2 - Dave Nalle
Because they don't have a president who makes a speech adocating genocide weekly. Because they don't finance an international terrorist network with tens of thousands of agents in dozens of countries?
dave
3 - Will
Why are we focusing on a less lethal threat such as Iran and not on a bigger threat like North Korea?
Oh right: OIL.
Will
4 - STM
Yep, the Iranians are meddling in southern Iraq - one of the world's richest oil resources - hoping to increase their sphere of influence, and ultimately, their control.
So yeah, why wouldn't we be worried about that.
Nevetheless, the US probably should start talking to them instead of continuing to rattle the sabre.
Bush's blind refusal to speak to people he doesn't like is like the kid in the playground who wants to take his bat and ball and go home unless everyone does what he wants.
Maybe he should just start playing ball, whether he likes the people on the other team or not.
5 - Dave Nalle
Will, you're making the mistake of assuming that Iran and N. Korea aren't working together. Keep your eyes on the Politics section for my upcoming article which will disabuse you of that delusion.
Dave
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Stan,
You spent a while in the Middle East. You know that folks who have nothing else, do have words, and as long as anyone wastes time with the Persians with words, they'll continue to arm and develop their own power. Then they'll have more than words, and will not need to talk.
It seems reasonably clear to me that Ahmadinejad talking is just a tool to keep America from acting. Chess may have come from India, but the Persians refined it into the game it is. They are patient and they know how to take their time with moves - and force the opponent to do the same.
You're right. The Americans should not rattle the saber. They should wield it - in the deadliest, most efficient and quickest way possible. If they fail to, events will spiral out of their puerile hands - if they haven't already.
7 - Jay Harris
I believe that Daniel Imperato has the right solution for Iran and their nuclear aspirations.
8 - Al
I think this author should re-write the same article but change iran to israel. The arm race has already begun and we let Israel get their nukes and don't allow anyone else to do it. Last time I checked Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 250 years. Israel just sent lebanon back to the dark ages last summer.
9 - Dr Dreadful
I dunno who this Imperato fellow is, but doesn't he look a bit like William Shatner?
10 - The Obnoxious American
AI,
Your intelligence is artificial as evidenced by your nonsense. Israel has had nukes for decades and they have proven their trustworthyness with them. So you don't like Israel, I get that. But there are people who live there and have a right to exists, despite the impassioned claims by those such as Ahmadinejad. Conversely, the Iranians have made explicit threats of genocide.
You think I should rewrite this article? I think you should READ this article.
11 - The Obnoxious American
As far as this Imperato fellow, I do tend to side with Libertarians, save for when they are completely apathetic. However, after clicking around on his site and eventually getting to the Foreign policy section of Issues, not a single word on Iraq.
12 - The Obnoxious American
er, Iran :>
13 - Dr Dreadful
I saw what you mean, OA. His site is so atrociously designed that I didn't even want to look for anything to click on.
14 - Josh G.
Here are some links to Imperato's Iran Strategy.
Its important to read his views on Iran and see how he understands the region.
15 - Jay Harris
Just do a google search on his name "Daniel Imperato" "Iran"
16 - Alec
RE: This is the president of a country whose military is actively killing Americans in Iraq right now.
So, if only Iranians or Iraqis were being killed, then everything would be OK Fine?
And I suppose that if Americans pulled out of Iraq, then also there would be no problem.
RE: Shame on Columbia for giving this man any platform, which has served not to open any "dialogue" but instead made him more accessible and appear more human to the more presently-focused, dynamically inconsistent among us here in the US.
On the other hand, Columbia provided a forum where "this man" could be shown to be uninformed and deserving of mockery. It's that freedom of speech thing.
But responding to your main point, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, not just weapons in development. If Pakistan became a fundamentalist nation, would they then be subject to attack?
India also has nuclear weapons. So now, are you suggesting that the unilateral policy of the US should be that we have the sole legitimate right to decide who can have these weapons and who they can subsequently assist?
The answer may indeed be yes, but people, especially conservatives, need to get off this over-reliance on looking to the Bush Administration to define enemies. This short-sightedness and bonehead jingoism will lead to all kinds of nasty surprises.
17 - moonraven
I could not even finish this self-serving drivel.
But I have a few comments, anyway:
1. Forget the autobiographical leads. We already know that your a card-carrying member of the underclass. Your experience is meaningless in regard to geopolitics.
3. Find out about countries before you shoot your ignorant keyboard off about them. Iran is not going to be "cut off from gas" because of sanctions. IT HAS THE SECOND LARGEST GAS RESERVES ON THE PLANET.
4. Spare readers the uninformed character assassinations. You know absolutely nothing about Iran or its president--not even enough to have an OPINION.
5. Forget the double standards. The US is the biggest fomentor and sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and is nuclear to the eyeballs. Israel is also a nuclear power--with not only a reactor that send radiation 24/7 into the West Bank and Jordan--but The Bomb.
6. Who ordained you to pontificate about how your vision is more longterm and on target than a professional military pundit?
As for the comments: Nalle topped himself this time by writing "Because they don't have a president who makes a speech adocating genocide weekly. Because they don't finance an international terrorist network with tens of thousands of agents in dozens of countries?"
That president, of course, is GW BUSH! And the international terrorist network is operated by the CIA.
Just facts.
[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]
18 - moonraven
For the person who rightly sked why some countries are okayed to have nuclear power and weapons and others are not, you are RIGHT ON TARGET.
Yesterday the referenced president of Iran and the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales (Go, Native Brother!!!!!) announced in La Paz that nuclear power was the right of all countries--not just of the Bullies on the Corner.
The president of Iran is now in Caracas.
The New World Order continues to take shape--while you hasbeen bullies are just turds in the toilet waiting to be flshed into the bowels of history.
Good riddance.
19 - Erna
What disturbs me about this article is its rather accurate portrayal of the way the West (or specifically the United States) views Iran.
Where once you were comfortable to paint Russia and Russians in a certain light, your perception of Iran is skewed. Your treatment and perception of Iran's president, painting him as some power-hungry sinister mastermind is prejudiced and uninformed.
Malaysia itself is a predominantly Muslim country and the way we perceive the US's unquestioned loyalty to Israel and quickness to question Iran is coloured with fear and disatisfaction. The judgemental attitudes towards Muslims and Arabs in particular is actually helping sway global Muslim sentiment towards supporting their 'brothers' instead of the Supercop of the World. I pray it will never come to this but the prejudice and fear towards Muslims and predominantly Muslim countries, especially in the United States sickens me.
20 - RJ
Great article. Good logic.
Enjoy the flames of the moonbats... ;-)
21 - RJ
"Why are we focusing on a less lethal threat such as Iran and not on a bigger threat like North Korea?
Oh right: OIL."
LOL.
Actually, North Korea has been a serious issue on the agenda of this administration for several years now. There have been six-party talks going on since, what, 2004?
And just recently, we were able to coerce North Korea into an agreement where the North Korean government has promised to dismantle their entire nuclear program in exchange for aid. (Which is why semi-intelligent Democrats don't bother to mention North Korea much anymore...)
22 - moonraven
You can't even find it on a map.
Actually, you can't find Iran, either.
Daniel Ellsberg is speaking out against going to war with Iran--here's PART of the article reprinted on the CommonDreams site:
"The 76-year-old activist gained notoriety during the Vietnam War when he released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other newspapers, detailing internal U.S. policy decisions regarding the war and its escalation.
Ellsberg said in the last few weeks he has begun to think a coup has occurred in the presidency of George Bush, which he characterized as a “rogue administration.”
He said that if a new 9/11 terrorist attack happens in the United States, the president would not hesitate to suspend and dismantle the Constitution and that hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners and dissidents could end up in detention camps. “I think we’re in danger - we’re in a crisis,” he said.
Ellsberg pointed to actions taken by Bush that he said violate the law, including endorsing warrantless surveillance and lying to Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At the same time, he was quick to chastise the Democrats in Congress, saying that by going along with Bush’s war they’ve failed their duty to uphold the Constitution.
He said the Senate resolution passed Wednesday declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is an invitation for Bush to declare war on Iran.
Ellsberg compared Wednesday’s resolution to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, passed Aug. 7, 1964, that gave Johnson a virtually blank check for combat in North Vietnam. He laid out a scenario of $200 a barrel for oil, the possibility of retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and the president keeping open the “nuclear option” to attack Iran. He said he is asking people in government who have information that could stop such a war before it happens to not do what he did by releasing the Pentagon Papers after the war started. He said they should do what he didn’t do - release the information before a disaster happens. “Don’t wait till the war has started,” Ellsberg told the audience. “Don’t wait till the bombs are falling or thousands more have died.”
Ellsberg said he has been called a traitor numerous times for breaking a “vow of secrecy” when he released the Pentagon Papers. But Ellsberg said he took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution - the same oath all military and public servants are required to take.
“It is not an oath to the president,” Ellsberg said. “And it’s not an oath to keep secrets. And it’s not an oath to the commander in chief, or the Fuhrer or Caesar or to the flag. “It is an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
© 2004-2007 Lancaster Newspapers
23 - RJ
#6:
"their [American] puerile hands"
Maybe we should let Israel do the dirty work this time...and run the attendant risks...
24 - dee
"5. Forget the double standards. The US is the biggest fomentor and sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and is nuclear to the eyeballs. Israel is also a nuclear power--with not only a reactor that send radiation 24/7 into the West Bank and Jordan--but The Bomb. That president, of course, is GW BUSH! And the international terrorist network is operated by the CIA."
Thank you moonman. This country, the US, my country, needs a wake up call. We are responsible for some of the "sh*t" we are in now because of our foreign policy tactics over the years, especially when dealing with the middle east. I doubt that most Americans would admit this though. Most cannot even consider, let alone admit, that maybe we have created some of this hatred. So I guess we are just in denial. Also, we have to stop all this focus on the Iranian leader, most of the rest of the (Iranian) country doesn't like this guy. Let's not give them a reason to get behind him by being stupid (again) and attacking.
25 - REMF
"And just recently, we were able to coerce North Korea into an agreement where the North Korean government has promised to dismantle their entire nuclear program in exchange for aid."
If not, we need to attack immediately, drafting all able bodied men (18-45 years old) to the front lines...and NO DEFERMENTS for war-wimps this time!!