THE THREAT OF IRAN

• First, a summary of the genuine threat of Iran’s nuclear program.  The recently discovered nuclear facility deep in the mountains near Qum demonstrates how serious the nuclear threat really is.  There is no question that this facility is designed for uranium enrichment.  Uranium enrichment—the process of turning raw uranium into reactor or bomb fuel—is only one part of building a nuclear weapon, though it is the most difficult step.  The two remaining steps are designing and building a warhead, and then building a reliable delivery system, like a ballistic missile.  Israeli intelligence officials say they believe that Iran restarted weapons design work in 2005 on the orders of Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, the supreme leader.  German intelligence officials agree and say that Iran never really stopped its weapons development program.  Israeli and German officials say that Americans are being overly cautious, because they were stung in their assessment of Iraqi WMD’s before the invasion in 2003.  America has volunteered that its intelligence reveals that there are over a dozen sites involved in Iran’s nuclear program.  Furthermore, last Monday (28 September) Iran’s Revolutionary Guard test-fired missiles with sufficient range to strike Israel, parts of Europe and American bases in the Persian Gulf.  The tests of the medium range, liquid-fueled Shahab-3 and the solid-fueled Sejil-2 missiles raise the suspicion that Iran is seeking to hone its delivery system for nuclear weapons.  The day before, Iran also tested-fired three short range missiles with a range of 90 to 125 miles as a part of a military exercise named the Great Prophet IV.  The Revolutionary Guards, who run Iran’s missile program, just purchased over 50% of Iran’s Telecommunication Company in a $7.5 billion deal.  Recently, the Revolutionary Guard was awarded over 750 construction, oil and gas contracts and it has its own port facilities.  Its political influence has also increased, with many of its members elected to Parliament in 2003 or appointed as cabinet members in 2004.  The Revolutionary Guard was the force Ahmadinejad used to terrorize the protesters of his obviously rigged election as president.  The Revolutionary Guard is now the elite force of Iran, with the military, financial and political power consolidated solidly behind Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.

• Second, can the US realistically hope to negotiate anything of substance with Iran?  History must cause us to be very pessimistic about this prospect.  Indeed, Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in an address last October argued that “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.”  Michael Ledeen, in an essay in the Wall Street Journal, summarizes these contacts.  After the fall of the shah in February 1979, the Carter administration attempted to establish good relations with the revolutionary regime.  The talks ended with the seizure of the American Embassy in November of that year.  The Reagan administration sided with Iran in its war with Iraq, providing weapons and military intelligence to Iran.  This effort ended when the Iran-Contra scandal broke in late 1986.  The Clinton administration lifted sanctions that had been imposed by Carter and Reagan.  During those years, cultural exchange events occurred and the US publicly apologized for past sins.  But in March 1999, Supreme Leader Khamenei proclaimed that the US was the enemy of Iran.  George W. Bush negotiated extensively with Iran in public meetings and very secret private negotiations.  Despite an apparent agreement, which was to be publicly announced in September 2006, the agreement fell apart at the last minute.  All of these negotiations have been accompanied by sanctions.  But neither has produced any change in Iranian behavior.  Unfortunately, sanctions have normally been imposed by the US alone.  Over the last 30 years, our allies have pressed for further negotiations instead of sanctions.  Finally, in late 2006, the UN started passing sanctions, blocking imports or exports of “sensitive nuclear material and equipment” and called for member states to freeze the assets of anyone involved with Iran’s nuclear program.  In 2007, the Security Council banned all arms exports from Iran, froze Iranian assets, and restricted the travel of anyone involved in the Iranian nuclear program.  The following year, it called for investigations of Iranian banks, and authorized member countries to start searching planes and ships coming or going from or to Iran.  All of this brought no change and no curtailment of Iran’s nuclear program.  Ledeen concludes:  “Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West.  Why should anyone think they will work now?  A change in Iran requires a change in government.  Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.”  The silence of the current US government on this opposition has been deafening!

• Third, the US government’s policy toward Iran leaves Israel with little or no choice in terms of its own security.  The current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently gave an impassioned speech at the UN, in which he warned the world community about the genuine threat of the world’s first Holocaust-denying nuclear state!  There is little question that an Israeli airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, spread throughout the country, would have unpredictable and destabilizing results throughout the Middle East.  Perhaps Iran would launch missiles to Israel’s major cities; perhaps Hezbollah and Hamas would unleash a massive volley of rockets for days.  Perhaps The Palestinian Authority would end all talks with Israel.  But President Obama has done little to assure Israel of US sympathies.  Obama has picked public fights with the Israeli government over settlements and has adopted a tone of neutrality on major Israeli issues.  This is dangerous as well, for Israel may conclude that the US is an unreliable partner and that Israel must defend itself—alone!  Michael Gerson, the columnist, writes:  “[Israel must be able to trust] American goodwill, competence and strength of purpose.  The immediate precedent does not encourage confidence.  Israelis look at the North Korean crisis and see an example of meticulous, multilateral cooperation resulting in spectacular counterproliferation failure.  Why, they wonder, is Iran going to be different?  Weak credibility on North Korea has strengthened the argument for direct Israeli action against Iran.”  Since the survival of Israel is at stake, who can blame Israel for striking Iran?  The current administration has done little to instill confidence in the Israelis that the US is a loyal partner.

See Michael Gerson in the Washington Post (2 October 2009); Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal (30 September 2009); and Alan Cowell and Nazila Fathi and Souad Mekkennet, two separate news article in the New York Times (29 September 2009).

Print