|
Weekly Commentary
Of Mullahs and
Nukes: What to Do?
The report this week about Iran’s Parchin military complex being
a possible nuclear weapons site has greatly undermined the
rationale of reaching a nuclear “grand bargain” with Tehran. If
anything, it should point to the futility of reaching a nuclear
deal with an intrinsically terrorist regime whose foremost
priority is to reach the nuclear point of no return.
This enormous complex, 20 miles southeast of Tehran, is owned by
Iran's military industry and has hundreds of buildings and test
sites. In a report by Institute for Science and International
Security, David Albright and Corey Hinderstein wrote that based
on a review of overhead imagery this site would be a logical
candidate for a nuclear weapons-related site, particularly for
research and development of high explosive components for an
implosion-type nuclear weapon.
The revelations on the mullahs’ regime nuclear weapons program
by the Iran’s main opposition coalition, the National Council of
Resistance, and the findings of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, IAEA, have convinced almost everyone, even Tehran’s
apologists in the EU capitals and Washington, that Iran is
working toward the A-bomb. Short of a nuclear bomb surfacing in
one of the suspect sites – a smoking gun of some sort - the
evidence is overwhelming. This consensus, however, ends when the
debate over what to do about this threat begins. The opinion
pages and talk shows abound with often-contradictory ideas.
The Europeans have attempted to engage the regime, hoping to
convince it to abandon uranium enrichment and stop lying to the
IAEA.. The past record and - as Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Dick Lugar noted recently - the abject
failure of a similar deal the EU-3 reached with Tehran last year
has left this approach completely discredited. Still, supporters
of engagement in foreign policy establishments such as the
Council on Foreign Relations and the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace continue to speak of the need to strike a
bargain with Tehran.
On the opposite side, there are those who advocate a tougher
line towards Tehran, ranging from working with the United
Nations Security Council to diplomatic isolation to working for
regime change in Iran.
Diplomatic initiatives, such as referring Iran’s nuclear dossier
to the UN, while a welcome departure from the spineless soft
approach of the EU, would still provide Tehran valuable time and
diplomatic cover to keep on its pace.
Some experts argue that the most realistic approach seems to be
one of regime change. The idea of Tehran reforming itself rests
more on hope than experience, they point out. A quarter century
after ruling Iran with an iron fist, the fanatical clerics are
not about to abandon what has kept them in power for so long,
repression at home and crisis making abroad.
While regime change advocates may be correct at least in theory,
what they lack is creativity and backbone to make their idea
work. Regime change in Iran must rest upon bold and practical
steps that are consistent with the dynamics of Iran’s political
landscape and the geopolitical equation between Iran and Iraq.
With Iran working round-the-clock to destabilize Iraq, the
likelihood of democracy flourishing in that country are quite
remote so long as the big neighbor the east remains in the hands
of the fundamentalists.
Similarly, the threat of a nuclear-armed, fundamentalist Iran
would subside only when a democratic, secular and peaceful
government is established there. The millions in Iran and
anti-fundamentalist opposition groups must be encouraged in
their efforts to bring about that change.
To this end, our administration must:
1- Abandon the notion of engagement and all of its aliases,
including “grand bargain” or “direct dialogue,” by embracing
regime change as the official policy of the United States;
2- Offer recognition to, and support for, the Iranian people’s
two-decade long struggle against clerical regime;
3- End all restrictions on Iran’s democratic and
anti-fundamentalist opposition forces as they work to realize
regime change there. We must help create a better balance of
power between the regime and its opposition;
4- Remove Iran’s main opposition group, the Iranian Mujahedeen
Khalq (MEK) from the State Department’s terrorist list, as
suggested by many American policy experts and veteran military
analysts. After a 16-month probe of the MEK and its members in
Camp Ashraf, Iraq, turned up no wrongdoing on their part, there
are strong moral, legal and political reasons to do so.
For a variety of historical and political reasons, the heavy
burden of this regime change must fall and has fallen on the
shoulders of Iranians themselves. The outside world and the
United States in particular, however, can play a major role in
expediting this change. America cannot afford to wait until
after the presidential election in November.
(USADI)
Return to Top
Reuters
September 14, 2004
US study says a
nuclear Iran would aid more terror
WASHINGTON - Iran could acquire a nuclear bomb in the next one
to four years and would become more willing to aid terrorist
groups once it has an atomic capability, according to a U.S.
study released on Tuesday.
The study by the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center,
which was partly funded by the Pentagon, said U.S. talks with
Iran on the nuclear issue -- which the Bush administration
opposes -- would be "self-defeating."
Instead it proposed steps like pressing Israel to freeze its own
atomic capability, raise the cost of Iran going nuclear and
dissuade other countries from following Tehran.
"Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a
nuclear bomb, lacks for nothing technologically or materially to
produce it and seems dead set on securing the option to do so,"
said the think tank's study, headed by Henry Sokolski.
"As for the most popular policy options -- to bomb or bribe Iran
-- only a handful of analysts and officials are willing to admit
publicly how self-defeating these courses of action might be,"
it added.
The study addresses a thorny problem confronting the
Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the United
Nations' nuclear watchdog.
Secretary of State Colin Powell ruled out direct talks with
Tehran, saying in an interview with Reuters "we just don't want
to make it a U.S. and Iran issue." As for when Iran might
acquire a bomb, Powell said: "I don't think they are days or
months away from such a development," suggesting there is still
time for diplomacy to work.
The report, based on research papers and meetings with experts
on Iran, the Middle East and non-proliferation, said if Iran
gets the bomb it would pose a heightened threat in three key
areas.
Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Algeria
might move to develop their own nuclear options.
Oil prices would increase dramatically, forced upward by Iranian
threats to freedom of the seas.
And "with a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to U.S.
and allied actions against it, Iran would likely lend greater
support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya,
Saudi Arabia, Europe and the U.S.," the study said.
Because eliminating Iran's nuclear option "may no longer be
possible," Washington and its allies must take other steps to
curb Tehran once it got the bomb, the study said.
These include persuading Israel to initiate a nuclear restraint
effort that would close down its Dimona reactor and isolate Iran
as a regional producer of fissile materials.
It is also recommended that the U.S. offer Russia some sort of
compensation for ending its nuclear cooperation with Iran.
Return to Top
News
September 15, 2004
Armed and Dangerous?
The U.S. government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
have questions about a military site in Iran with suspected ties
to the country's nuclear program, ABC News has learned.
Iran's Parchin complex — covering approximately 15 square miles
and located about 19 miles southeast of Tehran — is known as a
center for the production of conventional ammunition and
explosives. A State Department official has confirmed the United
States suspects nuclear activity at some of its facilities. The
suspicions focus on possible testing of high explosives.
"Parchin is the center of Iran's munitions industry and home to
Iran's oldest ammunitions factory, founded before World War II,"
said John Pike, directory of GlobalSecurity.org, an organization
that seeks to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.
"It would be the logical place for Iran to conduct weaponization
work on an atomic bomb and the logical place for us to look for
such work," he said.
Images of Parchin, obtained exclusively by ABC News, show a
building within the facility's high-explosive test area that
could permit the testing of especially large explosions,
including those relevant to the development of a nuclear weapon.
"While the imagery is not definitive, it raises enough questions
that Iran should allow IAEA inspection of the site to alleviate
concerns," said Corey Hinderstein, deputy director of the
Institute for Science and International Security — a nonprofit,
nonpartisan institution that seeks to inform the public about
science and policy issues affecting international security.
An affiliation between Parchin and Iran's nuclear program had
not been previously suspected, and the site has not been
inspected by IAEA experts. A recent report by the atomic agency
did not mention the location, but ABC News has learned the IAEA
asked Iran privately to visit the facility more than a month
ago. U.S. and U.N. sources say Iran has ignored the request.
Return to Top
|
