November 19, 2004
PEACE IN OUR TIME
H-hour has arrived (Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, November 18th, 2004)
Iran's interest in making the deal (with Germany, France and Britain) is clear. The IAEA governing board is set to meet next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program. By agreeing to the deal with the Europeans, Iran has effectively foreclosed the option, favored by the US, of transferring Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council for discussions that could lead to sanctions on Iran.Aside from that, all along, Iran has been gaming the system. It has pushed to the limits all feasible interpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, to enable it to reach the cusp of nuclear weapons development without breaking its ties or diminishing its leverage over the Europeans as well as the Russians and Chinese. In so doing, it has isolated the US and Israel – which have both gone on record that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons – from the rest of the international community, which is ready to enable Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities.
In the meantime, as Iran has negotiated the deal with the Europeans, it has moved quickly to develop its nuclear weapons delivery systems. Its recent Shihab-3 ballistic missiles tests seem to have demonstrated that Iran can now launch missiles to as far away as Europe. In addition, last week's launching of an Iranian drone, as well as this week's Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel, have shown that Iran has developed a panoply of delivery options for using its nuclear (as well as chemical and biological) arsenals to physically destroy Israel.
For their part, the European powers must know that this deal is a lie. The ink had not dried on their signatures when Iran announced that it wasn't obligated by the agreement to end its uranium enrichment. As well, on Wednesday, just two days after the deal was announced formally, the Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance – the political front for the People's Mujahedeen (which the deal stipulates must be treated as a terrorist organization comparable to al-Qaida) – held press conferences in Paris and Vienna where its representatives stated that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium at a Defense Ministry facility in Teheran and that it bought blueprints for nuclear bombs three years ago from Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear bomb store. The Council of Resistance is the same organization that blew the whistle on Iran's nuclear program in 2002, when it exposed satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear facility in Natanz.
Aside from this, European leaders themselves have said that in their view there is no military option for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. In an interview with the BBC this week, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop." Straw made this statement the same week that French President Jacques Chirac made an all-out diplomatic assault against British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his alliance with US President George W. Bush. Speaking to British reporters on Monday, Chirac said, "Britain gave its support [to the US in Iraq] but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors." Chirac added that he had told Blair that his friendship with Bush could be of use if the US adopted the EU position on Israel and the Palestinians. Since Bush has refused to do so, Chirac argued, Bush has played Blair for a fool.
From these statements, two things about the European agenda become clear. First, by bringing Britain into the talks with Iran, the French have managed to ensure that the Americans, if they decide to do something about Iran's nuclear weapons programs, will be forced to act without British backing and at the expense of the British government, thus causing a serious fissure in the Anglo-American alliance. Straw's statement is breathtaking in that it shows that on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons, the British prefer to see Iran gain nuclear weapons to having anyone act to prevent them from doing so.
Chirac's statement exposes, once again, France's main interest in international affairs today. To wit: France wishes only to box in the US to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism. The French do this not because they necessarily like terrorists. They do this because as Chirac has said many times, he views the central challenge of our time as developing a "multipolar" world. France's obsession with multipolarity stems from Chirac's perception that his country's primary aim is not to free the world from Islamic terror, but to weaken the US.
Why were those three negotiating in the first place? Did Kofi give them power of attorney?
Since the UN Security Council is like the US Senate, where any one permanent member can stop any measure from passing, if France wants this deal instead of some UN supervised deal, that's the way that it's going to be.
Thus, Europe's Big Three have just as much standing to negotiate as any UN representative would have.
The threat to Israel is a little overblown, too.
OK, they'll have a handful of nukes and the missiles to deliver them...
Iran could have bought a monstrous fleet of aircraft and overwhelmed Israel with conventional means, as well.
That they didn't might mean that they recognize that attacking Israel directly is suicide.
One Iranian nuclear missile hits Israel, and it's bye-bye Ancient Persia.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 19, 2004 7:09 PMOfficials of the Iranian government have stated that it would be a fair trade.
1 Nuke pretty much ruins Israel anyway.
We can handle a nuclear Persia if we can abide a nuclear Pakistan. A nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not a good idea.
Posted by: JAB at November 19, 2004 9:47 PMI doubt if Jack Straw would 'go to Qum' at this point. But they are washing their hands of the matter.
This is one tough nut - taking out a dozen or so Iranian facilities (including Bushehr) means lots of casualties, and it will probably hurt the nascent revolution in Iran by emboldening the screamers. Our best bet is to kill about 200 mullahs in one fell swoop, but who is up to the task?
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 19, 2004 10:09 PMJudd says:
"...France's obsession with multipolarity stems from Chirac's perception that his country's primary aim is not to free the world from Islamic terror, but to weaken the US..."
For what purpose does Chirac want to weaken the US?
Oldkayaker: Having one very powerful nation (the US) while the rest fall far short isn't the best situation if you want to develop a "multipolar" world. So either all the other countries can build themselves up, or pull the U.S. down like Gulliver in Lilliput, or both.
Posted by: Just John at November 20, 2004 1:51 AMJAB:
They might talk tough, but they haven't done it yet, which might indicate that the odds are good that they won't do it.
In any case, Israel has the Patriot anti-missile system, and the US and Israel have co-developed another type of anti-missile system.
Even if these systems are only 50% effective, (and they probably aren't much better than that), Iranian officials have to wonder if getting black-glassed is worth a 50/50 shot at damaging Israel.
The former USSR used to talk tough, but in the end, they couldn't bring themselves to test MAD.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 20, 2004 2:13 AMNo one can be absolutely sure what will happen; but one can certainly guess that a regime delighting in brinksmanship (and that is really good at it) who will have nuclear weapons plus delivery systems may present a bit of a volatile predicament (though according to Straw, this is entirely legitimate). Especially when such a country enjoys blackmailing, extortion, and threats (all presumably, ok as long as Israel is the target).
Europe is quickly, and one must conclude intentionally, placing itself in a position where it will have to "painfully" acquiesce to Israel's disarmament/suicide in order to achieve peace in our time. (Afer all, didn't they warn Israel that painful steps would be necessary?....)
P.S. When I last looked, Ancient Persia was gone.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at November 20, 2004 4:01 PMWhat can Europe do to force Israel to disarm ?
Israel doesn't even need US help anymore.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 20, 2004 5:06 PMAny deal like this is fine, so long as the inspections are carried out by the 82nd Airborne. And I hear that Iran wants to be given nucular material as well. I think we can provide a few bombs worth, on carefully selected targets...
Posted by: brian at November 20, 2004 8:16 PM