| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Why the world’s eyes should be on Iran’s nuclear programme |
| 2004-06-14 |
| With Saddam Hussein gone, one could be forgiven for thinking that the world was finally done with the business of WMD and accusations of secret nuclear arsenals. But look at what is happening next door to Iraq, and the wranglings over Iran’s nuclear programme are all too reminiscent of the 12 years of crisis that culminated with the war to topple Saddam. Some of the personalities at the forefront of last year’s Iraq saga - notably Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) - have returned to centre-stage in the Iran nuclear affair. Mr ElBaradei’s categorical assessment that Iraq’s nuclear programme was dead and buried, and that intelligence on its revival was either faulty or fabricated, fell on deaf ears in Washington and London last year. In the case of Iran, however, Mr ElBaradei offers no such reassurance. The world should take note. Reading the IAEA’s reports on Iran in the past year, there are good reasons to fear that the mullahs, behind the guise of a civil nuclear power programme, are secretly trying to build an atomic bomb or at least develop a "just in time" capability to build one at short notice. A nuclear Iran would precipitate a Middle East arms race that could prompt Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to secure their own nukes. Israel is unlikely to sit idly by while Iran arms itself with atomic weapons and long-range missiles. As the IAEA’s governors meet in Vienna this week to decide how to deal with Iran’s latest evasions, Mr ElBaradei has told the Telegraph that Teheran keeps "changing its story". Despite good progress, the IAEA chief said inspections "cannot go on forever". Sound familiar? By President George W Bush’s own doctrine of the "axis of evil" - which asserts that the greatest danger to the world is posed by states developing WMD and supporting international terrorists - the first candidate for American "pre-emptive action" should have been Iran, not Iraq. There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear facilities are much more advanced than Iraq’s were last year. According to the IAEA, Iran lied systematically for 18 years. It secretly mastered the most sensitive techniques of enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium - either of which provides a route to nuclear weapons. It has bought equipment from the same "nuclear supermarket", operated by the Pakistani scientist AQ Khan, that provided uranium enrichment centrifuges for the Libyan and North Korean atomic weapons programmes. There is also a much stronger terrorist connection to Iran than to Iraq. Iran sponsors Palestinian extremist groups, as well as Lebanon’s Hizbollah movement. Western intelligence agencies believe that at least some parts of the regime are harbouring some of Osama bin Laden’s senior lieutenants, although Iran says al-Qa’eda figures that slipped into the country are all "under arrest". Had America and Britain had even half of this evidence to pin on Saddam Hussein, they would have had no problem securing that elusive second United Nations resolution authorising war. So will America go to war with Iran? Washington has not ruled out using force, and the idea of effecting "regime change" in Iran is attractive to many in Washington. But the reality is that for the coming six to 12 months, President Bush has his hands full with fighting the insurgency in Iraq and overseeing the country’s political transition. He does not want to stand for election in November as a warmonger. Having failed to find WMD in Iraq, Mr Bush will find it harder to argue for military action to stop Iran’s nuclear programme. For the moment, the Iranian question is being handled by diplomacy at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna. In contrast with the bitter rows over Iraq, the "Big Three" of the European Union - Britain, France and Germany - have joined forces to exert pressure on Iran. Acting as the "good cop" to America’s "bad cop", they have achieved some important successes - such as convincing Iran to agree to more intrusive inspections, suspend "temporarily" uranium enrichment and reveal at least some of its nuclear secrets. But it is not enough. America has long demanded that Iran be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. The Europeans would rather use the threat of referral to prod Iran along the road of co-operation. They believe that by maintaining international "consensus", the mullahs can be boxed in ever tighter - to the point where either they decide that pursuing a nuclear weapons option is too costly or the Iranians commit a breach so egregious that it will be easier to rally support for punitive action. "Iran is a medium-term problem," said a senior British official. But this game of "strategic patience" rests on a key assumption: that Iran is still some years away from having an atomic bomb and that the nuclear programme is effectively frozen by the current inspections. What if Iran has a secret enrichment programme that the IAEA has yet to detect? America, or Israel, could try to bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure - assuming they know the location of any secret facilities. Military action would be extremely risky. It could destabilise an already precarious situation in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. It could deepen the war on terrorism, or suck America into an all-out war with Iran. It need not come to military action. The Europeans can do more to back up their tough words with credible threats of action. They should draw up a menu of EU sanctions that could be phased in if Iran does not comply with the IAEA by, say, September. Iran also needs incentives if it is to give up the option of a deterrent against its many potential foes. If Teheran gives up its nuclear weapons aspirations permanently and submits to rigid international controls, it should be assured of technical assistance for developing nuclear power to generate electricity. Teheran could also be given a guarantee that it will not be attacked by the US. America is ready to give such a security assurance to North Korea, and is negotiating with Pyongyang despite its open repudiation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is good reason for America to begin talking to Iran. It is now the most important regional power in the Gulf. By deploying troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has become Iran’s close neighbour - and hostile neighbours can make life hell. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #30 Jennifer, as someone who took a whole lot of bashing here until people realized that I was serious as a heart attack, permit me to recommend that you do some searches at this site regarding the UN and WMDs. Great places to start are the Oil-for-Food scandal, Rwanda, Saddam's Scud Engines in Jordan, Saddam's WMD transported through Syria to Lebanon's Bekka valley and Fred and those who help run this board have a profound respect for free speech, I'd like to think I'm living proof of that. Such restraint upon their part does not inhibit other members of this site from being a little less ... (ahem) ... polite regarding flagrant lack of erudition. Let's move on: #5 Do we have a dot connecting problem developing? The demagogues were whining about the failure to connect the obscure dots before 9/11. Those dots were little and they were hidden amongst a bunch of other dots that didn't connect. With hindsight we learned the connected dots showed the image of falling buildings and a flaming Pentagon. Aren't these dots about the nuclear program of the world's first islamofascist state real big, and not so obscure? When connected, do they image a mushroom cloud? Jake, you really nailed it with your post. The 9-11 atrocity should have, for once and all, connected the dots regarding Islamist aggression for anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-14 8:06:47 PM |
| #29 Anybody think the IDF will put some ordnance on the reactors of the black-hat, mad-mullahs of Iran? |
| Posted by: anymouse 2004-06-14 7:48:47 PM |
| #28 What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation? I'd name the countries the UN screwed over for the past 60 years, but the list would get so long Fred would start charging me for bandwidth |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-06-14 7:26:39 PM |
| #27 Jennifer has the same intellectual skepticism as Gentle....hey! Now that I think about it.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-14 6:53:35 PM |
| #26 Yeah, AP, you win a date with Jennifer. The airhead, not Sarge's dog. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-14 6:51:32 PM |
| #25 ...besides mucky. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-14 6:49:58 PM |
| #24 I'm beginning to think Jennifer = Shipman. Not intellectually of course, but who else can be this funny??? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-14 6:49:13 PM |
| #23 I have a Golden Retriever named Jennifer. I am glad she's smarter than this one. |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2004-06-14 6:42:54 PM |
| #22 Jennifer - assuming you are an individual posting personally and not some asshat agent of disingenuous twaddle - you are either willfully ignorant or a silly troll. You choose. There is a wealth of information which you obviously choose to ignore each time you post your idiot memes, such as "Bush lied" - and I have no obligation to waste my time with you. Either get up to speed (on your own, I've already raised a child) or run along and play elsewhere. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-14 6:42:18 PM |
| #21 DU means Democratic Underground. Do I win a prize? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-14 6:41:35 PM |
| #20 The Mad Mullahs will give nukes to proxies. Let someone else take the heat, so to speak. Mad Mullahs Mad Mullahs Whatcha gonna do whatcha gonna do whatcha gonna do when al Q nukes YOU?! Mad Mullahs |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-14 6:34:22 PM |
| #19 DU regurgitator? I don't know what that means, but I think it is probably mean. |
| Posted by: Jennifer 2004-06-14 6:18:44 PM |
| #18 And here we reach the end for this is a DU regurgitator who knows nothing, acknowledges nothing, and understands even less. Pfeh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-14 6:16:32 PM |
| #17 What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation? Close to 60 years of history. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-14 6:13:09 PM |
| #16 Jennifer: What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation? Rwanda ring a bell? The UN has already admitted that Iraq did in fact have banned missles and WMD and were shipping them out of the country before, during and after the war. Terrorists? Heard of Salman Pak? |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-06-14 6:12:52 PM |
| #15 Oops - People thought they were not doing their job inspecting in Iraq, when they really were . . . |
| Posted by: Jennifer 2004-06-14 6:04:23 PM |
| #14 What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation? They have inspectors with international credibility. They carry the moral authority of the world community. They have already helped out in Iraq with the sovergnty thing. People thought they were doing their job inspecting in Iraq, when they really were but there weren't any WMDs. Then Bush lied and said there were, and we invade and now there's terrorists there. Do you want the same thing to happen in Iran?? |
| Posted by: Jennifer 2004-06-14 6:02:43 PM |
| #13 The only thing the UN has "handled" with any dexterity needs to be washed - thoroughly - and put away. By somebody else - like Jennifer. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-14 4:54:05 PM |
| #12 A little history by Jenn would be great! Yeah, baby, Yeah! Nobody here wants to invade Iran Jenn, honey. Especially if they start putting nukes on the pointy end of RPGs. They might shoot one at somebody. And I doubt they would let that sort of thing get into the wrong hands. No way! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-06-14 4:35:45 PM |
| #11 We should let the UN handle this, Like the 'wonderful job' they did in Rwanda? A six-month old baby has more teeth than any given UN action. |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-06-14 4:32:08 PM |
| #10 I'ma swear there one born every day. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-14 4:29:30 PM |
| #9 Jennifer: (clang!) Wrong answer....try again. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-06-14 4:19:31 PM |
| #8 Suuuuuuuure they will, Jennifer. Kumbaya, baby. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-14 4:17:51 PM |
| #7 Jennifer, that is one of the most opaque posts I've ever seen. Are you trying to be sarcastic? At least this part is definitely sarcasm, right?: "We should let the UN handle this, then the diplomatic efforts of the whole world will persuade the Iranians from developing nucular weapons." |
| Posted by: docob 2004-06-14 4:12:52 PM |
| #6 Well, I guess we will just have to invade Iran now. Then we know there will be terrorists there, just like there are now in Iraq. We should let the UN handle this, then the diplomatic efforts of the whole world will persuade the Iranians from developing nucular weapons. History repeats itself you know. |
| Posted by: Jennifer 2004-06-14 4:02:00 PM |
| #5 Do we have a dot connecting problem developing? The demagogues were whining about the failure to connect the obscure dots before 9/11. Those dots were little and they were hidden amongst a bunch of other dots that didn't connect. With hindsight we learned the connected dots showed the image of falling buildings and a flaming Pentagon. Aren't these dots about the nuclear program of the world's first islamofascist state real big, and not so obscure? When connected, do they image a mushroom cloud? |
| Posted by: Jake 2004-06-14 3:57:57 PM |
| #4 It need not come to military action. The Europeans can do more to back up their tough words with credible threats of action. They should draw up a menu of EU sanctions that could be phased in if Iran does not comply with the IAEA by, say, September. This is idiotic. Iran's mullahs are specifically engaging in a military action to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. To belive that sanctions and other toothless measures (as shown in Iraq) will work against those who do not blanch at the deepest deceits and lies is pure Pollyanna diplomacy. The E3 had better put some retaliation plans on the table d@mn fast. Tehran's leadership is rapidly acquiring an unhealthy glow in its cheeks, the glow of Cherenkov radiation. If the mullahs are unwilling to end their pursuit of such ill-considered goals they must be treated to the smoldering glow of burning laboratories and reprocessing facilities. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-14 1:18:46 PM |
| #3 "With Saddam Hussein gone, one could be forgiven for thinking that the world was finally done with the business of WMD and accusations of secret nuclear arsenals" never heard of North Korea? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-14 10:51:48 AM |
| #2 Who is your editor McGoo? Why all the wiggle words? Allow me to fix another gem: |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2004-06-14 10:49:27 AM |
| #1 Iran does not need nuclear-based electricity. It has plenty of oil and gas for generating electricity. No matter what the Iranian diplomats are saying in New York, the less-diplomatic leaders in Teheran are sending pretty clear signals that they are deceitful and non-cooperative. After November, either Dubya or Israel is going to have to level some Iranian nuclear facilities. Kerry won't have the guts to do it in time. New Yorkers had better shift their politics toward the right before Iran sneaks a nuke up the Hudson River. Next time we won't even be able to do a casualty count. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-06-14 8:08:07 AM |