As the United Nations Security Council prepares to debate a third round of sanctions against Iran for its continuing refusal to stop its uranium enrichment program, it is time for the five permanent, veto-wielding states to get serious about their efforts to curb the ambitions of an increasingly powerful and defiant clerical regime in Tehran.
So far, the United Nations has managed only two weak sanctions resolutions, one in December and a second in March. What effect have these measures had on the ability of the Iranians to continue their nuclear pursuits, in spite of repeated demands from the international community that such activities be stopped immediately? You be the judge:
**Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, Deputy Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, was recently quoted as saying that Iran currently has 1,600 active centrifuges for enriching uranium and that Iran is installing 3,000 centrifuges in the Natanz nuclear facility. The Deputy Secretary also said that Iran plans to construct more than 50,000 of these centrifuges in the future.
**Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated in the last few weeks that Iran intends to continue its nuclear program, become an exporter of nuclear fuel, and ignore any future U.N. Security Council resolutions against it.
**Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader and the real power behind the government in Tehran, has said in just the past few days that Iran would never back down from its nuclear right.
**A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on May 22, 2007 stated that there had been notable advances in Iran's uranium enrichment program and that the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency knew less about Iran's nuclear efforts than has been the case in the past.
Maybe it's time for the member states of the United Nations to start taking Iranian leaders at their word and recognize that they have meant what they have said about their nuclear program all along. Iran has carefully worked to position itself as the dominant power in the Middle East. Tehran continues to sponsor the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon and there is increasing evidence of direct Iranian involvement in arming Iraqi insurgents and militias. And, just this week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Iranian weapons were making their way to the Taliban in Afghanistan. And while Secretary Gates said there was no evidence of direct involvement by the government in Tehran, does anyone believe that weapons are being funneled from a tightly controlled theocratic state to the Taliban without the knowledge of the ruling clerical regime?
Iran wants to dominate the entire Middle East, and its actions in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and with the United Nations all contribute to that long-range strategic goal. The development of a nuclear capability that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction would make it much easier for Iran to realize its national objectives in the region and could spark a wider crisis if Israel or Sunni-dominated governments feel threatened enough to act in an effort to counter the Iranian push.
Thus far, negotiations that have included very attractive incentives packages from the European Union and the west have yielded no real progress as Tehran continues to stall for time with the U.N. while working feverishly to fully develop its nuclear capability. With negotiations failing, there are really only two options available for nations opposed to the continuing nuclear developments in Iran: a military strike or tough, meaningful sanctions that will have a real impact on Tehran.
The United Nations will never act to authorize a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Even if all five permanent members of the Security Council agreed that Iran posed a grave threat to stability and security in the region, which they don't, France, Russia, and China would never vote to allow a military strike on a country in which they are so heavily invested. That would leave the United States, and possibly Great Britain, to execute such an attack without the backing of the U.N., something that is probably not realistic given the probable regional and international consequences of such a move.
With a military endeavor against Iran unlikely, we return once again to the prospect of additional sanctions designed to curb Tehran's nuclear aspirations. Historically, economic sanctions have been relatively ineffective, especially when the targeted behavior is deemed crucial to national interests by the state subject to the sanctions or when imposing nations enforce the sanctions half-heartedly, or even worse, not at all.
The acquisition by Iran of a nuclear capability that can be used to produce atomic weapons poses a serious threat to the Middle East and to the rest of the world. The consequences of such a development are severe, and the options for dealing with this threat are limited.
If the international community is willing to live with the prospect of a Middle East dominated by Iran, and the consequences associated with such a shift in the balance of power in the region, then we can expect the next round of debate in the Security Council to produce another weak condemnation of Iranian nuclear activities. If the member states of the U.N. are truly worried about the spread of Iranian influence and power, though, then the time is rapidly approaching for them to demonstrate the seriousness of this situation. The best way to do that is by authorizing measures tough enough to demonstrably affect Tehran's ability to defy the U.N. and pursue a nuclear program capable of developing nuclear weapons.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
It's aim has been to be a status quo power in order to develop its domestic economy. It had improved its relations with Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States in the 90's and is actively seeking to establish normal relations with Egypt, which have a troubled history since Nasser broke relations with Iran when the Shah recogrized Israel. The corrupt governments in the region are unstable, and the presence of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is destabilizing the region. Iran perceives their presence as a threat to its security . The revolutionary rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is more an expression of the fear, which has persisted since the revolution in 1979, that the United States wishes to overthrow its government. There is Iran's current mistrust in the United States' intentions in Iraq. Iran suspects the United States plans to overthrow the Shia-dominated Iraqi government and install a Saddam-type puppet who will be hostile to Iran. The United States would benefit from Iran's cooperation in extricating its forces from Iraq and averting a return to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United States would have been wiser to have established diplomatic relations with Iran a decade ago. It is in its interest to work toward this now in order to repair its weakened status in the region and avoid further loss of its influence. Iran's right to develop nuclear power is a matter of national pride and applying further sanctions will work against the United States' interest in seeking Iran's cooperation.
Yes Iran feels threatened by our presence in Iraq, but there's more to this than just Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and seeking to better relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Beware the Israeli wildcard also. While I think it would be entirely reckless and could spark a true international crisis, and while I think we would never concur, a unilateral strike by the Olmert government as it struggles to survive in Israel is a possibility. Trying to remember the source (I think the NY Sun): had an article today about Israel ratcheting up the rhetoric about the "next level" if the UN doesn't act on Iran.
We see the situation differently, agreed. It would be stupid for Israel and/or the United States to attack Iran, and I hope that doesn't occur. For the United States, it could break the support of NATO. As with Vietnam, we could get out and repair the damage in time by exiting Iraq. Rolling the dice with an attack on Iran could have serious consequences , weakening our position severely for many years , and not only in the Middle East.
By the way, this was from debka:http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4284
The main reason the Middle East has been unstable is because of Iran's theocracy, Iraq's authoritarian Ba'ath party regime, and Afghanistan's Taliban. Two of those endemic problems are now gone. The area was in turmoil for the better part of 40 years.............and we stepped in and changed an unbalanced region. Now the area at least has a chance. Had we done nothing, we'd have had another 40 years of the same.
If Iran could be swept clean, maybe the entire region would have a real chance.
You are basing your view on a phony (and ideological ) rewrite of history, which is, unfortunately, perpetuated by well-financed interests. You have referenced Walker, who is a fool or a "true believer," at best. I am familiar with Mr. Walker's misrepresentation of the Reagan period and his policy toward the Soviet Union.
The "neo-Leninists" who sell the current aggressive line regarding Iran have no concern for truth. A realistic assessment of the situation in the Middle East includes recognition that Iran and Israel are both traditionally minorities, and , in one way, have common interests in maintaining their status and security. This reality supercedes the political rhetoric of elements in both nations. The United States' policy has not understood the role of Islamist parties in individual countries and misread the the intentions of Iran, which are focused on establishing itself as a modern nation having normal relations with all countries. Pressuring Iran by labeling it as a "rogue state" is counter-productive and may lead to greater instability in the region and result in the United States loss of status in the region and the American public demanding United States abandoning any support for its involvement in the Middle East. Withdrawal from Iraq could be a positive step toward avoiding this happening. There is more at stake than our present actions in the Middle East. Our role as a world power is in question. If we act unwisely, we are at risk of being perceived as a "rogue state" globally. The consequences could be worse than working with the possibilities available now through working to withdraw from Iraq in concert with other nations. We have traditionally been expected to be a leader in furthering the welfare of all nations and human rights.
These actions do not support the notion of a state which wants to have "normal relations" with all countries. Iran is a major contributor to instability in the region. As for us being perceived as a rogue state globally, I think that is already the case in a large part of the world. But withdrawing from Iraq while the Iraqi government is unable to defend itself will lead to further destabilization in the region as the Iraqi government collapses and Iran swoops in to fill the power vacuum (and while I suspect you disagree with that, it is my belief nonetheless).
Iraq is not suddenly going to become a peaceful nation if the United States withdraws. And as for engagement with Iran, I believe such a move could be productive if Iran became more forthcoming about its nuclear activities and stopped some of the actions I listed above. Iran is not behaving as a responsible world power and thus should not be treated as one.
No, it isn't reasonable to consider Iran a threat, for the reasons I have given. It is concerned about its security and how it would respond to an attack is problematical. Whatever response they might choose to make, we would weaken our psoition in the whole reogion, not just Iraq. We would benefit our position in Iraq and Afghanistan by practicing diplomacy with Iran and recognizing their concerns. Perhaps there are those in Israel who will wisely counsel Bush to not be so stupid as to attack Iran, although there are some in Israel who are not wise , too. The pressure on Israel to have its nuclear arsenal subjected to international control and the loss of support by the United States government are possible consequences if there is wider conflict in the region.
And the loss of support for Israel by the U.S. government is not likely under any administration, Democrat or Republican.
"Holy Joe" Lieberman's sermons notwithstanding, the United States government's support for Israel certainly could change. Israelis understand this very well.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF13Ak02.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_taliban;_ylt=Aq.9DWdtAUboypQY0GQJCNZvaA8F
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20070612_NATO_general_says_Iran_secretly_aiding_Taliban.html
I see your article and raise you two. The point is that I don't think anybody really knows whether Tehran is involved or not. The conflicting news articles only add to the confusion.
As for BH, there are a lot of problems with that plan (Israel has already said no to the Golan Heights, although there is some speculation lately that Olmert may give them up in exchange for a peace deal with Syria), and some of the recommendations are already being attempted (drawing in Iraq's neighbors, for example).
If Bush decides on a plan B, it will likely be some sort of hybrid of BH, but not the ISG report in toto.
Good article! This whole thing is a can of worms. Saddam has been the strong, stabilizing figure in the Mideast for some time and removing him leaves it wide open for a new kingpin. That is where Iran wants to come in. We are in a very awkward position in that we are telling Iran they will undergo sanctions for nuclear efforts while Israel sets there as a nuclear powerhouse.
I agree, we are going to continue under either party, to support Israel but how do we explain that they should be the only party in the Mideast allowed to have nuclear weapons?
And as far as arms to the Taliban, we are in a position of telling a sovereign nation who they may or may not have trade with. Their arming the Taliban reminds me of the Iran Contra thing under Regan. When our own nation had prohibited it creeps like Poindexter and North were arming the people we now wish to limit the arms of!
Like I said, it's a sticky wicket and we are knee deep in the middle of it with not visible way out. Perhaps our best bet is to educate all those countries on the ultimate effect of using nuclear weapons - extermination of human life! And then live with a nuclear Iran. Sounds scary but this whole situation was destined to turn scary the day we invaded Iraq!
I think this comes under the Law of unintended consequences!
One can copy your post whole, although it doesn't show.
I don't pay much mind to these stories. Bush has made statements in line with Gates on Iran's . Most stories in the media are scripted PR stuff. Some government and military people are told to give it out. Burns works to appear very knowledgeable and serious.
The administrations' lack of credibility has been earned. Bush said recently , "My Plan B is Plan BH (Baker Hamilton)" after he had said it wasn't , and then he says something else. Rice has done the same in her way. She sometimes lectures on a strategy, and then finds another strategy. But she spends little time meeting and listening to the people she has to deal with. Putin plays the game effectively. He doesn't lecture on his strategy, but he will meet you in discussion and make moves like in a chess game and adjust.
The American media kowtows too much. Not for national security. Sometimes that is important. I recall Kennedy know about the Russian missiles in Cuba for some months. He had to make it public because the story got out. Now the American media tells little of what's going on compared to other sources.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070613/wl_sthasia_afp/germanyusmilitaryiranafghanistan;_ylt=ArkehkXXag5aZ1xomV1psKNvaA8F
I had read the one of Gates you add. What is the significance? General McNeil in Afghanistan needs Iran's support and knows it. Their generals and ours worked together there during the invasion to overthrow the Taliban. We know Iran isn't seriously supporting the Taliban and they have been supporting the Afghan government and that Iran played a significant role in Berlin (and later) working with the United States in getting the factions to help with the invasion and to back Karzai (for which we were very grateful). We need Iran's help in Afghanistan now : they know it and we know it. If there is a faction in Iran supporting some Taliban groups, we would best keep focused on dealing with the official Iranian government. We have been supporting groups in southern Pakistan who have crossed into Iran and killed Iranians, and that provokes payback.
The "axis of evil" and "regime change" talk has made the United States seem like a 12 yr. old bully to the world instead of a leading power - and a dangerous and untrustworhy one. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq is viewed as as illegal by most of the world. We need help in Iraq from others.
Mutual provocations by Iran and the United States are not helping to further the goal of working out our relations in a realistic way. We have weakened our influence in the region and the world by our actions. We need to change our policy and way of doing diplomacy and we need the help of others.
Do we need Iran's help in Afghanistan? Of course we do, just as we need their help in Iraq. But your willingness to just dismiss the possibility of Iran playing both sides of the fence smacks of naivete, especially for someone who can speak so intelligently about the region as a whole, and Iran in particular.
Your willingness to automatically blame the U.S. first, while giving Iran the benefit of the doubt regarding their actions is also disturbing. And, I would submit that the axis of evil and regime change talk is no more damaging than the rhetoric coming out of Ahmadinejad's mouth. He isn't the real power in Tehran, but he's the visible spokesman on the international stage.
Finally, be careful with the "most of the world" talk when calling our actions in Iraq illegal. The United Nations just renewed the mandate for coalition forces in Iraq and there are currently 26 other nations contributing efforts of varying degrees, most in accordance with their capabilities, to the coalition in Iraq. The talk of "unilateral" action is old. And while I see some value in the United Nations and in international legitimacy, whatever that means, I appreciate a president who does not allow other nations to dictate our foreign policy. Even if he gets it wrong, we have checks and balances within our government to address the problems. Having the blessing of other countries is not a requirement in my book.
Finally, the last paragraph is more on track. The word "mutual" is more fitting. We need to change our way of doing business in the region, but the same can be said of Iran.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19219412/
AP June 14, 2007
BRUSSELS, Belgium - Afghanistan's defense minister on Thursday dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was "irrefutable evidence" that the Iranian government was providing arms to Taliban rebels.
"Actually, throughout we have had good relations with Iran and we believe that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of Iran," Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press.
On Wednesday, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Paris that Tehran was directly supplying weapons to the Taliban. He told CNN there was "irrefutable evidence" that arms shipments were coming from Iran's government.
The State Department later appeared to step back from Burns' assertion, but stressed that the United States has proof that weapons from Iran were reaching Taliban fighters in Afghanistan."
I realize you are being realistic, according to your knowledge and experience. We have different knowledge and experience, and view the world situation differently, in regard to the Middle East and the United States' policy specifically.
There is much in our current policy that is based on lack of qualified understanding. Some of this is due to ideology, not rational thought or experience.
Strategy and politics are always related in real life. It is important to separate them when seeking to understand the different choices that were, are or will be available. I don't think my views on Iran differ in general from what a number of well-known Americans and others have said regarding how the United States could deal with it. That doesn't mean I see the the world, Iran, the reformation occurring in Islamic nations the way they do; it does mean I accept they have a practical and demonstrated understanding of practical options and means that the United States has in its foreign policy based on the situation in the Middle East, which includes their consideration of the interests and roles of Europe, Asia, Russia and others.
Some provocative actions taken this year against Iran were ill-advised and clearly counterproductive, perhaps taken in ignorance of their likely effect. Whether they were authorized from Washington or Green Zone, they appear to have backfired. Fortunately, they sometimes failed in execution, for they might have provoked an escalated confrontation. Restraint by both Iran and the United States is desirable for it fosters conditions for diplomacy and discussion.
You may perceive I have tried to justify Iran's motives and actions and cast ours in a negative light. That is not my perception. They each have their interests and there are areas where they have some in common. There are factions on both sides that have extreme views and aims that could prevent successful diplomacy.
We do not agree on what Iran's aims are. It would have been wise for the United States to work toward normalizing relations since 1990 and since. Experienced American analysts expressed this view more than a decade ago. We have missed availing ourselves of several good opportunities since.
Most nations have normal relations with Iran. Since we have announced we want to install a missile shield in Eastern Europe, Putin has made it clear he does not consider Iran a threat to others.