"Iran vowed Thursday to resist any deadline to prove its nuclear programs are peaceful, even as support for such a measure grew among leading members of the U.N. atomic agency.
The United States accuses Iran of working on a secret atomic weapons program and says Tehran has violated provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Chief U.S. delegate Kenneth Brill criticized Iran on the basis of a report outlining discrepancies between Tehran’s past statements on its nuclear program and IAEA findings.
The report, by ElBaradei, lists the discovery of weapons-grade enriched uranium and other evidence that critics say point to a weapons program. Tehran insists its programs are for generating electricity and says its equipment was “contaminated” with enriched uranium by a previous owner."
As you know, I’m no Bush-fan, but Iran is a terrorist-sponsoring nation and all it’s going to take is ONE bomb smuggled into the USA on a shipping container to prove how important non-proliferation is.
Iran has undertaken the most ambitious nuclear-weapons program since the height of the Cold War buildup. Some intelligence experts (among them Yossef Bodansky, Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare) even assert that Iran has been a fully nuclear state since 1991, a feat allegedly achieved via the purchase of weapons from Kazakhstan.
Certainly its production of weapons-grade enriched uranium in a cavernous underground facility filled with gas centrifuges is a troubling revelation.
It goes without saying that the goings-on at the Natanz facility are a jaw-dropping violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. But in the post-1441 era, what are the odds that the “international community” will force Iran to abide by its non-proliferation commitments?
Not that I’m disagreeing with any of this, but Budansky has been strongly linked with the Israeli government in the past. I also think Iran’s the most dangerous state in the Middle East, though some of the stuff that Bodansky’s written has been questioned due to this supposed bias. His biography of bin Laden, for instance, essentially blames Iran for everything and makes the government there one of the key partners in the formation and continuing operation of al Qaeda. Which is certainly possible, though nobody else has been making claims this detailed and damning.
Let’s just airdrop all the Kalishnakov’s we’ve confiscated from the Iraqis onto University campuses across greater Iran, and watch the state crumble from within as a fresh-faced, democratic-leaning youth takes over power.
I’m being totally serious here, too. I suppose we could provide some air cover too, so maybe we can drop Tac radios with the AK’s.
More seriously, the non-proliferation consensus is really wierd. If you don’t get a nuke and you’re a nice country, you’re utterly reliant on the nuke-possessing to defend you, really. If you don’t get a nuke and you’re a bad country, you’re opening yourself up to getting stomped by the US. If you do get a nuke and you’re a bad country, you’re home free.
The incentives are all wierd.
Oh yeah: it’s highly unlikely a newly free nationalist Iran would want to give up its nuclear program.
The worst thing the US could do is assist Iranian popular resistance in any but the most hands off, we’re-here-if-you-want-us way. Unlike the Iraqis, I think they can do it.
The worst thing the US could do is assist Iranian popular resistance in any but the most hands off, we’re-here-if-you-want-us way. Unlike the Iraqis, I think they can do it.[/quote]
Exactly. They’ll have the Tac radios to call in airstrikes on a needed basis. :)
…you’re a nice country, you’re utterly reliant on the nuke-possessing to defend you, really.
That’s the way European security was managed for 50 years post-WWII. Rather than create a Europe of many nuclearized/militarized states, NATO served as both a nuclear and conventional defense umbrella for all aligned states.
The more modern non-proliferation structure is basically the same, but centered around the UN, not NATO, and with the NNPT as the baseline for determining “aligned states.”
If you do get a nuke and you’re a bad country, you’re home free.
I see this trotted out all the time, and can’t understand how anyone comes to this conclusion. What actually happens is that the UN condemns you, all of your regional neighbors form a security condominium devoted to containing you, you are politely urged to dismantle your weapons programs or face total war, and, if you suicidally refuse to make a deal that ends in your disarmament, you can be fairly certain to face the delightful prospect of an invasion called Operation “Your Country’s Name Here” Freedom. I don’t think this amounts to “home free.”
Oh yeah: it’s highly unlikely a newly free nationalist Iran would want to give up its nuclear program.
The examples of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and South Africa contradict this assessment.
Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan weren’t that nationalist, don’t have much in the way of nearby threats, and have zero fear of the US. SA gave them up rather than hand them over to the ANC government.
On getting a nuke and you’re home free: do you seriously think the US will invade a country with even one nuclear weapon? I was talking in terms of the evildoers being able to stay in power, which is pretty much all they care about.
We don’t even fucking HAVE the capacity to invade anyone else while simultaneously maintaining our current military operations, unless we institute a draft. It’s a moot point.
Judging from the calls of a few of the Iranian protestors (Can the US invade iran while they’re here?), it seems highly likely that a non-theocratic Iran would be more than willing to give up its nuclear program in exchange for phat foreign aid lewt.
You don’t understand the nature of Iran, or the recent unrest, if you think that a “democratic-leaning youth” would succeed the mullahs. Even if there were another revolution, the Islamist forces would play a huge role in the new government. And no matter what happened, the nukes are there to stay unless someone goes in and gets rid of them by force. I really wonder what Israel’s going to do. They took out the Iraqi reactors in 1981, they’ve made veiled threats that they’d be willing to do the same a little further east. I can’t see Israel tolerating a state like Iran with nuclear weapons. Eventually, one of them would find its way to Tel Aviv.
Considering that the Iranian students played a large part in the uprising against the Shah and actively supported the Islamic state back then, I can’t say I’m willing to bet anything on them creating the basis of a healthy democracy should they revolt again now.
Ah, but our secret plan, codenamed the Maple Contingency, calls for a massive draft of the Canadian population. Ah-hahahahaha. Ah-hahahahaha. Ah-hahahahaha! Mmmm. We wrote it in the margins of the Canadian constitution and no one ever noticed, so it’s totally legal to! You guys were so drunk that day…
