November 17, 2007 12:33
What the IAEA Now Says About Iran's Nukes
The Bush Administration quickly seized on the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program as further evidence that Tehran is not cooperating and must therefore be targeted for a third round of U.N. sanctions. The White House says that Iran is "stringing along the IAEA during this process."
Though citing disclosures that Iran still needs to make, the report describes a good deal of Iranian cooperation under an IAEA agreement to clear up questions about the clandestine origins of Iran's present nuclear program. The IAEA isn't satisfied that it knows everything to confirm that Iran has no secret plan to develop a nuclear weapon. It bluntly warns Iran that until it provides greater transparency by allowing more intrusive inspections under the IAEA's Additional Protocol, a political cloud will continue to hang over its nuclear efforts.
But the report stops well short of accusing Iran of stonewalling. The Israeli government lashed out at the report, saying that it "fails to expose (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad's intentions that are well known" to IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei. Iran hailed the report, insisting it proved that Iran has been truthful in its claim to be developing a program for energy rather that bombs. Ahmadinejad called on the West to "bravely apologize to the Iranian nation."
The nine-page report, which will be discussed by the IAEA board next week in Vienna, presents a detailed history of Iran's development of highly advanced technology for producing the fuel from enriched uranium needed for nuclear power reactors or atomic weapons. Citing information provided by Iranian officials and at times supported by IAEA inspections or independent sources, the report chronicles Iran's illicit efforts to obtain so-called P-1 and P-2 centrifuge technology on the international black market, starting with "a hand-written one-page document reflecting an offer for certain components and equipment said to have been made to Iran in 1987 by a foreign intermediary."
In nine instances, the report describes information and statements provided by Iran as being "consistent" with IAEA findings. It says that "the agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programs are consistent with its findings." In the report summary, the IAEA says it had been able to verify that Iran had not diverted known nuclear material for other purposes, that Iran had provided the agency with required accountancy reports pertaining to declared nuclear material and activities and that Iran had provided "sufficient access" to nuclear officials and responded in a "timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications."
The report says, however, that the IAEA is continuing to verify Iran's declarations; to clarify still-unexplained uranium particle contamination at an Iranian technical university, to seek information about Iranian activities concerning polonium-210, which can be used to trigger a nuclear device, its Gchine uranium mine, and development of an enhanced P-2 centrifuge; and to explore other activities that could have military applications. The IAEA says that Iran should deal with such issues in the next few weeks. The report complains that Iran's current cooperation has been "reactive rather than pro-active."
The report cites a memo dated Feb. 28, 1987 that Iran provided as acknowledgment of the existence of its secret program, written by the then head of Iran's atomic energy organization to the then prime minister. The IAEA suggests that the memo recommended the purchase of the centrifuge technology and the prime minister approved the recommendation with an endorsement signature. Iranian officials told the IAEA that only the atomic energy organization, and no military institution, was involved in the birth of Iran's centrifuge program. The report says, however, that it had been unable to determine the originator of the 1987 memo.
The report says that the IAEA has not been able to confirm Iran's contention that "the supply network"--an apparent reference to Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's black market nuke operation--rather than Iranian officials had initiated a sale of new technology in 1993. But it says information about deliveries and technical assistance provided by Iran was verified by some of the network's operatives.
The agency concludes that based on interviews with officials from Libya, which utilized Khan's black market network as well, the 1993 offer involved P-1 technology that had originally been ordered by Libya but was diverted to Iran between 1994-96. The report says that Iran had provided names, locations and activities of the workshops involved in the domestic production of centrifuge components, most of which it says are owned by military organizations.
The report goes on to describe a covert meeting in 1996 in Dubai, where Khan maintained a front organization, in which Iranian officials were presented with a full set of P-2 centrifuge designs as compensation for the poor quality of P-1 centrifuge components purchased earlier. Iran told the IAEA that it initiated no work on the more advanced P-2 program until 2002, shortly before Iran's secret efforts were exposed by Iranian dissidents.
The report says the agency does not have credible procurement-related information that reveals the actual acquisition of P-2 centrifuges or components through the period. But after extensive inquiries, it expresses satisfaction with Iran's rundown of its declared P-2 program. Said the report: "Based on visits made by Agency inspectors to the P-2 workshop in 2004, examination of the company owner’s contract, progress reports and logbooks, and information available on procurement enquiries, the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements on the content of the declared P-2 R&D activities are consistent with the Agency’s findings."
Regarding Iran's current activities, the report says the IAEA had verified that Iran crossed the threshold of putting 3,000 centrifuges into operation--in line with Ahmadinejad recent pronouncement that Iran had achieved the capacity for industrial-scale fuel production. Agency tests, however, indicates that the centrifuges are operating below capacity and below the level of Iran's public claims.
Noting that Iran remains in defiance of U.N. resolutions demanding that it suspend its enrichment program due to mistrust over Iran's intentions, the report urges Iran to reinstate its compliance with the IAEA's still-voluntary Additional Protocol. Because Tehran suspended compliance two years ago, the report says, "the agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing [and] as a result, the agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing."
That situation, the report suggests, undermines Iran's efforts to prove its good intentions. "Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program requires that the agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," the report concludes.
Saying the IAEA "has no concrete information...about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," the report says that "the agency is not in position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran without full implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is especially important to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program."
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
| Sphere Related Blogs & Articles | | |
 |
Reader Comments
Posted by Cyrus
November 17, 2007
The IAEA does not certify the "absence of undeclared nuclear activities" or ANY state unless they have ratified the Additional Protocol.
According to the IAEA, that puts Iran in the same category as 40 other states.
Iran did, however, voluntarily implement the Additional Protocol and allow the more instrusive inspections for 2 years during the course of the Paris Agreement, and no nuclear weapons program was found then either.
Iran has offered to ratify the Additional Protocol, once its nuclear right to enrichment is recognized.
In contrast, our ally Egypt absolutely refuses to sign the Additional Protocol despite having been caught conducting undeclared nuclear experiments.
Posted by Cyrus
November 17, 2007
By the way, do you really think stereotyped images displayed on the header of this page consisting of camels and sand dunes, combined with words like "hot" and "holy" are appropriate when discussing the Middle East?
What next? Genies and flying rugs?
Talk about orientalism!
Why not blow everyone's mind and put an image of an Iranian ski slope here. Yes, people ACTUALLY ski. In IRAN!
Posted by Joe
November 17, 2007
IAEA can not ever fully certify a safe intent of any particular nuclear project as much as NASA can not guarantee safe operation of space shuttle flights, but after reasonable precaution they have to let it go in order to achieve some sort of relative success and control.
Iran dissatisfaction with western powers demands are, lack of clear time table for negotiations which can last for years if not for eternity and suspension of legal activity of Iran nuclear project before commencement of such open ended negotiation, and all of these negotiation are suppose to happen in middle of 30 years cold/hot conflict with US and encirclement of Iran by US military and stated intent of attack on her, in my opinion, no one can blame Iran for noticing security condition of those nation who have A bomb and those who don't and being targeted by a superpower, but I'm hoping smarter people are in charge of their nuclear program rather than me, Bummer!
Posted by Roshambo
November 17, 2007
I agree with Cyrus, only the Gulf Arab countries in the middle east have deserts, the rest have mountains or forests in their inhabited areas (Iran and Turkey have both). I mean, the percentage of the middle east that is desert is roughly the same as that of the US that is, but no one (outside of westerns) uses the desert as representative of the US.
Posted by A Beneli
November 17, 2007
I'm so glad we resolved the desert image! Now can we try understand why it's ok to think that Iran is in the same boat as 40 other nations on signing the Additional Protocol when none of the others are demanding that Israel is wiped "off the map"??
Very happy to hear that you can ski in Iran but don't think that that will allay any one's fears in Israel or the other Arab countries!
So let's stop the image campaign & deal with the deadly cocktail of Iran's intentions & the new nuclear toy they wish to build ASAP!
Posted by mehran
November 17, 2007
Do you really think Iran's intentions are to Nuke Israel or USA?
Posted by oracle2world
November 17, 2007
Can we cut to the chase? Once Iran makes 100 pounds of highly enriched U-235 (HEU), they are a nuclear power. They don't have to design any sophisticated implosion type weapon, or even test one. A Hiroshima "little boy" gun-type weapon design is easy ... just fire a bullet of HEU into rings of HEU at the other end of the gun. No krytron electronic switches, polonium initiator, etc. needed.
Iran has pursued this technical approach since the get go, and freely announced the amounts of uranium converted to UF6, # of centrifuges, etc. so as to leave no doubt what they are up to.
If Iran was smart, they would invite the IEAE in to monitor conversion of fuel to the 3% needed for a light water reactor. And lull the world to sleep for the next ten years. Going from 0.7% to 3% enrichment is a lot of work. Going from 3% to 90% is a lot easier.
Iran's first bomb goes into the Port of Baltimore, the second into Tel Aviv.
Any questions?
Posted by Randy Barcomb
November 17, 2007
I think it would be a great idea if Iran had nukes, first of all they never said they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" that is a famous mistranslation that has been thoroughly debunked. Secondly, if they had nukes it would provide a nice balance in the middle east against Israel's hegemony and overly aggressive behavior.
Posted by Randy Barcomb
November 17, 2007
One other note: There is a widely accepted theory called "MAD", or mutually assured destruction, that our parents and grandparents paid billions of dollars to achieve for the US. Either they were conned, or this theory holds true, I side with the latter based on no nuclear wars happening over the last 50 years.
What is wrong with this same theory applying to the middle east? Why must only the biggest terrorists in the middle east have nukes (Israel)?
Think about it!
Posted by Shahram
November 17, 2007
I remember the days in 1990s that US had the same aggressive language with Iran about 'human rights', when the country was going to face very strict UN sanctions and then maybe more later. While that was not convincing enough for US to attack Iran, the Nuke one can be. Bush administration is looking for a 'reasonably reasonable reason' to attack the next target in the Middle East. So, this time the administration is not going to loss the opportunity. However, like previous cases, US underestimates side effects!
(Arab symbols, such as deserts and camel never presented Iran; I'm wondering whether Scott has ever even flight over Iran!)
Posted by larry
November 17, 2007
I think that this country should not trust Iran or any of the Eastern countries. We shoul be watching our backs Remember 9/11 and Pearl Harbor 1941 December.
Posted by Rob
November 17, 2007
it is quite amusing to see Israel, the only atomic power in the middle east, being so concerned about Iran MAYBE becoming one. if atomic bombs are good, then let both Iran and Israel hae it. if they are bad, then no one should have it. there maybe quite a few people on earth that could have the right to tell Iran to stop BUT Israel and US are NOT among them.
for me, it wouldn´t sound that bad, if there was actually a balance of power and a "MAD" situation in the mid-east. that way, maybe it´d be easier to get all the parts around a table for fair peace negotiations (as opposed to the current situation where one side is to dictate it´s requirements to the other based on the imbalance of military power)
Posted by CJ Harwood
November 17, 2007
"the report chronicles Iran's illicit efforts to obtain so-called P-1 and P-2 centrifuge technology on the international black market"
>
"Illicit"? No. Perfectly legal. And so too the market, it's not "black."
You've got some wrong ideas lodged in your mind, and I don't fault you for it, on account of GWBush&Co, their very intensive campaign of malicious lies, endlessly parroted by most media.
Centrifuges, and the technology of uranium enrichment, this is not illegal. It's a peaceful use of nuclear energy, and that's what the NPT treaty was designed to promote. And, it's not a "nuclear" activity and so it's not required to be reported to the IAEA (buying, selling, making centrifuges, building a plant, and such). The first report about it is required only 6 months before introduction of nuclear gas (hexafloride, not an inert gas, for testing). That being Iran's IAEA safeguard agreement in effect at the time it timely declared its Natanz facilities to the IAEA (Sept. 16 2002, first IAEA visit Feb. 21-22 2003).
The U.S. lies are designed to "prove" Iran is making a bomb, "They've got something to hide." Yes, they certainly have something to hide. But why? Who are they hiding from? And does it prove they want to make a bomb?
They are hiding from a violent, criminal, gang of thugs and hoodlums, who rob their goods by armed force at foreign docks, who blackmail their foreign suppliers with serious menaces, to prevent them pursuing their lawful business. A violent, criminal, conspiracy which many nations have joined, at the urging of the criminal kingpin, the United States of America.
This, both before and after Bill Clinton persuaded Russia to not proceed with the sale to Iran of a turnkey centrifuge enrichment plant Iran had ordered (Moscow, May 10 1995).
Mr. Khan had the perfect right to engage in this lawful business of facilitating the centrifuge deal, and so too every last one of the foreign suppliers. The U.S. counter effort is simply illegal, criminal, robbery and blackmail and, in addition, a violation of the U.S. NPT obligation to assist Iran with its peaceful nuclear activities.
And so Iran set-up a P1 centrifuge plant (because the U.S. will not permit them to buy fuel from anybody), apparently with aluminum rotors (the P1 design), from a design by a Netherlands company (Urenco), a power fuel maker (~5% enriched), not a bomb fuel maker (80-90% enriched). As far as I know, aluminum rotors cannot spin fast enough (supersonic) to make bomb fuel. But if they spin long enough, at their lower speeds, maybe they can, I don't know, but, if so, is it too long? years and years? Maybe you can find out, Scott, about the practical limits on aluminum rotors to make bomb fuel.
At any rate Natanz is IAEA safeguarded. And that means nothing Iran does at Natanz is a secret. The IAEA knows everything they are doing there. Iran cannot enrich above power fuel needs (~5%) without the IAEA promptly blowing the whistle. (This is another theme-lie in most media: "We don't know what they're dong at Natanz," a complete and utter lie).
None of this would have been necessary, if the U.S. had not likewise robbed and threatened Iran (and the whole world), provoking Iran to make its own fuel in the first place. The sordid tale of violent crime and corruption, by the U.S., to prevent Iran from having a nuclear electricity plant:-- It's a very long story and, curiously, does not figure in the corporate media accounts of this dispute, including U.S. armed robbery of tens, hundreds, of millions of dollars of components at dockyards in Europe, bought and paid for by Iran for its Bushehr electricity plant, for which no U.S. official has ever been prosecuted.
So remind me. Iran is supposed to buy fuel from whom? The criminal gang has changed their tune? I hear the same tune. Playing over and over again.
Posted by tom
November 17, 2007
I cannot believe the the absurdity of the comments here. Make NO mistake, we are at war with radical islam. Radical islam is what's running Iran. MAD can't be applied in this case because islam wants you (infidels) dead. They want your children dead, they want your neighbors dead. They want you dead so bad, they will kill themselves to kill you. Therefore MAD has no place in this equation. Further, Israel has no reason to use its nukes without being presented with a "Clear and Present Danger". It is iran and syria (both state sponsors and supporters of radical islamic terrorism), who both have stated many times and many ways they want Israel eliminated, who would do this. I would not risk one American life to "invade" iran, I would recommend a close up and personal demonstration of nuclear power. And as American hero and patriot Paul Tibbets was quoted "and sleep very well at night".
Pax Americana
Posted by Tim
November 17, 2007
"MAD" only works with rational people. People who want to live recognize that "MAD" provides a balance of power. When one nuclear player wants to survive and the other believes its greatest glory is achieved by being a martyr for jihad then no balance of power is achieved. That my friends is the cusp of the problem.
Posted by C. MacLean
November 17, 2007
MAD only works with rational people? I'd say that eliminates us.
While it is frightening to think of any radical extremist with nuclear technology, the thought of George Bush, et al with their fingers on the button is not reassuring. Bush is mentally unstable - he doesn't believe in national security, he believes in national insanity. The intentions that keep me up at night are ours, not Iran's.
To the person who invoked Pearl Harbor, remember that the only country who has ever used nuclear weapons is ours. Twice.
Is it paranoia on the part of countries like N. Korea, Russia and Iran, or is it rational fear prompted by known behavior? These countries watched us invade Iraq because we could - why should they believe we wouldn't invade them, too?
Yes, many middle east nations have at various times threatened to "drive all the Jews into the sea." (Please note that none have actually done so.) This is not quite the same as blowing Israel off the map, but there is no question that the rhetoric has been, and remains, belligerent.
So, however, does ours, (and on occasion, Israel's) and unfortunately, we have a nasty habit of backing up our jingoist rhetoric with action; Iran, for all their nasty language, hasn't. Yet.
Like bullies in a schoolyard, the verbal one-up-man-ship can escalate until one is forced to act rather than lose face among one's peers. George Bush does not have the maturity or the common sense to do anything except inflame the problem.
If we wish to lessen the threat of nuclear war, we should start at home.
Posted by tom
November 17, 2007
Oh please, ANOTHER pathetic liberal on a rant about George Bush, who also confuses Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima. Read a book please. The reason the "many middle eastern nations" haven't driven Israel into the sea is because they can't, and as you say...YET. They HAVE tried several times, again READ A BOOK. And if you are referencing diplomacy...as a famous man once said (Will Rodgers) "Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggy...while you're looking for a rock". I would love to live in your fantasy world where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya, unfortunately we HAVE to live in the real world. And we are at war. I chose to have the good guys (us) win.
Pax Americana
Posted by Joe
November 18, 2007
Iranian and Middle-Eastern observers agree on one fact, Israelis treatments of Palestinian natives and free access between Asian and African Muslims through the only land border available, Palestine/Israel!! and this is the core problem between Muslim and Christian faith followers, we can understand today conflicts and rhetoric's coming from all side by examining their history, after all nation governments consider their political and historical past as part of their resume and experience and modifying it according to today's reality.
After birth of a Muslim states by 7AD, there was a peaceful alliance and agreed geographical border between Muslims and Byzantine Christians which were allies for defeating Persians and therefore there are no record of any serious Arab and Byzantine wars, that change when European Christian started Crusaders wars not only because of religion but both want access or block each other for the rich resources in Africa (relevance to US/Chinese current rivalry for oil fields), that was the end of Arab/Byzantine understanding which at end had blowback effect of elimination of Byzantine nation and expansion of Muslim domain to Balkans by Turks which were imported by Arab to have buffer zone between them and their allied Byzantine, again several hundred years of relative peace and boundary were maintain until recovery of European from past defeat with British as a spearhead, this time they colonized Jerusalem with European Jews in order to have a deniability in case of defeat and possible blowback like last Christian and Muslim wars, they can always claim Jerusalem is occupied by Jews not Christian and therefore its not their doing and that is where we are today, main difference between Europe and US is strategy, European want to continue holding on to current setup in Middle-East which they see themselves as winner relative to 12AD crusade wars, current US leader by virtue of being a supreme power want more, much like all the western derange leaders since antiquity he want to be known as heir to Alexander conquest and his Hellenic cultural dream for region, take a note on how he talks about changing Middle-East to democratic system which is a Hellenic ideal but added and packaged with much older human ideal of "freedom" in order to be able to sell it to public, let us see if region is receptive to Hellenic democracy or freedom from it and who shall have a last laugh when dust settles in Middle-East, hopefully in my lifetime!
Posted by tom
November 18, 2007
Very informative. HOWEVER (and as you infer) these savages have been slaughtering each other for 2000 years, largely under the guise of religon. Due to technology, they are better at it now. The world can trust Israel not to use their nukes unless backed into a corner. islam cannot be trusted. With the institutionalized hatred, there is probably NOT a happy ending. Given that, iran can not go nuclear as that presents a "Clear and Present Danger" to Israel and the west.
Posted by Joe
November 18, 2007
p.s. hence the quietness of Muslims (which are under siege of westerners) toward extremists school of thought, which is taking the war to enemies territories, therefore westerners vacating Muslim lands will end war for extremist too, peace, period
Posted by Movie Buff
November 18, 2007
"Clear and Present Danger" wasn't that a title for a movie produced by Mace Neufeld from Zionwood in Los Angeles, story of unpresidential behavior of US president waging a personal war without consideration for US national interest, a well fitting description of current US president and her Zionists sidekicks.
Posted by Alex
November 18, 2007
I think the sanction won't be processed in the end, at least not completely processed, even though the IAEA's report shows an inevitable trend of Tehran's developing WMD. Maybe the influx of strategic materials will keep it was, maybe some countries will still make businesses with Iranian. The internaional society is far from coming to an universal agreement, so is the equilibrium of benefit and profit.
Posted by Cyrus
November 18, 2007
Oracel2World:
Actually, the IAEA does monitor Iran's conversion and enrichment of uranium. In fact, Iran invited the IAEA to visit Iran's uranium mines too - back in 1996.
And, Iran has offered to place additional restrictions on its enrichment program, beyond what it is legally obligated to do and beyond what other countries with similar technology such as Argentina or Brazil have allowed - for example, by turining over its enrichment program into a joint venture with foreign governments. The US has refused to even acknowledge the offers from Iran because it would deprive the NeoCons of their favorite bogeyman.
And lets not forget who is actually threatening whom with the real nuclear weapons. It is Israel that has the actual nuclear weapons pointed at Tehran, not vice versa. It is Bush who has explicitly threatened Iran with nuclear first-strikes, not vice versa. It was the US that armed, backed, financed and supported Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran resulting in the deaths of more than 60,000 Iranians from chemical weapons. That's 20 times the number of 9-11 casualties. If anyone has a legitimate concern about weapons of mass destruction it is the Iranians, not the Israelis and not the USA.
Posted by tom
November 18, 2007
The fact that Israel has nukes pointed at tehran is as at should be. It is tehran that threaten to eliminate Israel...NOT vice versa. There is no question, if those radical islamic fools don't stand down...they will likely be knocked down. And the blood of innocents will be on their hands...inspite of their bluster, inspite of their protestations of altrusim.
Posted by tom
November 18, 2007
Pax Americana
Posted by Al
November 18, 2007
Iran must not have any nuclear activities in any kind, not even at industrial level.
However, like the way US did for Russia, cleaning up other countries from nukes such as 1-Pakistan (neighbor of Iran and no. 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world), 2-India, 3-Israel and finally the rest of the world must be the next priority of IAEA or any other authority.
Posted by mike casselman
November 18, 2007
An important point being missed here is that if'shiite'Iran acquires nuclear weapons it will lead to even greater proliferation of nukes as sunni arab nations,Egypt Syria and Saudi Arabia will develop their own nuclear programs to counter Iran.What a nightmare scenario!
Posted by Civil
November 19, 2007
Average Israelis don't have a clue of what's going on in their country with their military censorship par non at helm, check this article for some inside account of Israelites society, then decide who are barbarians.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH15Ak04.html
Posted by Nathan
November 20, 2007
Spam filter for the loss. My flame thrower was armed and ready.
Posted by Anonymous
November 20, 2007
Pax Americana? Lol at you, tom the imperialist. What are you, some flag hugging, die hard patriot who drools every time he see's Bruce Willis' shiny bald head?
First off, you show a complete lack of understanding about Islam. Perhaps you should watch less of "24" and pick up a real history book. It is extremism, and extremism of all forms and in all societies (including Western) that must be addressed in this decade, and it is born out of desperation, ignorance, and frustration, which Bush Jr's policies have only spread.
Second, the false notion that MAD only applies when both sides already love each other is a false notion. The reason why MAD is such a strong deterrent is precisely because it can prevent two people who very much hate each other from destroying each other. Pakistan and India have been at each others throats for decades. They both have proxies (just like Iran), they both wage proxy wars (just like Iran), they both use terrorist tactics (just like Iran), and yet, neither side has launched a nuclear strike against the other. Why is that, if MAD only applies to rational people? Don't you know that hatred tends to suppress rational thought?
It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that those in power generally don't like to give it up, and Ahmadinejad (who, by the way, actually has ZERO influence over nuclear weapons) certainly wouldn't want to step down because he got caught setting off a nuclear device somewhere. Even if he didn't get caught, he'll still be blamed and he knows it. He's a pretty shrewd guy, unlike yourself. Ahmadinejad or Kohmeni risking a nuclear strike by proxy (because we all know it won't be done directly) is like Bin Laden flying the plane into the Towers; just plain ridiculous. The leaders don't kill themselves, its the small fry that do it.
Posted by Casey
November 24, 2007
How exactly does a conversation centered on the potential of a nuclear Iran open itself to the problem of Israel and Palestine? I am not naive enough to believe that the two have no level of inter-relation, however the results of a Iran as a nuclear power dwarf the relativly insignificant issues of the Palestinians. It is a global vise a regional problem.
I present what I like to think of as the Sherlock Holmes interpretation of the issue:
-Posit: If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it may use it. An Islamic state cannot be trusted with a nuclear devise.
Answer: Pakistan, last I checked, was still an Islamic nuclear power. Since the advent of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, they have yet to have unleashed said nuclear power in a fit of militant rage. I forsee a very similar future for the Iranian nuclear program. Iran is an educated society, albeit one that has made some social and sociatial choices which are alien to me. All of the Iranians I have had this discussion with, both in person and via the internet have expressed a very rational and enlightened view of their nuclear program. The potential for nuclear energy and the prestiege of being accepted as a player on the world stage are far more appealing to Iran than the wild desire to incinerate Israel.
- Posit: The Middle East cannot tolerate the power imbalance that would occur if there were a nuclear capable Iran.
Answer: Europe, South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, North America and Africa all have nuclear powers. None of them have yet (unless I missed something on today's news) been the subject of nuclear war. No region is so monodimensional that a nuclear bully can control the fate of the region with that single source of power, if anything a Nuclear Iran would create stability in the region and discourage armed conflict (likke it has done everywhere else). Nuclear or non-nuclear Iran cannot be viewed as as irresponsible an international actor as Israel. If there is a nuclear power imbalance in the region it is the continued support of an militant and violent Israeli regime by the west. This levels the playing field.
- Posit: Nuclear Iran will spark an arms race between Iran and other Arab nations.
Answer: So. Every other coninent, region and people have engage in an arms race with a rival. Never in the nuclear age has this led to open hostility, quite to the contrary it generally promotes the need for diplomacy as the possibility of war becomes more and more destructive. The real danger in this scenario lies in the proliferation of nuclear materiel from irresponsible arab states to non-state actors. The character of the American people combined with the policy of massive retaliation would lead to a war of genocide against whichever people empowered a terrorist agent to use a nuclear weapon against the United States. A healthy competition between Iran and their neighbor states would present further oppertunity for the US, The EU or UN to bring Iran into the international fold as a strategic partner and as a means of retarding the progress of Arab states which by necessity would have to be kept in a supplicant role. The day there is a replacement for oil, the entire region minus Iran becomes totally insignificant. Hopefully that day fast approaches.