The latest news from Iran is that uranium enrichment is to begin again at the plant near Isfahan in the south of the country. The IAEA have met in emergency session and a 10 day ultimatum may yet be issued - cease enrichment or face referral to the UN Security Council and probably international sanctions.
Georgie boy, as expected, is trying to sound tough:
"It is important for the Iranians to understand that America stands squarely with the EU3, that we feel strongly the Iranians need to adhere to the agreements made in the Paris accord and that we will be willing to work with our partners and deal with appropriate consequences should they ignore the demand," he told reporters in Texas.
The thing is, none of the EU3 will go for any kind of military response - and neither will China or Russia - so it looks like sanctions are the only "appropriate consequence" available. Even if they did, any military response would likely be limited to airstrikes. There simply is no way the US and any allies it could drum up (Britain said no months ago) could mass a ground force of the required scale. Then again, sanctions worked on Libya.
Now personally, I am in two minds about all this - maybe even three minds. On the one hand I feel strongly that increased nuclear proliferation is just about the most unwanted thing that could happen in this world and I do not think Iran is a good candidate to be trustworthy and peaceable with nuclear weaponry in its arms cupboard. On the other hand, I can see why Iran would want to have nukes - from a purely realpolitik point of view their possession seems to ensure lengthy negotiations (North Korea) or even aid and arms deals (Pakistan, Israel, India) rather than invasion at the hands of the purveyors of the Pax Americana.
And on the third...ummm...hand... I read about the latest National Intelligence Estimate that Iran is probably a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredients for a nuclear weapon and I think maybe it all is just for generating electricity so that they can sell all that valuable oil instead of burning it themselves. Who then could blame them? The money would be much more handy in so many ways than the electricity would be if the electricity could be made another way. Its purely a sensible economic move at that juncture.
So for now, my internal jury is still awaiting the clinching evidence either way. Given the lack of WMD in Iraq, I can only take Bush administration assertions that Iran is actively pursuing the bomb with a huge pinch of salt. Especially since their own spooks seem to think differently. Then again, I really don't want Iran to have the bomb.
Mind you, I don't especially want Japan to have the bomb either, yet their right-wing is newly aggresive and newly resurgent - including calls for Japan to become a nuclear power. Japan already has the material and know-how to build a few thousand nukes but I don't see the same outcry about it. Some have suggested that there is little political base for such a move, yet recent events in Japan have paved the way to power for some who would prefer an aggresive foreign policy. Ten years can be a very long time in geopolitics.
Update 12th March
I said above I was still awaiting evidence that would decide me on the Iranian nuclear issue - and now courtesy of Kirkrrt at Gnostinews I think I have it.
The first is an article by Gordon Prather, a nuclear physicist, old-fashioned Republican and policy wonk of substantial standing. He says, bluntly,
Iran hasn't announced any plans to "resume enriching uranium."
Iran hasn't even finished manufacturing the several thousand gas-centrifuges it hopes to eventually employ in a uranium-enrichment pilot plant.
What Iran did was to inform the IAEA that it had "decided to resume the uranium conversion activities" at the Uranium Conversion Facility in Esfahan and requested that the IAEA "be prepared for the implementation of the safeguards-related activities in a timely manner prior to the resumption of the UCF activities."
So - Iran is fully compliant with IAEA safeguards still and is a long way from having anything that would approach weapons-grade material manufacturing capabilities.
The second, which references the first, is by Jude Wanniski, who says Tehran is bending over backwards to observe the Non-proliferation Treaty and even go further in absolute co-operation with the IAEA.
the “crisis” is of our making, not Tehran’s. If you read the papers to keep up with what’s going on, you would be thoroughly misled, because our media is no more competent to inform on these nuclear matters than they were when reporting that Saddam was sitting on a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
So...more of the same old, same old then. It's the WMD witch-hunt all over again.
No comments:
Post a Comment