|
Weekly Commentary
How to Counter
Mullahs’ Nuclear Calculus
By rejecting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA)
latest resolution, Iran’s clerical regime has escalated the
nuclear brinkmanship it has waged on the world since revelations
about its secret nuclear facilities in August of 2002. Now the
question facing Washington and the European Union is whether
they have the resolve - and the sense of urgency - to take this
issue to the UN Security Council immediately and not let Tehran
off the hook with its blatant defiance.
“We will not abide by the IAEA’s resolution,” insisted Iran’s
Atomic Energy Organization chief when meeting IAEA’s Director
General earlier this week. He told the reporters that Iran had
already started converting 37 tons of raw uranium to yellow
cake, which is used for enrichment of uranium.
In the ominous nuclear calculus of the terrorist mullahs, the EU
capitals are seen as spineless and too interested in business
and Washington as too busy with the presidential elections to
consider any major shift in how to deal with Iran’s nuclear
challenge.
Given the urgency of situation, however, Washington can ill
afford to wait until after November election to address this
matter. According to some credible estimates, Iran is only
months away from the nuclear point of no return.
In formulating a viable solution to the mullahs’ nuclear
challenge, the United States must take into account the
following:
1- Having a nuclear arsenal is at the heart of Iran’s foreign
policy doctrine. Iran has been seeking political and military
regional hegemony - a cornerstone of the Khomeini’s vision for
an Islamic Empire - since 1979.
2- The root cause of the nuclear crisis with Iran, similar to
its sponsorship of terrorism, export of fundamentalism to Iraq
and beyond, and crackdown on political dissent at home, is the
depraved nature of the fundamentalist terrorist regime in
Tehran, rendering it incapable of embarking on the path to
reform.
3- Formulating policies based on the notion that the mullahs’
abide by their international obligations, is an exercise in
futility. No amount of negotiations and incentives would
dissuade the mullahs from their ominous strategic goals.
4- Diplomatic engagement, and all of its aliases such as “grand
bargain” and “direct dialogue,” must therefore be thrown out the
door. The EU’s diplomatic initiative to strike a nuclear deal
with Iran last fall proved to be a dismal failure.
5- Policy suggestions based on the fact that Iran’s nuclear
threat and its sponsorship of terror could be halted once and
for all only through a regime change by Iranians and their
democratic opposition groups, offer the only viable solution.
6- Unlike its neighbors to the east and west, Iran has a
century-long history of relentless struggle against despotism.
The call for regime change in Iran goes back to more than two
decades. Tens of thousands of Iranian democracy activists have
been sent to the gallows and thousands more have languished in
Iran’s prisons.
7- That said, any meaningful option on Iran must by necessity
include reaching out to Iranian democratic and
anti-fundamentalist opposition groups who have been fighting for
a secular and representative government for the past quarter
century. We must help create a better balance of power between
the regime and its opposition.
8- Given their lucrative trade with Tehran and geopolitical
jockeying in the region, the EU countries have self-serving
reasons for their “soft approach” toward Tehran. However, the
specter of a nuclear-armed Iran – the most active state sponsor
of terrorism – is far too ominous to let appeasers in the EU
dictate the policy toward Tehran.
9- Referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN’s Security Council
and imposing sanctions against the regime are major steps
forward but may not be enough, given the speed and extent of
Iran’s nuclear program and the UN’s lethargic bureaucracy.
10- Tehran rulers are betting that Iraq-fatigue and the
presidential elections in the U.S. will dissuade Washington from
appropriate and timely measures to halt their drive. They are
also banking on the trans-Atlantic divide as to how to deal with
their nuclear campaign. The mullahs must be proven wrong.
Only when Washington grasps fully the sheer extent of the
destructive and multi-facetted threat Iran poses to the
well-being of Iranians and to the security and stability of the
region, would it realize that the call of Iranians for a regime
change must be heeded and the door to engagement must be shut.
(USADI)
Return to Top
The Times (of London)
Editorial
September 22, 2004
A Determined
Response Must Halt Iran's Nuclear Plans
… By announcing that it has embarked on a process that will lead
to uranium enrichment, and thus the material for an atomic
arsenal, Iran has, in effect, said "no" to further co-operation
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ..
Still, the Iranian Government has decided to defy the IAEA
openly and risk the consequences.
They have done so after making the calculation that the possible
consequences will not be very serious. Iran's original
willingness to work with the IAEA was not born of unilateral
charity but was the result of explicit political pressure.
The US-led intervention in Iraq concentrated minds in Iran. It
was evident that there would be a high price to pay if Iran's
nuclear ambitions were realized. Even the most fanatical
sections of the Iranian regime did not want to force a political
showdown with the White House. The situation has evolved and
Iran has become bolder. The tragic aftermath of the conflict in
Iraq has absorbed Washington's attention. These difficulties
have been stoked from and through Iran itself, with hundreds of
heavily armed "volunteers" crossing a virtually unpoliceable
border every day.
The final stretch of the American presidential contest also
makes it harder for Washington to focus on Iran and European
nations have realized that Tehran has taken advantage of their
willingness to compromise in negotiations.
The regional and international implications of a nuclear Iran
are profound and grave. It would be much tougher to deal with an
actual nuclear power than an aspiring one. The inner politics of
this regime are complex, but to put faith in moderates to act in
a responsible fashion has not worked. It is just not clear how
much influence they have on the regime or whether, on this
issue, they disagree with the hardliners.
It would be far better if the international community resolved
to oblige Iran to fall into line with the IAEA. The divide
between the United States and the EU on policy towards Tehran
has managed to enable the regime there to play one side off
against the other. A united and determined stance is what is
required for a diplomatic initiative to be anything more than
merely wishful thinking.
It is now time for the UN Security Council finally to address
this matter and to make it clear what the sanctions will be if
the IAEA ultimatum is disregarded.
This may well, alas, be the very last chance left to prevent
Iran from becoming a dangerous nuclear power.
Return to Top
New York Sun
September 20, 2004
Rosenberg Logic and
Iran
Are France, Germany, and the United Kingdom willing to allow
Iran to build a nuclear weapon? This is a fair question
considering that these three countries, which have tried for
more than a year to cajole the Islamic republic into assuring
the world it is not building an atomic bomb, are now unwilling
to attach any consequences to their latest deadline of November
for the Iranians to come clean.
Last week at Vienna the Europeans tried to make the case that
Iran be given until the end of October … This position was
defensible a year ago, when the International Atomic Energy
Agency was just finishing up inspections of the facilities the
Iranians had kept hidden from the international community for at
least 15 years. A year later it's insanity.
The latest report from the IAEA, which has been misreported as
containing no smoking gun, provides much proof that Iran has
negotiated in bad faith. For example, the Iranians have yet to
supply the IAEA with information on where it actually got
certain equipment, such as magnets for its P-2 centrifuges...
Despite such unanswered questions, the IAEA has yet to make any
judgments with regard to Iran's nuclear activities. The IAEA's
director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, remains agnostic. "Have we
seen any proof of a weapons program? Have we seen undeclared
enrichment?" he asked Tuesday. "Obviously until today there is
none of that," added he: "But are we in a position to say that
everything is peaceful? Obviously we are not at this stage."
It's worth asking Mr. ElBaradei and the Europeans pushing for
more negotiations exactly what more proof they need. The reason
the IAEA is even considering this issue, after all, is that the
mullahs for years failed to tell the atomic watchdog that it
built an enormous underground centrifuge at Natanz, that it was
conducting laser enrichment experiments at numerous other
facilities, and that it had imported yellow cake uranium from
China.
Why would one of the world's leading exporters of petroleum take
such pains to hide a peaceful nuclear energy program from the
rest of the world? Why is the IAEA bending over backward to
ignore nearly two years of delays, false reports, and
obstruction to see what's in front of its nose? …
Instead of defying reality and pretending that Iran is not
building a nuclear bomb, the world would be better served were
the British, French, and Germans to devote their energies aiding
the most potent opponents of Tehran's clerics - the Iranian
people.
Return to Top
|
