Among today's many foreign policy challenges, Iran's nuclear program may be the most daunting.
An Iran capable of producing - and delivering - nuclear weapons would have major global consequences.
Think about it.
Iran would wield enormous power in the most strategically vital and energy-rich part of the world. And its influence could extend far beyond, including in Latin America, where it has established close ties with Bolivia, Ecuador Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Moreover, it could trigger a nuclear arms race in an already volatile region. Would Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey simply sit by while Iran achieves nuclear-weapons capability? Hardly.
Already, some neighboring states may be exploring their own nuclear options. These developments could spell the end of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Would Iran share its nuclear and missile technology with others? Very likely. North Korea and Pakistan certainly did.
What about the claim that Iran is misunderstood, slandered by bellicose adversaries who misled us into Iraq and now threaten to repeat their mischief? Does Iran only want civilian nuclear energy to prepare for a decline in its vast oil and gas reserves?
Nonsense.
Intelligence from a variety of countries confirms that Iran's nuclear program reflects a clear desire to achieve, at the very least, breakout capacity, allowing it to weaponize in short order.
And Iran's missile program is on display for all to see. Iran sought to hide its enrichment facility near Qom, but it flaunts its military achievements. Why is Iran developing ballistic missiles with a range of 2000 kilometers and ever greater accuracy? And why is it seeking to extend the range to 5000 kilometers, putting all of Europe within reach?
Some say that Iran can be counted on to act rationally, even if it seeks power and prestige. It would never use weapons, they assert, that would invite a massive counter-attack. Wasn't the Cold War proof that nuclear weapons can create stability through mutual assured destruction?
Wrong on two counts. First, we cannot be certain that the current Iranian regime will act rationally. Driven by religious messianism, it might find martyrdom an alluring prospect. Second, countries derive power from merely possessing nuclear weapons, regardless of their possible use. Other nations would always have to account for Iran's nuclear capability in dealing with it, dramatically increasing Iran's political, economic, and military might.
So what should we do about this challenge? There is no easy answer. But what has not worked is abundantly clear.
From Germany's policy of "critical dialogue" to the European Union's six years of patient diplomacy, from President Bush's effort to isolate Iran to President Obama's extended hand, from Russia's soft negotiating touch to the UN Security Council's occasional slaps on the wrist, no policy has produced the desired result. To the contrary, all have bought valuable time for Iran and emboldened Tehran to believe it can have it both ways - remaining an integral part of the international community while flouting its will.
The focus must now be on increasing the price of defiance.
Europe remains Iran's top trading partner. That should end. China, India, and Russia should be persuaded to do the same rather than fill every void left by a departing European company. And why should Iran continue to benefit from importing refined energy products that strengthen the regime's grip on the country?
Iran's leaders may get the red carpet in Venezuela, but why do democracies like Brazil and Turkey offer warm embraces and business deals to Iran's UN-defying, human-rights-abusing, Holocaust-denying, vote-rigging president?
And the military option should remain on the table. That does not necessarily mean the use of force, but it may help convince Iran's leaders that continued defiance entails risks.
There is no guarantee of success. But the price of failure is so high that we can ill afford any further delay, disunity, or self-delusion in dealing with this pressing challenge.
about what, where were you when is.rael was stockpiling 300+ nuclear warheads...don't come back saying there are responsible democracy...we are witnessing that since last 2-3 years...
They sat by while Israel achieved nuclear weapons capability. What do they have now? 200? 300?
Has Israel permitted inspections? Has Israel signed the treaty?
Hey, how about Israel allowing IAEA inspections without restrictions and how about Israel giving up all of its WMD and its cluster bombs?
1981 Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear energy plant claiming the things ... Iraq not going to use nuclear energy, developing nuclear warheads, eminent danger
You can't even think up a new story ... you wait a while and recirculate the same BS you did over twenty years ago.
The reality is that Israel is the only country that has attacked/bombed its neighbors without provocation. Israel is the only country in that region with WMD and is the agressor. I wish Iran would build a nuclear bomb or two. Maybe Israel would shut up and learn to get along with its neighbors instead of always bombing countries it disagrees with.
by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/12/the-green-movement-and-irans-nuclear-program.html
By being cowardly, we opened (or allowed to be opened) Pandora's Box. We all know, once opened, the evil is uninterested in returning to the box. Of course it is always possible the world will be a safer place with bombs in North Korea, Iran & Pakistan. Could happen. Any one wiling to place a bet?
Of course, it can easily be argued that Armageddon is not the most unfair fate awaiting humanity. Reap as you sow.
Iran accepted the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, which Israel rejected, as it rejected plans going back to the Rogers plan under Nixon, the 1982 Reagan plan, as it has ignored the "road map," of Bush.
Israel's defiance of multiple Security Council resolutions declaring its colonization of the West Bank and the Golan Heights to be illegal, and its abuse of the Palestinians inflames the region. It gives every punk like Ahmadinejad a rallying point (however, he never said that Iran would "wipe out" Israel). This occupation was a primary factor in Atta's decision to lead the 9/11 attacks, and for Bin Laden to support them.
Iran's defense budget is a fraction its Arab neighbors' in per capita terms, and is less than one percent of what we spend in the US. There is a fatwa in place against the development or use of nuclear weapons, and its grand leader has reiterated that it will not launch a first strike against any neighbor.
In my view, it IS largely the same group of hysterical neo-cons, who exaggerated and lied us into Iraq, who are at it again on Iran, and for the same reasons. Our foreign policy is being driven by their mistaken belief of what is in the best interests of Israel.
Of course, according to many, Israel's nukes don't count.
also isn't ironic that Israel have something like 200 or so WMD and crying wolf that Iran "might" build 1 WMD in the next 2-3 years?
even though there is 0 yada NUN evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapon?
I also suspect that the sources you spoke about are the same sources that said "Iraq buying yellow-cake from Niger"
Oh, BTW i don't like Iran a bit, but I'm sick of these war games everyone think its good until its hits their homes or loved ones
If the human-rights abuses are any indication, they love power too much to give it up with such an act. You might, just might, be able to make a case that in such a scenario that they thought they were losing power, they might take the whole country down with them, but I do not buy that premise. It broaches upon paranoid xenophobia (a trait which you would indeed share with their leadership).
Rather, you should have stayed on the very real shift of dynamics which would inevitably occur, and possible return of old IRI behavior c. 1980's given by their new umbrella of deterrence, plus the proliferation among Turkey, Egypt and Gulf states. I think they may very well be pursuing the Japan option, as Juan Cole says, which still produces somewhat, though lesser, of the same increased hegemonic results enumerated above.
There are no good solutions from a Western standpoint. The US and Europe have tried sticks and carrots, respectively, Russia has tried trade. Military force isn't practical - not to mention the ramifications upon the Reform movement and perhaps giving impetus for them to just pull out of the NPT altogether. The willingness for martyrdom among Shi'as doesn't go so far as nihilism. You were off base on that. But it does mean punishments can backfire.
israel's nuclear proliferation is very well known and has not been denied. As usual, israel is behaving like a rogue state (while Iran does not have nuclear weapons). israel is more likely than any other country to start a large regional war or even a world war and, as we know from history, is capable of doing anything without regard for others. israel is greedy, selfish and dangerous in the extreme.
Now suppose Mexico was suspected of making fantastic weapons, with ties to terror groups of all kinds, and this foreign power invaded it, got a couple hundred thousand people killed in the process, and left it to pick up the pieces - and then it was found that no such weapons or ties existed.
Now suppose that very same foreign power is occupying Canada, without any plans to leave.
Would the United States be justified in developing weapons to oppose this foreign power?
Who is the interloper? Who has done the invading? Who has started the wars?
Iran has nukes it is going to blow up on Israel kill all the jews in middle east.... WRONG.... Iran has had jews living in Iran proper for at least 2500 years, the government of Ahmadinejad last year inaugurated a multi-million dollar jewish community center in Tehran paid by the government, the jewish community overwhelmingly voted for Ahmadinejad in the last election.
(http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3729203,00.html )
The rest of your article is just based on these two premises which are all a strategy to make the world so messed up so that Israel can ethnically cleanse all Palestinians
Enough of fear mongering
Tonight is the first night of Hanukkah.... good luck!
Thanks to the bellicose USA military plutocracy's threats to bomb and invade Iran and Korea, and any other country they can profit from,
EVERY COUNTRY NEEDS NUKES TO REMAIN SOVEREIGN.
Heck of a Job.
Morales in Bolivia the same.Heavy US involvement in coup and prior secessionist ´autonomy´ campaign from 2006-2008.Almost caused a civil war.So he probably doesn´t feel he owes the US military industrial complex much either.Unreasonable guy.
Iran.Culturally complex country.Last progressive govt there toppled in MI6-CIA coup in 53.Yawn.Brits wanted oil, US regional influence.So the least we should do if we haven´t is actually apologise for historical wrongdoings.That much is surely civilised.
Iranians remember and consequently hate both the Brits and Yanks with an equal passion.
As a reaction to the hated Shah regime imposed by the coup the Iranians turn to religion and eventually we end up with a man who looks about as socially comfortable as my dad and with even less tact or dress sense.
----
In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.
As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.
-- Madeleine Albright, March 17, 2000.
That and the Cairo Speech. Wanna guess Khamene'i's reaction? We'll make a fully apology when someone from the leadership echoes what Montazeri said to the same effect about the Embassy Seizure.
To this date, they still are afraid of Mossadagh and his political party and they have done everything to rewrite history on that account.