Regards, Ivan
In memoriam
Posted on 06/14/2004 12:08:13 PM PDT by MadIvan
The International Atomic Energy Agency convened a board of governors meeting June 14, debating how to respond to Iran’s nuclear program, which critics say is dedicated to the development of nuclear weapons. The head of the United Nations’ agency, Mohammad ElBaradei, announced that Tehran’s cooperation has been "less than satisfactory."
The most recent IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program chronicles a long list of deceit, defiance, contradictory accounts and denial of access to some key sites. The report says the agency’s inspectors found more traces of highly enriched uranium that could be bomb-grade, and that Iran had admitted importing parts for sophisticated P-2 centrifuges to enrich uranium. Equally troubling, the IAEA revealed that Iran told a black-market supplier it was interested in obtaining thousands of magnets for the P-2 centrifuges. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Experts believe, with two magnets per uranium enrichment centrifuge, Iran’s desire to obtain such a large number of magnets means that its nuclear research activities significantly exceed what Iranian officials insist is just an experimental program. If the magnets are an accurate indicator of the scale of the nuclear program, Iran could soon be capable of generating enough weapons-grade nuclear material to produce several warheads a year.
The IAEA’s revelations clearly depict a long-term pattern of denial and deception in Iran’s behavior that can be only explained by Tehran’s scheme to buy time and mask its military nuclear program. An Iranian opposition group, the Paris-based National Council of Resistance (NCR), alleged recently that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are supervising the nuclear program. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The Revolutionary Guards, according to the NCR, are supposedly pursuing this project through four military organs; the Center for New Defense Preparedness and Technology, the Headquarters for New Warfare, the Nuclear Research Division of the Revolutionary Guards’ Imam Hussein University and the Special Industries Division in the Military Industries Organization. If the program moves ahead without encountering obstacles or unexpected delays, Tehran could develop a nuclear weapon within two years, the NCR claims.
At the IAEA governing board meeting, the jockeying has already started over the expected resolution on Iran’s program. Europe’s big three - Britain, France and Germany – have reportedly circulated a draft resolution that "deplores" Iran’s hindering of inspections. At the same time, the draft is said to lack a meaningful trigger mechanism to bring Iran’s case before the UN Security Council in the event that Tehran does not improve its cooperation with the IAEA. Without such a trigger mechanism, Tehran could potentially drag the inspection issue out, as it worked towards developing an atomic weapon.
Iran’s primary objective in its cooperation with the IAEA is to buy time for weapons development by creating the impression that inspections are working. That the existing inspection regime is shedding new light on Tehran’s secret nuclear program, however, does not mean it is hindering the development of a bomb. Conducting inspections just for the sake of having inspections, as time is running out, is a recipe for disaster. What is at stake is the IAEA’s reputation as an effective non-proliferation agency. In addition, stability in the Persian Gulf region will take a substantial hit if Iran’s mullahs come into possession of nuclear weapons.
In the mid-1980’s, Tehran’s leaders concluded that they needed a non-conventional arsenal to achieving their strategic aim of becoming a dominant power in the Persian Gulf region. They adopted asymmetric warfare as the cornerstone of their military doctrine. It would be simply naìve to suggest that Iran’s rulers have since had a change of heart. If anything, the recent reports about Iran’s increasing meddling in Iraq indicate that Tehran is determined to extend its influence. [For background information see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Given their huge commercial ties with Tehran - which seems to be in a big rush to grant them lucrative contracts in exchange for concessions in the IAEA and other areas – European nations, including France and Germany, may feel they have good reasons to adopt a conciliatory approach towards Iran. 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 policy toward Tehran. By being soft on Iran, the EU could inadvertently be pushing the issue of Tehran’s nuclear program toward a military solution, a scenario nobody welcomes.
For now, Iran’s breach of its nuclear obligations must be reported to the UN Security Council. UN sanctions are arguably the best available way to slow down Tehran’s drive to develop atomic weapons. The IAEA does not need to find an actual bomb to conclude Iran is indeed running a nuclear weapons program. There is already enough evidence to refer the case to Security Council.
In the long term, however, only a democratic secular government, not the ruling theocracy, could ensure a WMD-free Iran. To this end, the EU capitals and Washington should embrace Iran’s democratic opposition forces that are working to unseat the ruling mullahs. The clock is ticking.
Editor’s Note: Reza Bulorchi is the Executive Director of the US Alliance for Democratic Iran.
Regards, Ivan
In memoriam
Ping!
"In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebiuld it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals... ...Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam..." -- From Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam
The EU never seems to learn. Did they miss the memo saying cities in the west are targets or do they think they are exempt if they play nice with the mad mullahs?
We should attack them next.
Here. Here. But it won't happen. Not unless we can get Bush re-elected (1), get Bin Laden and his co-horts in Iran (2), and start hearing very large rumbles from the Iranian populace.
1 out of 3 ain't bad. Bush re elected should be no prob but not sure if we want to spread our troops to thin. Maybe 2 years down the road we can clean up Iran but then we will have Syria and Saudi Arabia to deal with.
P.S. Don't take too long, the clock is ticking.
It's a real mess allright. I'm thinking more 10 to 20 years down the road. Saudi is either going to reform from within or implode, and the latter would be bad news for us since that house could go in two directions or entirely against the US. Syria could have it's butt kicked by the Turks, and we'd be happy to help.
Sorry bout the game yesterday, Zidane is too damn good.
Back to the article, It's a matter not of IF, but WHEN Israel will strike Iran. THe window of oppurtunity opens July 1st, when the US officially hands over the airpsace to Iraq's government, and closes within a few months, say after the US election, or after the next Al Quaeda attack on the West.
Iran learned from Israel's attack on Iraq, the Iranian facilities are dispersed, hidden, hardened and protected by whatever air power the Iranians can muster. The fear of missing one location, out of 6 or more with missiles and warheads, is the overarching defensive strategy of Iran.
Mad, Mad world...
It's good to see you again, old buddy. Other FReepers and I look forward to more of your cogent posts from the old Great Briton we all knew and loved.
woops! "Briton" = Britain. As in Britainnia Rules the Waves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.