@@ All talk, no nukes @@

Santa Barbara Independent
January 26, 2006

All Talk, No Nukes
A Coolheaded Look at Iran?s Nuclear Program

By M.M. Eskandari

Given the current tensions between Iran and the United States over Iran?s resumption
of its nuclear program, we would do well to reflect on the following truths and allow
ourselves to gain perspective and distance from the frenzy of news reports about
imminent war with or by Iran.

The first principle of international relations is that countries seek to protect
their interests by whatever means they can. The second principle is that countries do
so as rational actors intent on bringing about gain, or if not gain, at least
avoidance of loss. These are observable facts of international politics. How
countries go about achieving these aims differs from country to country, but the fact
remains that countries act this way in their relations with each other.

Moreover, most of the interactions between countries in the world are peaceful or, to
be more precise, are actions short of war. War and warlike actions are the exception
and are rarely engaged in, though it certainly seems otherwise, since war looms so
large in our collective psyche.

This said, let us look at what events led to the present tensions. On October 26,
2005, at the Islamic Summit in Saudi Arabia, during a conference titled World without
Zionism, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, quoting the late Ayatollah
Khomeini, stated that ?Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth?. In that
same speech, he also said the Holocaust was a ?myth?. Then, two weeks ago, the
Iranian government decided to break the seals placed on three of its nuclear
facilities by UN inspectors and to resume work at those facilities despite the call
by the international community to desist.

These remarks, combined with the latest moves to restart the nuclear program in
Iran???a program, incidentally, of which the early components were supplied to Iran
by the United States during the rule of the late Shah???have put Israel on edge and
the U.S. in a position to push more urgently for a censure of Iran by the UN Security
Council and an imposition of sanctions by that body.

The fear, of course, is that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb and not just on
nuclear energy as it claims. A nuclear Iran with stated intentions to wipe Israel off
the map is an untenable situation for any country in the region, let alone Israel. A
nuclear exchange in the Middle East would mean the destruction of several countries
and the death of millions of people far beyond the two countries in question. The
sheer thought of it boggles the mind and makes one recoil in horror, but we must
remind ourselves that this is not where things stand at the moment.

Unless security services in the U.S. and Israel know differently, according to UN
inspectors and nuclear technology experts, Iran is a few thousand centrifuges short
of the capacity to weaponize uranium. Should Iran ever be capable of achieving this
feat, the consensus is that this is years away.

What is clear, though, is that Iran wishes to complete its nuclear energy program and
gain the respect this technological achievement is thought to bring. Additionally,
Iran wishes to have the capacity to at least hint at the possibility of military
nuclear capability as a deterrent, given its precarious situation in the Middle East.
The question is: Why does Iran feel this way? To understand that, let us for a moment
see the situation from Iran?s point of view.

Iran and the U.S. have been at odds for almost three decades now. Since the 1979
Revolution and the hostage crisis of 1980, Iran has been on the pariah list of the
United States. As a result of its dislike of the Iranian regime, the U.S. even
supported Saddam in his brutal eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s.

In 2002, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush famously put Iran on the
?Axis of Evil?, along with Iraq and North Korea, and then proceeded to deal with Iraq
militarily. Prior to this, in response to the September 11 attacks, the U.S.
retaliated against Afghanistan, shattering the Taliban regime and putting bin Laden
on the run.

Simultaneously, the U.S. built up its Persian Gulf bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait,
and Saudi Arabia, and managed to forge military alliances with Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, and Tadjikistan in its war on terror.

The U.S. also built an alliance with the government of Pakistan, the only Islamic
government with a known nuclear arsenal. On Iran?s western flank, America?s strongest
ally in the region, Turkey, stands ready as both a NATO member and a staunch ally of
Israel as well.

Finally, Azarbaijan and even Georgia, with Russia?s blessing, have asked for U.S.
military troop presence in their countries.

Looking at this situation from the point of view of the Iranian government, Iran
finds itself surrounded on all sides by countries with large contingents of U.S.
troops and finds itself on the ?to-be-dealt-with? list of the United States.

Given this scenario, Iran needs to find a way to stave off the handwriting on the
wall. The present moves by Iran should be interpreted in this light and no more. As
belligerent as the rhetoric of Iran may have been toward Israel, and as rash a move
the removal of the seals and the resumption of work at the nuclear facilities may be,
the United States needs to understand that a military move against Iran either by
itself or by one of its allies in the region would spell disaster for the region as a
whole.

Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was weakened by 10 years of military and economic embargos.
Iran?s armed forces, having acquired missiles and having been tested by fire in the
longest war in the region, are stronger and far better equipped today than they were
under the Shah.

Were America to take preemptive action, America would also have to be willing and
ready to occupy Iran to diffuse Iran?s anger at having been struck. Even if it were
possible to pacify a nation the size of Iran after such an attack, given its global
commitments, America is in no position now to do that and thus cooler heads must
prevail and remind the world that Iran?s moves are to be expected given its situation
and should not be taken for more than they are. Diplomacy, not war, should be the
path to resolving the present dilemma.

* M.M. Eskandari, a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Associate
(http://www.wagingpeace.org), is professor of political science and Middle Eastern
studies at Santa Barbara City College.
http://www.independent.com/opinions/voices002.htm


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Irans violations of Paris Agreement leads to breakoff in talks.
    ... >> suspension will destroy the process, nor does it state any other ... To Iran, a mutually agreeable ... The fact that Iran concealed elements of its nuclear program in the ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: @@ Nuclear dispute arouses patriotism among Iranians @@
    ... UN Panel Puts Iran on Notice ... Tehran is told it will face Security Council action unless it reins in its nuclear ... Twenty-seven countries on the 35-member board voted to report Iran to the Security ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • @@ "Stolen Iranian Laptop", GLADIOs new campaign of misinformation @@
    ... U.S. Seeks to "Prove" Iran's Nuclear Aims ... senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the ... The U.S. documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran ... The U.S. government briefing for officials of the United Nations' International ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Decision Time on Iran
    ... Decision Time on Iran ... As the Iranian government announced last week a doubling of its uranium ... Iranian students from studying nuclear physics abroad, ... Iran's nuclear program, oh, except from Russia. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)
    ... Canad has developped its own nuclear technology, ... The USA and many other nations are worried about nukes in the hands of Iran ... That's appropriate since countries in that region are very different. ...
    (sci.space.policy)