Ah ha!

Here's something I've been pondering... Iran.

I think that Iran *will* build nuclear arms, with an S. Not that they intend do; any fool can see that. I think that they will succeed. They already have the necessary material to do so, and obviously they have the will to do it no matter what the UN has to say. Not that many care what the UN has to say.

Since the burden of proof is on me, here's my evidence in 3 categories. 1, evidence that Iran is trying to get nuclear arms, 2, how they will do it, and 3, why they will get away with it.

1. Iran completely acknowledges that it has nuclear research facilities and is reprocessing uranium. Iran claims that it's nuclear program and associated uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes, electricity production, despite the fact that you can have a perfectly satisfactory nuclear reactor that is not also dual-use for nuclear weapon development. (this was a big issue with North Korea about 10 years ago, and we all know how that turned out) Why these ostensibly "peaceful" research sites have to be hidden and controlled by the military is, of course, an unanswered question. Given the militant history of the Iranian revolutionary regime, statements by its leadership, including a desire to "wipe out" Israel, Iran's affiliation with the nuclear black market, the fact that the program was kept secret for so long, and the fact that weapons grade plutonium has been found in the country by IAEA inspectors, all support my idea that Iran is definitely pursuing atomic arms.

2. They will stall for time while they finish the engineering. It worked for N. Korea, why not for Iran? With President Bush's political capital exhausted and the US military busy with Iraq and friendly relations with Russia, there is no real threat of military intervention. This means that the preferred method of handling the situation is diplomatic, and the shitty thing about diplomacy is that it takes FOREVER, especially if one side is actively trying to stall the process. (again, like North Korea did) They can walk out temporarily, stonewall on some detail, or otherwise be obstinate, and it's all perfectly acceptable in the course of peaceful diplomatic negotiations because no one is shooting at each other.

The EU is handling this round. Well, trying to. The US has handed the 'diplomatic situation' ball off to the EU for 2 reasons I think: #1, the US has a highly antagonistic relationship with Iran and no diplomatic relations. There's no reason to think that they would listen to us, or us to them, and #2, to give the Europeans a taste of the kind of people that we have to deal with regularly as a status-quo enforcing hegemon. Kind of a, "You think we're doing this badly? Fine, YOU deal with them. We're going home." And it looks like maybe the Europussies will get something done! A referral to the UN Sec. Council is nothing but a gentle scolding, since anything stronger will be vetoed, but at least *something* would be done. And depending on how things unfolded, political pressure could be put on Russia and China later. Maybe there's progress!

3. Or not.

He also said turning the matter over to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions on the country, was not an immediate answer.

"Let us not think we should jump the gun, and use enforcement," ElBaradei said. "You still have to go back to the negotiating table afterward."

The laureate said there is no reason to suspect that Iran already has nuclear weapons, and urged the eight or nine countries that already do have atomic warheads to reconsider their policies.

"If you really want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, the nations that have them should lead the way," ElBaradei said.

Um, did he just suggest that even though Iran is pursuing nuclear arms, (but doesn't have them yet!) they shouldn't be referred to the UN ("Enforcement," heavens forbid), and they can't really be expected to stop anyway until rest of the world's nations disarm first? That somehow, proliferation will cease if only the nuclear club will see the light? Is he on crack? The lack of any nuclear armed rivals makes the pursuit of nuclear arms even MORE worthwhile for the sheer power and influence you would have in relation to peers. What, then, would deter Iran from dropping a Shahab onto Tel Aviv? Perhaps I spoke too soon about progress.

So there's nothing really to interrupt Iran's process of development. The UN agency responsible for preventing this kind of thing has a spotty record and seems to be in no hurry to actually try to enforce the provisions of the treaty that for which they are supposed to monitor compliance, and the nations trying to negotiate this issue have kind of a reputation (excluding the British) for having no spine internationally unless it involves Turkey.

And once Iran gets "the bomb," who's going to take it away from them?

Then there's this little tid-bit.

15 September 2005

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country is willing to provide nuclear technology to Muslim states stating, "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."
--"Iran's President Says his Regime Prepared to give Atomic Technology to other Muslim States," Boston Herald, 15 September 2005.

Clearly, something needs to be done. Can you imagine a nuclear armed Sudan? Syria? But because of the lethargic toothlessness of the UN, the pacifistic tendencies of the EU, and the current political impotence of the US, nothing will.

There is one other possibility; an Israeli preventative strike. It's worked before, but this time it might cause somewhat more of a stir. There's a sticky little detail about such a plan, too. To get to Iran, Israeli jets would have to cross Jordanian and Iraqi (i.e. American) airspace and probably refuel as well. Iran would scream about (plausible) US complicity in the Israeli strike and could use it as a cassus belli to invade Eastern Iraq, which they are itching to do anyway. Some Iranian schemes to soften up the area for an intervention have already been foiled by the US military. You'll just have to trust me on this one.