Okay, let’s remember that there is a world outside the Westminster Village. The president of Iran is not a man whom anyone would want with his hands on the nuclear button, certainly not Israel, which has reason to worry that the man is an anti-semitic fruitcake. It appears that there has been a possible change in the tack of US policy towards Iran now that Mr Obama is at the helm. Now it may be that Mr Obama is playing a devilishly cunning game and, by trying to make nice to Iran, is either buying time or trying to engineer real, positive change. Of course, it also may be that Mr Obama is out of his depth and has made the fatal mistake that one can do business with a regime like Iran.
The danger, it seems to me, is that failing to stop Iran from proceeding with an enrichment programme for nuclear material is going to worry the hell out of Israel. And remember, that while Iran may not be the West’s immediate problem, it is a massive, existential one for Israel. The US may be wise not to want to pick a fight on this issue, given that such a course could go horribly wrong. Israel may not have the luxury of having to make even that choice.
Given that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction tends to work when both sides are basically rational, even if they are bad, it is folly to suppose that nuclear deterrence will work with a regime led by a man who sincerely dreams of taking his place in heaven, and putting lots of those he loathes somewhere else, very violently. At the very least, a defence policy must now involve greater development of anti-ballistic missiles to shoot down incoming weapons, since there will be the risk that the launch sites and development sites may be out of reach of an airforce or ground assault team.
Consider this: why does Iran, with all its oil reserves, want to spend billions of its currency reserves on developing enriched fissile material? What does the Iranian government propose to do with it – use it for garden compost?
Ask the Shah of Iran.
God knows what would have happened if the Shah had actually managed to build some nuclear plants before the Islamic revolution.
What about a third possibility: he doesn’t care?
The consequence of Iran developing nuclear weaponry will at least be the destruction of the new incipient wave of doe-eyed naivety regarding nuclear disarmament.
Obama wants to see a nuclear weapon free world but who will blindly march into that new dawn when the international community can’t stop proliferation in one small state?
Consider this: why does Iran, with all its oil reserves, want to spend billions of its currency reserves on developing enriched fissile material? What does the Iranian government propose to do with it – use it for garden compost?
Maybe, as they are selling the stuff, they know that it will run out within 20 years?
So far they have complied with all of their responsibilities under the NPT and their ruling Ayatollah has forbidden the development of nuclear weapons.
Finally, if the above were not so, they are stil 10 years away from developing nuclear weapons so no need to go into panic mode just yet.
JohnW, something tells me that your justification for Iran developing nuclear energy now to deal with the possible running out of oil in 20 years is a tad, er, implausible.
But this one was a classic:
As far as I read, they have been working out how to evade various international treaties for years. And the line about the Ayatollah is hilarious: you actually believe that?
Given how knowledge has spread, and the problem of arms proliferation, Iran could have a nuke weapon system up and running a lot quicker than in 10 years.
You perform on TV as well?
John:
What, because he said so?
It makes no sense to produce electricity from crude, we stopped doing it 30 years ago. Exporting crude is worth billions a year.
Iran does have a nuclear power plant, and nobody is willing to sell them fuel. Of course they have to make their own. I suggest you research before writing anymore articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
Eric, oh come on. The idea that Iran needs an enrichment programme is not borne out of any energy requirement that that country might have now, or in a few decades’ time. And given the context of Iran’s relations with its neighbours and its often boastful support of global terror, that is hardly a trivial issue.
That is why I think that an anti-missile defence capability, frequently updated, is a basic requirement now. Obama and other nations cannot afford to skimp on that.
Well the failure of the Iranian government to invest in its oil infrastructure means that they have to import refined oil, and have done for many years. A linked issue is that their production could fall quite quickly in the next few years for the same reason, regardless of what reserves they have. Matthew Simmons has done a bit of research in this area.
Of greater concern to the Mullahs is that they have a large, unemployed youth problem. That is never a good thing, especially when you run an oppressive, unpopular government.
Given Iran’s geopolitical situation, they would be mad not to want nuclear weapons, whether or not they would behave rationally if they had them is more complex.
America, of course, is the only country that has used them against civilian targets, and is also one of the few countries to regularly use chemical weapons. Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam, depleted uranium in Iraq etc.
So is the American government rational? Are the Iranians anything like Americans? If you can answer these questions then you might have an insight into what the Iranians would do.
Jim, some of your points ring true – especially the high unemployment problems among the young and so on – but let’s stick to the guts of this issue, which is the desire of its president to wipe Israel off the map. This is not a sort of slip of the tongue.
I am not aware that the leaders of the US have expressed a desire in recent years to wipe a country off the map, and to destroy its people, as an end of policy. Defeating an enemy like Japan, yes (which it most emphatically did). Destroy it because of some religiously-driven mania? No.
Iran’s nuclear program started under the Shah with the encouragement and support of the United States because it makes economic sense. No country would allow itself to become solely reliant on foreign sources of reactor fuel which is why more are building enrichment facilities (including Argentina and Brazil) The Iranians have repeatedly offered to place additional restrictions on their nuclear program BEYOND their legal obligations to address any LEGITIMATE concern about nuclear weapons — for example by opening the program to multinational participation — and yet the US insists that Iran give up enrichment entirely. Why? THis has nothing to do with nuclear weapons — this is an ongoing conflict between developed and developing nations which started BEFORE the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program, over the control of the nuclear fuel cycle. This conflict is couched in terms of non-proliferation but is really about economic advantage. And no, the Israelis don’t really see Iran as an “existential threat” despite their rhetoric.
Hass, everything you say would have made perfect sense if it weren’t for Iran’s repeated pledges to it’s commitment to the destruction of my country. If my neighbor bought a rifle and said it was for deer hunting, it would sound perfectly reasonable. But if that same neighbor at the same time says I have no right to exist, and hires various thugs that periodically try to break into my house and kill me, then I think it is quite reasonable for me to worry about that rifle, don’t you think?
It does make sense for Iran to want to have nuclear power plants. It would have made more sense for Iran to build a new refinery first, before spending money on nuclear power plants — assuming that Iran’s only interest is domestic energy supplies.
If memory serves me right, Russia offered to build a nuclear fuel processing plant on Russian soil where Iran could make nuclear fuel till the cows came home. Iran turned the offer down. Strange — assuming that Iran’s only interest is domestic energy supplies.
I wonder if we ought not to pay some attention to a country’s possesing the means to make a doomsday device, where that country is run by fanatics who regard suicide bombing as an acceptable – or even glorious – tactic.
The Islamic Revolution is 30 years old. In that time, the number of countries it has attacked is 0.
The President of Iran is not the supreme executive power in Iran. He is elected, and the current occupant is not popular. The supreme executive power in the country resides in the Ayatollahs, who have issued fatwas against the development of nuclear weapons. However crazy the President of Iran is, he answers to them, and they seem perfectly content with a convenient scapegoat. The demonization of “our” enemies as crazy is almost never right (much like Samizdata on foreign policy in general).
Consider this: why does Iran, with all its oil reserves, want to spend billions of its currency reserves on developing enriched fissile material?
1. It may believe its oil reserves are running out.
2. It may be looking to cut pollution – Tehran’s air quality is terrible.
3. It may want to concentrate on exporting the oil for dollars and euros.
I suspect #3, maybe with a hint of #1.
Iran is already building several refinery plants, in addition to a massive effort to convert its cars to use natural gas. Please inform yourself before spouting off. Iran uses more than 40% of its oil for domestic use right now. At current energy usage rates, Iran cannot export oil in a few years. Naturally, it would make sense to diversify into nuclear power — which is why the US encouraged Iran to do so in the mid-1970s! — and naturally Iran would not want to allow its nuclear industry to be held hostage to foreign fuel when it has the resources as well as the legal right to make its own nuclear fuel. All the rest is fearmongering speculation.
“Speculation” it may be, but I disagree with “fearmongering”. PersonFromPorlock makes a good point. I’m no nuclear engineer (I think a few such hang around these parts; it would be good to hear from them now), but I believe that it is a relatively small step from reactor-grade to weapons-grade. It is far from irrational to desire to keep Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.
IRan could in theory make highly-enriched uranium — yes, it is true (it would take at least 6 months for Iran to repipe the centrifuges) — which is precisely why we have the IAEA whos very function is to carefully monitor Iran’s enrichment plants to make sure that civilian nuclear material is not diverted to military use. For the last 6 years the IAEA has consistently stated that Iran has not diverted nuclear material to military use. Now, could Iran theoretically one day decide to pull out of the NPT and make nukes? Sure. But so can many other countries, and more will be able to do so in the future too as nuclear power becomes more widespread. Argentina and Brazil have the same enrichment facilities as Iran as well as having allowed less inspections. Egypt and S, Korea and Taiwan had conducted secret nuclear experiments related to weapons. Iran is actually a better member of the NPT than many other countries.
Incidentally, Iran was legally entitled to respond to Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war by launching its own chemical weapons in retaliation. Iran did not do so and specifically stated that it would not use WMDs even in self-defense.
Unfortunately, the US has an explicit policy of using nukes even on a first strike basis even againt non-nuclear armed opponents. This is in total violation of international law and previous US committments known as the Negative Security Assurance. The UK has a policy of using nukes just to “send a message” — and yet Iran is the dangerous one? Give me a break. I’m more fearful of actual, existing nukes in the hands of actual, existing warmongers rather than speculation about a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapon.
I am amazed at the number of arseholes on this of all sites standing-up for a bunch of depraved theocrats.
And you actually give credence to IAEA reports? I have a couple of nice bridges to sell you.
So the US and UK haven’t renounced the use of first-strike nuclear weapons. So what? That would be foolish; it would unilaterally relinquish most of the deterrent effect. Anyway, both countries have had nuclear weapons for decades and haven’t used them (with the single exception of the end of WWII). I am far more inclined to trust the evidence of their actions than the promises of a government of religious nutcases.
Ye Gods. The despicable Ayatollahs (Ahmadinezhaad is a pawn, they are pulling the strings) may be loony theocrats, but they are not insane maniacs, and they certainly are not hell bent on suicide or even genocide in the name of their religion (see: the Iran-Iraq war). They are in a comfortable position, and they want to keep it that way. As we have seen with North Korea, a nuke makes even the US shut up… of course they want something like that.
I’m much more worried about the actually existing nuclear bombs in Pakistan. Let’s keep priorities straight here: If Iran really wants nukes, there’s little the West could do to stop them short of outright open attack… is a third theatre of war in the Middle East going to do any good? The Ayatollahs know that, and so they use the nuke as a powerful bargaining tool.
Iran is the only nation that has publicly stated its intention to annihilate another nation simply because it exists and not as a retaliation to an attack or as a preemption to prevent an imminent attack. Iran has also been involved in terrorist activities throughout the world and has armed and trained terrorist.
NickM is spot on.
First, the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. to end WWII was an act of mercy. The actual death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than 250,000. The estimated deaths in a conventional invasion were over 5 million. in addition both cities were valid military targets, being war materiel producers, troop assembly points and ports of embarkation.
As for Iran, when they get close to a nuclear weapon, I expect there will be a significant accident at the lab. whether it will be a ground penetrator delivered by the IAF , or carried in by a commando team is unclear.
The IAEA said there were no WMDs in Iraq. They were right. It has said that there’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Thus far, the US has failed to provide an iota of evidence otherwise. That’s why we’re speculating about Iran’s “intent to obtain the capacity” to build nukes instead. Why lets facts get in the way of scaremongering? Iran has made reasonable compromise solutions that would address any real concern about weapons. Those offers have been endorsed by international and even American experts. Who is the nutcase? The same Israel you whinge about refuses to declare its own borders because it wants to recreate a mythical, ethnically-cleansed Greater Israel. Israel runs over American female peace activists like Rachel Corrie with bulldozers and shoots reporters and uses civilians as human shields and has engaged in genocide against Palestinians. So Who is the danger in the world? Iran? LOL!
NickM and Laird are correct. But as I am in the mood to go-a-fiskin’, it is time to respond to some of the points made on this thread.
Hass writes:
I do not know whether it was the economic rationale, or the desire by the US to prop up one of “our sonafabitches”, but just because a policy conducted 30 years ago might have made some sense, does not mean that Iran, under an oppressive and fanatical mullocracy, should be involved in enrichment programmes that cannot be easily justified on the grounds of producing energy.
Maybe. How is this anything to do with a regime seeking to develop a nuclear enrichment programme? For what?
Even the Russians(Link) have been nervous on this issue in the past, which surely is rather revealing.
Joshua Holmes writes this:
Iran is widely understood to be a leading sponsor of terrorism and as such, uses groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as proxy armies against the likes of Israel. Iranian-made munitions have been widely used against Israel. Check this US report(Link). Biased? Maybe. But a Google search will reveal that this is not a one-off report.
Right from the start, the Iranian revolutionaries – remember that Iran hostage-takings, the Iranian embassy incident in London in the early 1980s – betrayed a clear contempt for norms of international law. The idea that the Iranian regime does not make trouble with other countries is a joke.
To sum up:
Iran is led by people who want to see Israel obliterated as an end of policy, driven by religious views.
It has been embarking on an enrichment programme for nuclear material. Such enrichment can have peaceful applications, but given the context, that seems highly unlikely.
Iran is a sponsor of terrorism around the world.
It is hard to believe that a country like Iran wants peaceful applications of nuclear power when its parliament routinely chants, “Death to Israel. Death to America.”
But perhaps that is just for fun because there’s nothing much to debate. They have already sorted out issues like hanging gays and women covering their head in public, so less need for any new legislation.
As for Mr Obama, he may say he wants a nuclear-weapon free world but that is like saying we all want peace and happiness. Utterly admirable but really not much more use than a public statement of belief in the Tooth Fairy.
There is a fair chance, given Iran’s attendance at the launch of North Korea’s recent missile that – putting anti-Israel terrorists to one side – any nuclear knowledge is for sale or rent to anyone who fancies a bit of leverage.
Iran I should think wants to be “taken seriously” as a world power and may believe nuclear power is their invite to a bigger say in the UN, perhaps even at the Security Council. A chance to rant in New York must be a thrill for them. And people like the ayatollahs may well get those power-hungry “lazy lobs” under their robes at the thought of being among the big shots at last.
I think one should be very wary of wanting Obama to start a war. If he is as Machiavellian as some say he his, Obama would exploit a war atmosphere to push through his domestic agenda and probably succeed.
President Barack Obama has decided to make friend with the regime of the “Islamic Republic Iran” (as he called the country in his video statement) rather than with the people the regime holds down with an iron fist.
One problem with this policy is that the regime is dominated by people who interpret Shia Islam (of the 12er sort) as requiring them to bring foreward the comming of the hidden Iman by bringing fire and death to the world.
Hence their desire for nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama’s Marxist background is not excuse for the above as there is nothing in Marxism (even the heretic varities) that justifies such folly.
Therefore even Communists should oppose President Barack Obama on this very serious misjudgment.