| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
| 2006-01-16 |
| WESTERN governments face defeat in their attempts to stop Iran from pursuing its drive to become a nuclear power. Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face the painful fact that there is nothing they can do, despite deep suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of researching nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Yesterday a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would not be deflected from its right to develop nuclear technology by referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. "If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they will not succeed," he said, adding that Tehran did not need nuclear weapons because they are only used by nations who "want to solve everything through the use of force". Publicly, the US and Britain, the two countries that have adopted the most hawkish stance, are pressing for international action to stop Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week that it was time for the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme, while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that sanctions were now "on the table". But behind the scenes there is no stomach for a fight. The US is the only country that could take military action. But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure. "Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday. With military action off the agenda, several senior European officials expressed the view last week that there is widespread pessimism that diplomatic attempts to persuade Tehran to dismantle its nuclear programme stand any chance of success. Sanctions, too, are being dismissed by government officials. "Sanctions hardly ever work anyway and can harm the people rather than the government," a source close to the Foreign Office said. "Anything else we do is highly unlikely to divert Tehran away from developing nuclear technology." The crisis over Iran came to a head last week when Iranian nuclear officials broke 52 seals that had ensured for 14 months that three uranium enrichment research facilities could not be used while Tehran negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Authority under an agreement brokered with the EU. It was a bitter failure by the EU, which had taken the lead over the Americans and put its faith in a policy of "constructive engagement". Led by Britain, France and Germany, the Europeans had offered Iran economic and political inducements if it would abandon its nuclear efforts. But the policy of trying to steer Iran towards a more moderate course backfired in June when Iranians elected as president the hardline Ahmadinejad. Since then he has outraged international opinion by describing the Holocaust as a myth, calling for the state of Israel to be "wiped off the map", and declaring that Iran would not back down "one iota" from the nuclear path. The UN is unlikely to fare any better than the EU. The organisation has no armed forces and its structure lends itself to interminable delays. Though Britain will host a meeting of senior officials from Russia, China, the US, France and Germany tomorrow to try to build a consensus, a board meeting of the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, will not take place until early next month, even though it is billed as an "emergency" meeting. EU officials say in public they hope the IAEA will report Iran to the Security Council to impose sanctions. OPTIONS FOR ACTION LAND INVASION With UN approval out of the question, the US would probably have to go it alone, with even loyal ally Britain a non-starter. US forces are already overstretched in Iraq, and with Congressional mid-term elections approaching, there is no stomach in Washington for another foreign military adventure. AIR STRIKES More feasible than a land invasion, but the preferred option of only a small group of neo-conservatives in the US administration. The model would be Israel's successful air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981. But the political fall-out in the Arab world would be immense. SANCTIONS The official preferred option of the US and the European Union. But likely to be stalled in the Security Council by Russia and China. Could be counter-productive since Iran would react by cutting off oil supplies to the West. Another option is limited sanctions against Iran's leaders, such as travel restrictions and the freezing of bank accounts. SPORT Iran could be banned from international sports events. Conservative MP Michael Ancram has called for the Iranian team to be expelled from this year's World Cup. Any such ban would create outrage among the football-crazy Iranians. FIFA, soccer's governing body, said last month that it would not expel Iran. COMPROMISE Still on the cards despite the bellicose noises coming from Tehran. The Iranians have a reputation for saying no when they mean maybe. A possible deal could involve Russia making nuclear fuel which could be used only for peaceful purposes on its own territory as part of a joint venture with Iran. Would need a face-saving formula to satisfy Iran's national pride. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #16 OTOH the recent plane crash wiped out some of his important supporters Are you sure they were his supporters? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-16 22:15 |
| #15 The model you should use to understand Iran, is the Soviet Union, for several reasons, not least they have deliberately patterned their 'revolution' and state institutions on the Russian Soviet system. In general Iranians believe in their revolution, as much as Russians believed in world revolution and the victory of the proletariat, i.e. not much. That's not to say there aren't true believers and Ahmadinejad may be one of them. But he is not a Stalin in absolute control, he is more like a khruschov(sp?), someone at the top but with power shared amoungst various centers. Even if Ahmadinejad want's to bring armageddon down on Iran, by nuking Israel, I doubt he could at this stage. Perhaps he will amass power the way Stalin did in the 1920's, he is certainly trying. OTOH the recent plane crash wiped out some of his important supporters in the RG and was IMO unlikely to have been an accident. And BTW, this is the reason Iraq is so important. It's the only possible regional counterweight to Iran in the Gulf. I worry more about Iran getting a chokehold on the gulf than I do about them nuking Israel, becuase I don't think they will try and if they do try chances are Israel's anti-missile systems will stop them. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-16 16:54 |
| #14 Phil_B, I'd agree with you if Ahmadinejad hadn't already proclaimed his intent to wipe Israel off the map and begin Armageddon. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-16 15:36 |
| #13 If we step away, Russia is in deep trouble. But they don't think that we will step away. That is a valid point. But giving a gun to your enemy in the hopes that a policeman will prevent him from shooting you is simply not wise. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-16 15:32 |
| #12 A nuclear armed Iran is not a direct threat to the west. They are not going to launch missiles against London, Paris or NY. The threat is a regional one. They want to be the regional hegemon. They want to control the Gulf and consequently the world's oil supply. They have similar aims along their northern border in the Caspian basin. A nuclear armed Iran would be largely immune to military retaliations and would continue to increase it's influnce over Gulf states. Possibly by invasion as it has already with several Gulf islands but more likely by engineering Shiia takeovers of places like Qatar and their resources. I suggest the endgame for Tehran is to gain control of the oil and gas under the gulf and southern Caspian, much of which is undeveloped due to boundary disputes. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-16 15:29 |
| #11 With military action off the agenda, ... Off of whose agenda? It was a bitter failure by the EU, which had taken the lead over the Americans and put its faith in a policy of "constructive engagement". Bitter? I'm convinced that the failure was a feature, not a bug. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-01-16 15:19 |
| #10 2b: One country with the most to fear from a nuclear armed Iran is Russia. Yet Russia seem oblivous to this and assist Iran in their efforts. Actually, they're assisting Iran because they figure this will help weaken Uncle Sam. They think of Iran as a buffer state against American ambitions in the region. Note that Iran does not border Russia, now that the Soviet Union has dissolved. In fact, the best possible outcome for Russia would be for the US to fight a war with Iran, weakening both in the process. As far as the Russians are concerned, an American war with China would be better, but Iran will do. 2b: You'd think the Russians would have learned from their cooperation with Hitler, but apparently they have not. The Soviets did not *cooperate* with Hitler - they actively backed him, and helped him to circumvent limitations (imposed by the terms of the Armistice) on Germany's post-WWI rearmament. Their hope was the same as it is now - to weaken two of their potential adversaries by having them fight each other. In WWII, the Soviets only half-succeeded, since the Germans rolled up Western Europe a little too quickly, and then turned their attention to Eastern Europe. But they really have little to worry about - as long as Uncle Sam stays involved in the region, Iran's power will be limited by none other than - Uncle Sam. If we step away, Russia is in deep trouble. But they don't think that we will step away - they figure that even if we don't attack Iran, we will restrain them from going after the Gulf states, and getting a monopoly on Middle Eastern oil. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-01-16 15:08 |
| #9 Ernest, sadly, I think you are dead right. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-16 13:59 |
| #8 2b, Never underestimate the power of greed, stupidity and hatred of the U.S. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2006-01-16 13:49 |
| #7 I expect Iran to be an issue in the fall elections and the result to indicate that the US has a bit more stomach than expectedas Bush increases the GOP seats in both houses for the fourth election. The American people will recognize that the importance of Iran having nuclear weapons is due to the belligerence of the regime. Were Iran a less aggressive country, we might learn to live with their holding nukes as in Pakistan. However, they are sure to use the threat of use of their nukes to influence policy in every country in the Gulf in their favor and toward the extension of violent jihad throughout the world. To fail to act now will only make the ultimate reckoning more expensive, in blood as well as treasure. This will be the national subtext of the election. The people will decide as they did in 2002. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-16 13:23 |
| #6 I have a question. One country with the most to fear from a nuclear armed Iran is Russia. Yet Russia seem oblivous to this and assist Iran in their efforts. You'd think the Russians would have learned from their cooperation with Hitler, but apparently they have not. A nuclear armed Iran, with mad mullahs at the helm will turn the Russian terrorist problem into a nightmare overnight and will ultimately result in a very bloody war. My question is.. how is it that the Russians do not seem to grasp that they have far more to fear than the west? A kindergartner could predict that once armed with nukes that the mad mullahs will turn them toward Moscow. So why do they assist them? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-16 13:23 |
| #5 Heh - the only thing they left out of that piece was the brutal Afghan winter. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-16 13:14 |
| #4 Bottom line is that the Scotsman is not in the news business - it is in the business of printing religious tracts. The fundamentalist Scotsman position is that America is headed for collapse, and every news item out there is an indicator of imminent disaster. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-01-16 13:12 |
| #3 You have to remember - this is the *Scotsman*, one of those quagmire-predicting British fishpaper suppliers - and they're *all* fishpaper suppliers - that routinely predict American collapse in every sphere (military, social, economic). Let's take a look at the following Scotsman "news" article from May 2003: THE war may be over but the battle is far from won. Declaring an end to major combat activity in Afghanistan, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has promised a new era of "stabilisation". But while the message he delivered in Kabul last week may have gladdened the war-weary American public, it has been met with disbelief by the US military. Although Operation Enduring Freedom - launched 18 months ago in the wake of the devastating September 11 attacks in the US - has come to a close, the American death toll from the conflict shows no sign of abating. Despite the toppling of the Taliban, killings, explosions, shootings and targeted attacks on US forces are a daily occurrence. The number of American service personnel who have died in Afghanistan since operation Enduring Freedom began in October 2001 is now 30. But not a single soldier was killed as the result of hostile action in the first three months of the main offensive. Recently the frequency of casualties has risen ominously, and in April alone four soldiers were killed. In private, US special forces officers are now saying that Afghanistan is in danger of developing into another Vietnam. They see ominous parallels between the heavy-handed attempts at "pacification" which are alienating Afghan villagers and similar ham-fisted actions that turned the Vietnamese against the Americans. And the situation is made even worse by fatal errors, such as an air strike near Shkin in eastern Afghanistan that was meant for a group of rebels but which hit a house, killing 11 members of a family as they slept. In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the Americans have decided to confront an ideology which is perceived to be a global threat, only to find their vastly superior forces shadow-boxing guerrillas who can take full advantage of local knowledge. Instead of neighbouring China, which gave help to the Vietnamese, there is Pakistan, whose government is either unable or unwilling to prevent its wild border territory from providing safe havens for al-Qaeda. Washington is talking about pulling out its troops next year. But the situation will have to improve dramatically if it is not to find itself mired as it was in Vietnam for 10 years, according to analysts. Andrew Kennedy, head of the Asia Programme at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, says: "The US is in an awkward situation. If it pulled out now it would raise a storm of criticism. Yet its most recent military operation didn’t really achieve anything or capture anybody significant. "If they were to capture Mullah Omar, whom I am convinced is still in Afghanistan, Washington could perhaps declare some kind of closure. But Mullah Omar is still at large." Kennedy sees the US as trying to avoid the "bunkered-down mentality" that overcame the Russians in Afghanistan as they were increasingly tormented by the Mujahedin. But in the mainly Pashtun south there is mounting evidence that the ousted Taliban, allies of Osama bin Laden are making a comeback. One Afghan army commander said: "Six months ago the attacks were sporadic but today there is a new organisation to this Taliban." And while the Taliban hone their guerrilla tactics, the Americans seem to be getting nowhere. Six weeks ago around 1,000 US Special Forces took part in the largest terrorist-seeking operation for a year, called Operation Valiant Strike. "We’re trying to get the leadership," an American official said, referring to the elusive trio, Osama bin Laden, the one-eyed Mullah Omar, and wanted warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. "Somebody’s going to tell us where they are." But the Americans missed all three, and so far no one has come forward with vital information despite the lavish rewards on offer. The most recent fatal attack on the Americans, nine days ago near Shkin, was particularly brazen. About 20 rebels opened fire on a platoon of American and Afghan soldiers in broad daylight, killing one American soldier and wounding at least six others before retreating across the border to Pakistan. A second American soldier later died of wounds. Along with the human cost, the financial cost is mounting too. At the end of February Pentagon officials said that Afghanistan cost $750m a month out of $1.6bn a month the US now spends in its global fight against terrorism. The US has 8,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of an 11,000-strong coalition force from 23 countries. Equally worryingly, the rebels have adopted a deliberate policy of targeting civilian aid workers for the first time. On March 27 Ricardo Munguia of the Red Cross became the first aid worker to be killed in Afghanistan for five years. He was "executed" after being stopped near Kandahar by gunmen, who made a call by satellite phone to a "commander" who ordered him to be killed. The next day a leading Taliban commander, Mullah Dadullah Akhund, claimed responsibility for the killing, and said he was acting on the orders of Mullah Omah to destabilise the government. Since the murder of Munguia, more than 10 international aid agencies have pulled out of Kandahar. Several other areas of Afghanistan are also closed to international aid workers because of insecurity. In an attempt to win the ‘hearts and minds’ war, the US is starting to deploy some of its troops in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in key urban areas to assist in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. But the teams are dependent on local warlords to provide security and may do little to enhance the Kabul government’s authority. Ahmed Wali Karzai, the Afghan president’s brother, commented recently: "There have been no significant changes for people. People are tired of seeing small, small projects. I don’t know what to say to people anymore." The US insists it is winning and intends to stay. The question, however, is how long it is willing to see the death toll mount from a guerrilla war many experts believe it is incapable of winning. The tactic is to distort cautious remarks by American officials and combine them with hostile views by anti-American polemicists. I recommend you save your limited time and read stuff like this no more than once a month, just to remind yourself about how ideology- rather than fact-driven these people are. They *are* stupid and ignorant, but the reason they advance these fatuous arguments is not because they're stupid and ignorant, but because they don't have much other material to work with. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-01-16 13:09 |
| #2 The "conclusion" is given, that we can't do anything - oh woe is us, then it wanks awhile, then it lays out some options - poo-pooing each in turn. This piece is a phreakin' disaster, not to mention a Mullah wank-fest. Bite me, Scotsman. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-16 12:20 |
| #1 Does anyone else believe that Iran poses LESS of a threat to US national security than is being touted by the media and general commentary? While I anticipate that the MSM and international bodies will attribute our lack of military response to the fact that we "do not have the stomach" to confront Iran, couldn't this simply be a case in which we perceive our interests as suffering less than other affected bodies? Presumably, Iran knows it faces nuclear annihilation if it were to attack our interests in Iraq (or anywhere, for that matter) with a nuclear first strike. Clearly, Iran is already interfering in Iraq to the extent that it can, through covert conventional means. So how, exactly, does a nuclear Iran represent an increased threat to US interests? Yes, of course it is a terrible precedent to allow nations to pursue nuclear weapons, but that precedent has already been set by Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc. I'm just positing alternative theories here. I'm not arguing that a nuclear Iran is a GOOD thing, but it does appear to me that the US has delegated the handling of this issue to those who will be most directly affected (e.g. Eurabia). My question is whether that decision may have merit, and whether ultimately Europe (plus Turkey) will be forced into acting, despite their protestations to the contrary. |
| Posted by: mjh 2006-01-16 12:18 |