Iran - Nuclear Pariah: Part III

Iran - Nuclear Pariah – Part III

Précis

The first two article in this series described some of our concerns about Iran, its nuclear ambitions, and its various other acts of aggression, either contemplated or, carried out by this delinquent country. This article will complete my Iran commentary for the moment. Much else has happened in the world, and this topic has now blossomed into full discussion not only at various Gather points, but also in the mainstream press, as well as the alternative media of radio and the Blogosphere. Unless the West acquiesces totally to Iran and its Russian ally, it seems that diplomatic channels have opened that are addressing this issue. Will it be addressed in an efficient manner with the speed and alacrity that anyone on this Gather so inclined might bring to the issue? I believe not since the last two years have not accomplished anything but excessive hand wringing.. There will be much dithering, pontificating, appeasing, worry and predictions of mass slaughter if we do something dramatic, forgetting the actuality that terror from Iran in the form of nuclear weapons would be worse than anything the West might do to Iran in a pre-emptive manner. Not the least of these possibilities is the fact that Iran is a sponsor of state supported terrorism, funds various terror groups, and in my opinion would have no qualms about providing small nuclear devices to terrorist groups for use against the United States and its allies.

Commentary

Russia offered to enrich its uranium in Russia then shipped to Iran for use as nuclear fuel.

"The capacity of Russia's proposal does not meet all the nuclear energy needs of Iran," Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani Friday, according to state television. Larijani was speaking to reporters on his return to Tehran from a trip to China, where he tried to mobilize support against Western moves to refer Iran's nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

"It is not possible to say the Russian proposal is negative, and that is why we consider it as a basis for negotiations," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Larijani as saying.

This ballet between Russia and Iran, with China in full complicity, is an effort to deflect the reality of the fact that Iran wants nuclear weapons, and has allies that will help in that endeavor. Why would they help? Both Russia and China see the United States as their only real global competitor and gain enormously when we are distracted from our major domestic goals and objectives. If we drain resources neutralizing Iran, we lose opportunities to prosper economically and politically. Additionally, a triumvirate of Russia, China and Iran represents a real threat to peace the Mid-East as well as to world peace. (Does anyone believe for a minute that no weapons grade materials will find its way to Iran from Russia?) A threatened showdown between Iran and the West would draw Europe, the United States, as well as a number of countries into a conflict that could ignite a war that no one will win in the classical sense. Winning is a shadow term. Would we win if we and our allies neutralize Iran? Would Iran win if it eliminated Israel from the map. Would The European Union win if we were engaged in a war that may well involve the use of nuclear weapons? Would China see this as an opportunity to become involved in an exercise that might provide sole access to oil and gas, either from Russia or Iran, or both Would, in fact, anyone win? The answer is fairly obvious --- no one would win. The demise of the United States, China or Russia would result in a global economic disaster. World trade would come to a halt, the stock, bond and real estate markets would cease to exist as we know them, the only country that seems expendable in these scenarios is Iran. Eliminate their nuclear weapons and their leadership that covets the Mid-East as their territory, salvage the oil and gas fields, change the paradigm, and that part of the world would be changed, perhaps forever. With Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt as well as Israel pursuing freedom and peace, the Mid East could become an absolute beacon for the rest of the region. China would still have a source of oil, as would other countries. Russia would have no threatening neighbor to the south, and Israel would breath a lot easier.

To some this may sound like the ravings of a political hawk on steroids. I am not alone.

On January 23, 2006, Newt Gingrich in an interview with Human Events said the U.S.'s top priority should be overthrowing the government of Iran - using peaceful means if possible but through military force if necessary. "I will just say flatly, our objective should be the systematic replacement of this [Iran's] regime,"….

Gingrich support immediate United States support of various Iranian dissident groups, starting with trade unions and student organizations, saying, "We should in every way we can get them resources." Rather than operating surreptitiously, the U.S. should be open about its intentions",

Gingrich invoked the example of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to justify a preemptive strike against Iran, recalling: "In September 1941, when we sank a German submarine while we were technically at peace, [FDR] did a nationwide radio address and said, 'If you are standing next to a rattle snake, you do not have an obligation to wait until it bites you before you decide it's dangerous.'"

Iran's financial and materials support to terrorist groups is as troublesome as its nuclear program, because the two coupled together represent a direct avenue to attack the United States. As recently as January 20, 2006 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met Friday with the leaders of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Syria, expressing his support a day after 20 people were wounded in Tel Aviv in a suicide attack claimed by Jihad. Can there be doubt that this same Iranian government would be willing to provide nuclear as well as non–nuclear materials to terrorists groups, especially if targets were in the West?

It all comes down to eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons capability. For those who doubt that capability, the Natanz Nuclear Facility in Iran is a sobering site. The attached photos is Natanz

The West has very little time to deal with this issue. We either act now, or act not at all. Once Iran has nuclear capability and has produced large numbers of nuclear weapons, it will be too late. Only last week did Iran warn the Western nations in Europe not to interfere with their program as their weapons were capable of reaching a number of countries with conventional and nuclear warheads.

Finally, I refer the reader to an excellent article in, of all places, the Washington Post. This article summarizes the ideas I have tried to address, and does so in a way that few other than Charles Krauthammer do routinely.

End

January 29, 2006