Iran: Beyond the Rubicon of Trust

Last weekend marks another failure of Iran to respond to an informal deadline as to whether it will negotiate on freezing parts of its nuclear program. One might question why this matters, should the world fear a nuclear Iran? The answer hinges on whether Iran plans to use its nuclear power for a legitimate means. A close examination of the Islamic Republic's words and deeds since 2002 -- when its covert nuclear aspirations were exposed -- provides insight into the regime's intentions.

Time and again Iran has given duplicitous answers when questioned about its pursuit of nuclear power and sponsorship of terrorist activity. It therefore, begs the question, can we trust the words of Iranian Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, when he recently said, "Iran wants no war with any country, and today Iran is friend of the United States and even Israel... Our achievements belong to the whole world and should be used for expanding love and peace?"

At the Geneva conference last Saturday (July 21, 2008), EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, proposed Iran take a six-week break from its nuclear program of manufacturing centrifuges that enrich uranium. Iran declined. The refusal to temporarily freeze its nuclear program again raises suspicion and suggests that the apparently diplomatic position of Iran's Vice President, is a plot to further envelop the actions of Iran in a cloud of ambivalence.

The breached deadline last weekend clarifies to the international community it is time to recognise that Iran's dishonest conduct must be attacked, not appeased.

A sceptic would question how we know Iran's enrichment of uranium is not going to be used for peaceful purposes. The answer is clear. A peaceful nuclear program uses uranium enriched to between 3- 5%. A nuclear weapon uses uranium enriched to 90% or more. The U.N have repeatedly offered Iran nuclear technology suitable for generating energy, but not for building a weapon. Iran has persistently refused. Evidently Iran wants enriched uranium for more than peaceful energy uses.

The sceptic would probe further, why does the world fear a nuclear Iran? The answer is not the threat of Iran firing a nuclear weapon. It is the fear of Iran giving the technology to a terrorist organization. A legitimate fear considering Iran's fingerprint remains imprinted on many terrorist attacks across the Middle East, and is the known sponsor of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Further, Iran's policy aims toward the destruction of Israel, a sovereign nation. The Iranian President stated, June 3, 2007 "with God's help, the countdown button of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine. By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future." This directly contradicts the peaceful message of Vice President Rahim-Mashaei. Iran cannot be trusted and the sceptic's argument is without merit.

The words of Ehud Olmert are apt, "the international community has a duty and responsibility" to ensure Iran ends its pursuit of nuclear weaponry. But, how should we take further action? There are at least three possible answers i) military action ii) increase international legal and economic pressure on Iran and iii) regime change by assisting and encouraging domestic challenges to the Islamic Republic.

Military action, if taken, would have to be totally successful otherwise it would be counterproductive, causing huge ramifications on oil prices in the West. The war in Iraq is incomparable to the situation in Iran which is much larger and geographically more diverse. It is also somewhat hypocritical to take military action against Iran when countries such as Pakistan, North Korea and Russia also have nuclear energy programs. However, the crucial difference is that Iran poses a direct threat to a sovereign nation and has been thoroughly dishonest about the intent of its program.

While it is true that sanctions succeeded in South Africa but failed in Iraq, the international community has to try again. Stricter political and economic sanctions must involve Russia and China. All ports must be closed. The Iranian regime must be brought before the International Court of Justice and tried for inciting genocide.

Clearly, the answer is yes, the world should fear a nuclear Iran. The international community must enforce stronger sanctions against Iran. Iran must be stopped now, otherwise war will be our only option.

Comments

[tuna bake]

06:28 PM on 08/12/2008

I agree with this article. The west cannot simply put its head in the sand.

[precocious monkey]

04:05 PM on 08/11/2008

An excelent article. Sharp and to the point. I am very worried about this situation.

[gachod1]

02:07 AM on 08/09/2008

But Iran, a country that has not precipitat­ed hostilitie­s with any of its neighbours for nearly a century and a half, is an 'imminent threat'? Accurate informatio­n, indeed.

[gachod1]

02:09 AM on 08/09/2008

Seriously, Iran, a country without nuclear weapons and a signatory to the NPT, is a threat to a country that:
-is not even allowed to be an active participan­t in the UN since it is not part of a regional group (if only the Europeans would do the rest of the world a favour and not let Israel sit there even as a guest)

[gachod1]

01:57 AM on 08/09/2008

Seriously, Iran, a country without nuclear weapons and a signatory to the NPT, is a threat to a country that:
-is in violation of countless UN resolution­s (over 130), and that is not even counting the ones that have passed in the General Assemly but went on to be blocked at Security Council by the US, UK and France

[gachod1]

01:51 AM on 08/09/2008

Seriously, Iran, a country without nuclear weapons and a signatory to the NPT, is a threat to a country that:
-has started a war with each and every one of its neighbors (but always claimed to be the victim)

[gachod1]

01:50 AM on 08/09/2008

Seriously, Iran, a country without nuclear weapons and a signatory to the NPT, is a threat to a country that:
-currently has anywhere from 200-400 nuclear weapons (http://www­.globalsec­urity.org/­wmd/world/­israel/nuk­e-stockpil­e.htm)

[gachod1]

01:46 AM on 08/09/2008

Seriously, Iran, a country without nuclear weapons and a signatory to the NPT, is a threat to a country that:
-has had a covert nuclear weapons program for decades (insisting for a time that the Dimona facility was a baby formula plant no less)

[gachod1]

01:44 AM on 08/09/2008

Seriously, Iran, a country without nuclear weapons and a signatory to the NPT, is a threat to a country that:
-is not a signatory to the NPT

[david louis]

05:05 AM on 08/08/2008

At this time, it is worrying that the main policy to deter Iran is appeasemen­t. I find it reassuring to know that articles such as this one are calling for the necessary sanctions to combat the Iranian nuclear threat. Thank you to Ms Fisher for writing an excellent article with a realistic solution to the current crisis.

[supersilk]

02:36 AM on 08/08/2008

An excellent article. I agree entirely. The world must take much stronger action now if it is avoid a repeat f the 1930's. It is unacceptab­le for any country to threaten genocide. As for nuclear weapons and the spread of internatio­nal terrorism, is anybody watching Pakistan?

[meanguy]

12:44 PM on 08/07/2008

the support for the iranian regime from the 'american' left has got to warm the hearts of iran's friends like hamas, hizbollah, islamic jihad...

the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind

[meanguy]

01:38 PM on 08/06/2008

'history recalls how great the fall can be, while everybody'­s sleeping, the boats put out to sea...'

[kjdwyer]

12:12 PM on 08/06/2008

I'm always bothered by the way in which people frame their discussion­s of problems in the Middle East, particular­ly with respect to Iran.

The present Islamist theocracy came to power in Iran in the '70s, overthrowi­ng the Shah whose rise to power was the result of a cabal among the CIA , John Foster Dulles and the British governemen­t.

The British-ow­ned Anglo-Iran­ian Oil Company had been reneging on their commitment­s in leasing Iranian oil fields. The democratic­ally-elect­ed prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, was passionate about improving the conditions of Iranians by nationaliz­ing the oil industry and strengthen­ing their already establishe­d democracy. The British (after being discovered in their own unsuccessf­ul coup attempt) and American Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in concert with the CIA (whose director was his brother Allen) undertook a coup, the details of which are disgusting­. Read Chapter 5 of "Overthrow­" by Stephen Kinzer. By deliberate­ly underminin­g its democracy on August 19, 1953, the U.S. through the CIA planted the seeds for the kind of fanaticism that now rules the day in Iran.

My question to you, Ms. Fisher, is, given the actions of the U.S. and Britain in the region, and given that Israel acts as an American proxy, why should Iran trust them? We know why you think the west can't trust Iran, but I'd be interested to hear your views as to why they should trust us?

[S1m0n]

10:57 AM on 08/06/2008

The US's recent diplomatic initiative was never intended to succeed. This last-chanc­e diplomatic effort was carefully calibrated to fail, so that the administra­tion can say "we tried diplomacy and got nowhere, no we HAVE to go to war".

It's intent, in other words, was manufactur­ing a causus belli, not a treaty.

[chirps]

08:53 PM on 08/06/2008

"The US's recent diplomatic initiative was never intended to succeed."

Gee, that sounds familiar…o­h, I remember, Bush and his neocon handlers pulled the same sh*t in the run up to the Iraq war (with the main stream media aiding and abetting them all along), and now they're trying to do it again. Screw 'em.