October 22, 2004
NUCLEAR PROTECTION MONEY
Iran nuclear deal 'tied to US election (Aljazeera, October 22nd, 2004)
Analysts have said Iran will wait until after the US elections to respond to a European offer to avoid possible UN sanctions by indefinitely suspending uranium enrichment.The analysts added the deal had no chance of success if the United States did not back the British-French-German offer, which includes non-nuclear items such as supporting Iran's joining the World Trade Organisation.
According to a confidential document prepared by the Europeans in advance of the talks, Britain, France and Germany presented Iran on Thursday with a deal to receive valuable nuclear technology if it indefinitely suspended all uranium-enrichment activities.
The deal includes a light-water reactor which would produce less fissionable material than the heavy-water reactor Tehran wants to build.[...]
The United States wants the Vienna-based IAEA, which since February 2003 has been investigating Iran on US claims that the Islamic Republic has a covert nuclear weapons programme, to send Iran to the UN Security Council, which could impose punishing sanctions.
But the European trio have so far opposed this, favouring instead a policy of "constructive engagement" to get Tehran to cooperate. [...}
But David Albright, a former IAEA inspector and president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said, he "can't believe Iran would turn down" the European trio's package, which includes a recognition of Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology, measures to increase trade and backing of some of Iran's regional security concerns.
"If Iran turns this down, reasonable people would have to [conclude] the country wants nuclear weapons," Albright said.
Unreasonable people figured that out some time ago.
Is there something about the name "Albright" that makes people dim bulbs?
Posted by: Noel at October 22, 2004 6:53 PMMy guess is that the Bush admin will end up supporting this deal.
The only situation that guarantees that Iran will not seek nuclear weapons is if they change to a government that doesn't want nuclear weapons, and this deal would buy time for that to occur.
Further, a nuclear-armed Iran, while a headache for Israel, isn't that big a threat to the US.
The Iranian government is rather unlikely to provoke all-out war with America, and they certainly aren't going to give nukes to terror groups. While they might like to, why would they give up one of a handful of weapons that command respect for Iran, purchased at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars apiece, to a gaggle of barely-trained loose cannons ?
I'd like to know why regime change as a result of Muslim threats was OK in 1980 for the US and bad for Spain in 2004.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 22, 2004 9:23 PMMichael:
Why would a nuclear Iran "certainly" not give such weapons to terror groups? They have already said as much. Better to let a surrogate take the blame - that is what they have been doing for 20+ years.
Harry:
Iran was not a threat in 1980, but a sign which revealed the foolishness of the man in the White House, who thought he could trust their leaders (just like he thought he could trust Brezhnev).
Carter was beaten for domestic reasons, not primarily Iran.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 22, 2004 10:10 PMHarry:
If it was bad for Germany in 1933, how can you hold it was good for the U.S. in the same year?
Posted by: Peter B at October 23, 2004 7:46 AMjim hamlen:
If Iran had a thousand nukes, they might give a couple to some terrorists, but they'll have maybe a couple dozen, after spending a couple billion dollars on the project.
Would they decide that any of the rare, expensive weapons are worth giving up ?
Nukes aren't like other commonly available explosives; each breeder reactor has a "signature" ratio of nuclear isotopes.
After a nuclear explosion, we can analyze the debris, and pinpoint at which reactor the bomb material was processed. Thus, if Iran gives nukes to a group that blows up NYC, a few days later Iran will lose a few million folks, including all of the senior leadership.
Further, why would they trust them to fanatics, who might get caught and spill the beans, and who might also decide to attack some other nation instead of the US ?
What if the terrorists blew up Russia or Arabia, instead ?
Iran would be much more likely to give up money, conventional explosives, or even chemical weapons.
They won't give up any nukes.