| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Sanction Iran |
| 2004-06-13 |
| via J Post - Reg Reqâd Jun. 13, 2004 19:10 In October, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany (known as the EU-3) went to Teheran and came back with a deal: Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions in exchange for better trade relations with the West. The mullahs were given six months to comply. Eight months later, the jury is in. On June 1, International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed El-Baradei issued a report that was full of smoking guns. In diplomatic language, it caught Iran in lie after lie. Iran was supposed to declare all its enrichment facilities, yet it neglected to mention it had P-2 centrifuges â a particularly sophisticated type used only for weapons-grade enrichment. Inspectors discovered laser enrichment equipment; which again, reasonably points only to a weapons program. Finally, the IAEA found plutonium-separation experiments, and enriched uranium that the Iranians incredibly brush off as contamination from imported material. The report, issued in advance for the IAEA Board of Governors meeting this week, notes that Iran was given time to clear up all these "omissions" and "outstanding questions." None of them was. Iran, if anything, is becoming more brazen. On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi openly declared Iranâs right to become "a member of the nuclear club." He also rejected US and European demands that it give up its assorted uranium enrichment programs. Finally, he confirmed that Iran had tried to buy 4,000 magnets for uranium enrichment purposes, but said this issue had been "unnecessarily" hyped. We have gotten to the point at which, in the words of reporter James Traub in yesterdayâs New York Times Magazine, "What is nonnegotiable to the Iranians is unacceptable to the Bush administration, the EU-3, and Baradei himself." This should not be a surprise. The last eight months have been spent pretending either that Iranâs nuclear ambitions were in question, or would be given up in response on the vague waving of carrots and sticks. Whether it says so in so many words, the IAEA has succeeded in proving that Iran is bent on enriching nuclear fuel in a way that points in only one direction: nuclear weapons. This has put the international watchdog agency in a bind â if it is not forthright and aggressive, it will be duped as it was before the first war in Iraq, in which it gave a clean bill of health to facilities that were later proven to be the heart of Saddamâs nuclear weapons program. But if it declares Iran to be in outright violation, the IAEA fears that Iran will follow North Koreaâs lead and simply withdraw from the treaty, which would end inspections and remove the IAEA from the ball game. Such institutional dilemmas should not be allowed to drive the international agenda. Iranâs intentions are crystal clear. The time has come for a simple question: Does Europe want Iran to go nuclear? The long, sad story of sanctions against Iraq shows that economic pressure alone does not always produce cooperation. Yet if sanctions are not enough, than surely cajoling short of sanctions is a waste of precious time. Further, the more relevant precedent may not be the failure of sanctions in Iraq, but their success in Libya. Faced with a united Security Council that imposed draconian sanctions in response to the downing of an American and a French airliner, having been caught red-handed smuggling nuclear equipment, and seeing Saddam Hussein having his teeth examined by a US Army medic, Muammar Gaddafi said that he had enough. He revealed a nuclear program the West did not even know he had and, pending verification, has gotten out of the terrorism business. Iran is arguably more susceptible to such sanctions than was Libya. The Iranian economy is considerably larger, more advanced, and more dependent on the West than is Libyaâs. In Europe, Iranian diplomats are not used to being treated as pariahs. The Iranian people, while it may support the quest for the bomb, is likely to blame a government that it hates for any further hardships imposed by the international community. To some, standing up to Iranâs brazen nuclear bid will be seen as starting another war. It is the opposite. It is not too late to attempt, by economic means alone, forcing Iran to go the way of Libya and getting out of the nuclear and terrorism business. The longer Europe and the US wait to act, the more the options will become limited to living with Iran as a terrorist base with a nuclear umbrella, or taking military action. The Mad Mullahs is an accurate moniker. Reason is not a component in their machinations and reason cannot be applied when assessing their actions. They are not reasonable, so donât waste any more time trying various carrots and sticks based upon reason. Mullahs with Nukes. Nope, doesnât work for me. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #18 When the role of various intelligence agencies, have devolved to that of hearsay, and gossip agencies. While stark ineptitude of the political classes leaves the only alternative to be found in regurgitation of the failed policies of the past. It is with little surprise to watch the headlong rush to the ultimate confrontation of third world war. Einstein once remarked; âI cannot envisage how, when, and where the third world war is going to be fought, but I am certain fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones!â. The current propaganda offensive on Iran, under the pretext of nuclear weapons development etc, somehow discounts the Poland scenario of the 2nd world war. Those whose optimism knows no bounds, believing the military might of US able to prevail perhaps have forgotten the old catch phrase of the civil defence movies âduck and take coverâ! There again the Christian fundamentalists, and Zionists Zealots have conflated dreams of Armageddon and Ertz Israel, while the greed of others have dulled their senses of proportion. While it is patently apparent that the plebeians too have come to accept the inevitable; destruction of the whole of the civilisation as we know it! The dangerous policies of confrontation will only yield annihilation of the human civilisation, with that in mind if any of the posters have the luxury of time to start constructing their nuclear biological chemical shelters, funds permitting, then do so at once! Creative destruction could mean your destruction too! The many others whom have little funds in the way of allocation for such eventuality best start waking up to the fact that, the only alternative remaining is a regime change in the Whitehouse, and reclaiming of the conservative values from the evil corruption of the neo conservatives whose questionable loyalties, and pandering to the greed of the delusional political classes have so far cost a great many lives and Dollars. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5892 2004-07-24 6:07:06 PM |
| #17 Barbara, permit me to briefly mention just how much I routinely enjoy your posts here at Rantburg. That said, I truly hope you are right about us having the latitude to utilize internal Iranian elements towards bringing about regime change there. If one transposes the North Korean imbroglio onto the Middle East template, there is simply too much at stake not to warrant immediate and forceful intervention. If we can somehow manage a decapitating strike, I'm all for it. If the only functional solution is bombing their entire nuclear program straight to hell, then I am obliged to support that instead. I desperately want Iran's people out from under the mullahs' collective thumbs. That nation's institutionalized abuse of women alone makes it a priority. Iran's nuclear program makes it critical. I heartily concur with you how if we back an insurgency there, we must not drop the ball as we did in with the Shiites in Iraq so long ago. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-13 11:39:13 PM |
| #16 Agree we don't have much time, Zenster. But I think the Iranian people - particularly the younger ones, which make up more than half the population - are up for a mullah-smashing revolution if they have the right help and, when it starts, we follow through to the mullahs' end. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-13 10:33:58 PM |
| #15 I think of 'em more as the moles in those whack-a-mole arcade games. Every time one raises his head to pop off about the Great Satan et al., it would behoove said Great Satan to take a whack. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-06-13 8:12:25 PM |
| #14 AzCat, that's more in fitting with France's current economic ties to Iran and their involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal. ... it's past time for us to pop every bellicose government official and mullah in the Islamic world. I'm with you all the way, guy. Mullahs involved in theocratic rule are just dinosaurs waiting for the next asteroid to hit. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-13 8:08:04 PM |
| #13 Zenster - My memory's a little faulty, the French official I was thinking of didn't say that nuclear proliferation was inevitble, he decried the fact that they weren't an active enough participant. If so, then we need to seriously consider a massive decapitating strike against the Guardian Council while it is in full session. Definitely agreed there, it's past time for us to pop every bellicose government official and mullah in the Islamic world. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-06-13 7:57:27 PM |
| #12 Couldn't agree more, flash! Sanctions are "paper tigers"--Saddam proved that. Iran must put up or shut up: We must get our own inspectors in there. If we find nukes, they must either disarm immediately or face régime change and forced disarmament. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-13 6:17:05 PM |
| #11 We need to support and help foment the nascent revolution that has already started in Iran, before the mullahs have a chance to achieve their doomsday scenario. mhw, thank you for the blog link. I do not think there is time to wait for regime change, unless it is through a decapitating strike against the Guardian Council (see below). Barbara, I do not think we have the luxury of waiting for internal Iranian change. The threat is too dire and we have no idea of exactly how near or far the Iranians are to fabricating a weapon. Their unending tissue of lies and deceit demand making worst case assumptions regarding any existing danger. Even a single nuclear device in the mullahs' hands could drastically alter the balance of power in the Middle East. As an American, I have not an iota of reassurance that Iran would not deliver that weapon into the hands of those who would use it against us. However more likely it would be that Iran would retain their first weapon as a deterrent, there is no reason to assume any logical reasoning process upon their part. If you have not done so already, I urge you to read "The Three Conjectures." It rather lucidly spells out how even a single Islamist nuclear attack against America could trigger the destruction of all Muslims. Only the most hateful of people see that as something to be desired. I am not there yet and would prefer to see Iran's weapons production facilities or government power structure destroyed first. The Iranian people do not deserve to be exposed to the radiological fallout resulting from destruction of their bomb making facilities. However, the remaining world deserves the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran even less. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-13 6:16:16 PM |
| #10 Have sanctions ever worked? How about fomenting rebellion like group (ala contra's in nicaragua) Its casus belli, let'd do something effective. |
| Posted by: flash91 2004-06-13 6:12:54 PM |
| #9 mhw - Agreed. We need to support and help foment the nascent revolution that has already started in Iran, before the mullahs have a chance to achieve their doomsday scenario. Or the decent people of Iran will die along with the extremists. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-13 4:41:36 PM |
| #8 Zenster, A lot of Iranians clearly realize that the security of the entire world requires regime change in Iran. see: http://www.activistchat.com/ |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-06-13 4:32:40 PM |
| #7 An airstrike (or two, or ten) isn't going to cripple the program. If so, then we need to seriously consider a massive decapitating strike against the Guardian Council while it is in full session. That a leadership body should recklessly pursue such a costly nuclear weapons program while their population starves warrants all of them a first class ticket to hell and nothing else. The French government is on record as saying that, "... the world had better just get used to nuclear proliferation because it can't be stopped." I'd love to see a cite for that. Even though I dislike name calling in political debate, such a stance would cement the French appellation of "surrender monkeys." Good points about Europe. Thank you, Tony. Britain is one of the few European powers displaying a remote sense of responsibility in the war on terror. Sadly, such twaddle as "Muslim friendly workplaces" and the desire to sell China advanced weapon systems compromises their position rather dreadfully. I am also obliged to thank you very much for the Belmont link. It succinctly summarizes all the conclusions I have reached on my own. It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us. That effort really consists of two separate aspects: a campaign to destroy the locus of militant Islam and prevent their acquisition of WMDs; and an attempt to awaken the world to the urgency of the threat. While American arms have proven irresistible, much of Europe, as well as moderates in the Islamic world, remain blind to the danger and indeed increase it. Although I anticipate a slightly higher threashold, it will take a very few terrorist nuclear attacks to precipitate the obliteration of all Islamic nations. How sad it is that moderate Muslims do not fully realize the ominous threat militant Islamists present to their entire population and collective faith itself. A very few have placed Islam's collective neck on the nuclear chopping block. Iran is chief among those who risk everything for all and it would be well advised for every Islamic leader to read the Belmont article. Their very lives depend upon it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-13 4:21:50 PM |
| #6 The mad mullahs cannot be allowed to go nukular. We must draw the lind in their sand. Or, why bother reproducing. Our doom will be sealed. |
| Posted by: Victory Now Please 2004-06-13 4:05:54 PM |
| #5 Zenster, Good points about Europe. What single benefit comes (save for the mullas) of Iran successfully fabricating nuclear weapons? There aren't any, because if the Islamofascists start to get hold of these weapons then the horrific logic of the 'The Three Conjectures' starts to assert itself. The West will then eventually annihilate the Muslim world. Or, if the West doesn't then the Russians or Chinese will. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-06-13 3:34:27 PM |
| #4 Are we on for another Osirak-type strike from Israel? Maybe but if so it's going to be a *lot* less effective this time. Iran has literally dozens of facilities that we know about and a double-digit number of operating indigenous uranium mines. Couple that with the fact that IAEA inspectors returned to places where they'd found processing facilities to find only fresh gardens and open fields this time around and you have a genie that's loose from its bottle. An airstrike (or two, or ten) isn't going to cripple the program. Europe had better face up to this vital question d@mn soon. The French government is on record as saying that, "... the world had better just get used to nuclear proliferation because it can't be stopped." That's about all we need to know about international opinion IMHO. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-06-13 3:15:53 PM |
| #3 Such institutional dilemmas should not be allowed to drive the international agenda. Iranâs intentions are crystal clear. The time has come for a simple question: Does Europe want Iran to go nuclear? Europe had better face up to this vital question d@mn soon. The clock is ticking down with disturbing rapidity. The longer Europe and the US wait to act, the more the options will become limited to living with Iran as a terrorist base with a nuclear umbrella, or taking military action. This must not be allowed to pass. North Korea is the poster child for what will become of the Middle East should this occur. Sanctions are now not even a BandAid solution, they are a day late and a dollar short. Iran must begin immediate dismantling of their nuclear program or face prompt military retaliation. No other sane options exist. As I have asked before; What single benefit comes (save for the mullas) of Iran successfully fabricating nuclear weapons? More than anything, it is incumbent upon Europe (for a change) to take action of their own accord. Along with Israel, they are the among first to be centered in Iran's nuclear crosshairs and must act accordingly. Should they refuse to do so and thereby place global security at risk, Europe will have finally and forever demonstrated their definitive incompetence to all and sundry. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-13 2:53:42 PM |
| #2 Ok, what's the general thoughts on what's going on in the minds of planners with respect to the Mullahs? Are we on for another Osirak-type strike from Israel? I'm assuming that there's no way the US is going to get involved explicitly (but that all possible help will be provided - advanced bunker-busters, intel etc.) as it's an election-year and it's more important to get Bush re-elected, as there *should* be time to take out the Mullahs even if they declare they've got nukes. I suppose the question is this, if Bush knows that the Mullahs are about to get nukes before the election, will he order a US-strike (which surely has more chance of success than in Israeli lead strike) and possibly put his election chances at risk (the LLL all baying for 'incontrovertible evidence' of the nukes etc) or will he try and ride it out for November? Thoughts? |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-06-13 2:26:02 PM |
| #1 Decisive action will have to be done. If the IAEA is worried that a negative report would result in them becoming irrelavant by Iran's withdrawl shows that the IAEA seems to have forgotten its main mission. For once, the IAEA has shown that Iran has been caught in lie after lie and they are Nuke bound. The IAEA has done its work, and now the situation enters its next phase. The slapping on of sanctions will serve to deligitimize the Mad Mullahs and will begin the first step in the process of taking them down. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-13 2:16:52 PM |