One thread I picked up from reading the recent Iranian document is that they see this issue as part of a larger set, and that they will not be subjected to different treatment than the rest of the world. Basically, Iran is not going to give up their program when they see neighbors like Israel, Pakistan, and India with a bomb, especially when they already feel marginalized and isolated from the rest of the world.
Additionally, the domestic political scene in Iran contributes to this stubborn, though justifiable, rhetoric. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have effectively staked their political fortunes on the nuclear issue. They face increasing political isolation, a ruined economy, and a potent if underwhelming contrarian civilian population. The Iranian regime cannot afford to let the “Americans push them around,” and give up their program, after they have railed about their sovereignty and “rights” for so long. In short, they are already in dangerous waters and against a wall, so they need to appear strong.
Fortunately, this opens up an avenue for creative diplomacy. The West can give the Iranians what they claim to want, peaceful nuclear production, while providing economic and security incentives, all the while “saving the face” of the regime. This offer will look quite reasonable, and if the Iranians don’t accept, it could mean big trouble at home. I can explain.
Instead of making the issue solely about Iran, Obama, as 'leader of the free world,' should frame it as part of a worldwide nuclear arms reduction program. The US and Russia have made some progress on this, since the SALT II treaty expired, but it could use a kick in the pants. Additionally, states like France and Great Britain would happily play along, and perhaps nuclear-armed Pakistan and India could be brought into the fold. Of course, the Israelis would need to kick something in as well, but they may well be convinced, since the alternative of a strike against Iran (especially without full US consent or assistance), is a balagon of epic proportions.
In return for the above countries limiting their nuclear arsenals, Iran would be asked to submit to full UN inspections of all nuclear facilities, and some sort of deal regarding disposal of spent fuel rods. There could also be the added incentive of Russian assistance in building Iran power plants, which America could offer in exchange for cleaning up antiquated Russian nuclear sites, long a pet issue of Obama’s.
Though this is indeed quite a long shot, the combination of cooperation in arms reduction, sanction removal, a security guarantee against Israeli aggression (based of course on full disclosure), and broad economic cooperation would be a powerful package indeed. The proposal would put the Iranian regime in a really tough spot. Their bluff is effectively called in the eyes of the world community, as they claim to want peaceful enrichment, and this is provided on a silver platter, along with security and economic incentives. Additionally, the can sell this agreement to their people as a victory, in that they did not capitulate to the US and are continuing to enrich uranium on their soil.
The Iranians will be led to believe that this is a final offer, as the “stick” is being provided by the powerful Israel Defense Forces, with tacit American consent. The people of Iran are anxious to avoid war, and many want an open economy, so if the regime refuses the offer, it may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The tide of revolution may not break onto the beach, but it will certainly be storming the barricades.
Either way, an agreement or further isolation leading to a possible overthrow, the West wins and avoids a catastrophic war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can get on board with most of this, though I have a few reservations about the logistics of letting Iran develop a nuclear plant. As I understand it, once a country is able to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it doesn't take much additional time to develop a bomb. If I'm right about this, the only way your plan could work is if the UN were prepared to use force in the event that Iran should kick out inspectors at some time in the future. Otherwise, Iran would have a large enough window to take the final steps toward developing a bomb.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Dave! As far as the time lapse between enrichment and weaponizaton, I am not all that knowledgeable. What I do know is that it takes a much higher level of enrichment for a weapon than for power plants, and this does take some time. It also depends on the amount of centerfuges one has, and I think Iran has a lot.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, there are other important steps besides just enriching the uranium, or plutonium. The most challenging of this, to my understanding, is attaching the material to a suitable rocket. I have read the Iran is not believed to possess this technology at the moment, and the US/Israel feels confident they would know if it was shipped in.
So, the bottom line is there would be some time between the inspectors getting the boot and a possible strike. However, there is a more important issue. We are in agreement that in the end, the only real way to stop Iran from attaining these technologies may be physical force. My diplomatic plan, or whatever Obama currently has up his sleeve, are merely attempts to avoid military escalation (as well as calculated political theater...)
Israeli/US force may still have to be used either way. (The UN has no army and it is hard to imagine, under the current charter, they would do anything like bomb a nuclear site). My solution merely gives us more information. Currently, neither the US or Israel have anyone on the ground in Iran (ostensibly), so our info is spotty at best (and we know what inaccurate intelligence on WMD's can lead too...)
If the UN inspectors are in Iran, and are kicked out, is that really worse than where we are now? Regardless of whether the UN is there or not, foreign governments would be free to do whatever they feel necessary. Additionally, if the UN inspectors were given the boot (again), this would provide a much wider mandate and more universal support for military action.
I'm not exactly sure if this answers your question, so let me know. Thanks again
nuclear power is still a pretty big risk. my understanding is that it would be a matter of 3 to 6 months for them to enrich from power-grade to bomb-grade uranium. whats to stop them from building a very secret and small facility to enrich very slowly? for a plutonium bomb (the waste from a uranium power plant) it would require them to build an implosion bomb which is extremely difficult - much harder than a uranium bomb. this is the kind north korea has been trying to build, and their last test was a dud: only 2% of expected possible yield. regardless, all iran would need to do is sneak away some of the plutonium waste and get some smart engineers in there. i think it's safe to say they'll be able to get better people than north korea has.
ReplyDeleteso i think the way to go is to bring countries like south africa and south korea into the fold. these are countries that decided not to pursue nuclear weapons because they realized they can have greater power and influence in the world by being integrated into the global economy. this is the way i think the conversation needs to go. a monitored power-plant is a balagon waiting to happen.
Alright Alex! Thanks for the response and the new information. I’m really loving this having to defend my positions all the time, it keeps on one one’s toes…
ReplyDeleteI agree that “nuclear power is still a pretty big risk.” This is undeniable. However, I do not think it is possible to prevent Iran from achieving this “peaceful” capability without military action. The regime has spent way too much political capital to give in to Western demands now, and they know that the West doesn’t have a leg to stand on about peaceful production, seeing as many Western nations are utilizing this as we speak. Furthermore, Iran appears to have the technical know-how, so other than systematically killing all their scientists, as well as smart students and sympathizers/merchants abroad, the cat is out of the bag.
I’d even take it a step further. Anything less than a US or NATO-sponsored full scale invasion and occupation, which I think most will agree is both unrealistic and infeasible, will not stop the Iranians from developing nuclear power. Let’s say that someone bombs all their nuclear facilities, including using deep-penetrating weapons on sites under major cities. Disregarding the civilian casualties and worldwide outrage this would cause, what’s the most the Iranians are delayed in rebuilding and rearming? 3 years? 5 years? This is not acceptable for the balagon that we have unleashed.
As far as your specific concerns, I do agree about the plutonium being a potential problem. I did talk briefly in my post about the need for program to dispose of spent fuel rods, but this would need to be hashed out significantly. The issue of disposal of nuclear waste is not unique to Iran, the US and Russia have grappled with this for years, so this could be an opportunity to deal with that in a world wide context.
As far as bringing South Korea and South Africa into the fold, this may help a little, but I don’t think it’s a game changer. Both these countries have good historical ties to the West, making them open to compromise and economic incentives, while the Islamic Republic is part of the “axis of evil.” Iran, or at least the current regime, is seeking a seat at the table of real power through nuclear weapons (a la North Korea), and it will take more than a few dollars to make them back down. We will have to give them more, especially because they know that the US’ hands are tied in regard to sanctions due to the Chinese and Russian presence on the Security Council. Iranian nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to seriously reckon and bargain with them, or face the consequences which are “lo yafah” (not pretty) to say the least…