[DEBATE] : The Bomb: Tehran Has Won

[mfleshman at aol.com]

And the Bushies' bloodymindedness and arrogance helped considerably. 
See the excerpt, below, from the March/April edition of that most 
mainstream of imperialist periodicals, Foreign Affairs magazine.


Tehran has won
Ewen MacAskill

The Guardian UK
April 12, 2006 04:03 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ewen_macaskill/2006/04/ewens_piece_1.
html

For years, Israeli foreign and defence ministers have been predicting 
that Iran would be at the "point of no return" within six months. Time 
would pass and nothing would happen. But on Tuesday the Israeli 
predictions finally came true: Iran joined the nuclear club by 
enriching uranium.

In its confrontation with the West, Iran now holds almost all aces. 
Short of a military invasion, which is not feasible, there is nothing 
the US, Israel or Europe can do to stop Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

The US or Israel could launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear 
plants, but at best this would delay Iran's nuclear programme, not stop 
it. Iran now has the knowledge it needs, and that cannot be reversed. 
There are caveats - Iran still has to master the use of cascades - but 
the biggest technical hurdle has been removed.

Analysts like Gary Samore, vicepresident of the Chicago-based MacArthur 
Foundation and author of a detailed report on Iran's nuclear strategy, 
estimates Tehran could have a nuclear weapon capability within three to 
five years. Mark Fitzpatrick, a specialist on proliferation at the 
London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies and author 
of a recent report on Iran's strategic weapons, estimates five years.

Five years is a relatively short period in international relations, and 
Iran could go all-out from this week to speed up its nuclear programme, 
determined to secure a nuclear bomb as quickly as possible. There would 
be an advantage in doing so. Iran's power has already grown since the 
Iraq war, with the spread of Tehran's influence in southern Iraq; the 
bomb would make Iran the predominant power in its immediate 
neighbourhood.

One option available to Iran over the next few weeks would be to go 
back to negotiations with the Europeans or Russia or the UN. Tehran 
could keep such talks going until a suitable moment, such as the final 
year of a Bush administration when the US is focused on the 
presidential election, and then restart its uranium enrichment 
programme.

But in reality, there is no need for Iran to delay. This is the perfect 
time for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to make a push for the bomb, given that 
the US is weakened by its involvement in Iraq. And once Iran has the 
bomb, it will be secure from a US attack.

The US could push for sanctions against Iran. But blanket sanctions 
have been discredited by their punitive impact on the Iraqi population 
during Saddam Hussein's rule. Selective sanctions against the 
leadership would make life a little harder for Ahmadinejad and his 
colleagues, but the inconvenience might be outweighed by an increase in 
domestic support, as at least some of the Iranian population would show 
solidarity in the face of external pressure.

There is not much the west can do. It is good that western diplomats 
try to stop the Iranians. But if the diplomats are sensible, they 
should be devoting at least as much time to planning for a world in 
which Iran becomes the first middle eastern nation other than Israel to 
have the bomb.


From: Foreign Affairs: March/April 2003

"Instead of trying to make nuclear weapons anathema, the [Bush 
Administration] hawks prefer to focus on "enforcement." In the new 
strategy's words, "We will hold countries responsible for complying 
with their commitments." This is welcome; enforcement of 
nonproliferation regimes should indeed be strengthened. Yet the 
administration does not seem to recognize that it is easier to make 
others comply with their commitments if you comply with yours, both 
within treaties and across them. The United States does not, in fact, 
comply with important commitments it has made under the NPT, such as 
the promise to move toward giving up its weapons, and Washington 
clearly has no intention of doing so.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty represents the single clearest and 
most immediate commitment the nuclear weapons states have made to 
fulfill their disarmament obligations under the NPT. "We're not for 
that," a Bush administration official says. How about the "unequivocal 
undertaking" to eliminate all nuclear arsenals? "We're not for that, 
either," the official says. Indeed, the White House's new 
counterproliferation strategy does not mention any nuclear weapons 
state obligations or commitments to reverse the salience, size, and 
modernization of nuclear arsenals, beyond urging negotiation of a ban 
on further fissile-material production "that advances U.S. security 
interests." "