TMCnet News
NUKE IRAN?(Daily Mail Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)THE IMAGE was guaranteed to send a thrill of horror through the hearts of the Western world. Surrounded by turbaned clerics in the holy city of Mashhad, Iran's rogue president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a screaming crowd that Iran has 'joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology.' A great swell of cries of 'Allah Akbar' (God is great) greeted the announcement. The Islamic Republic of Iran, more radical than it's been for years and with a firebrand president at its helm, has taken a decisive step along the road to acquiring the technology needed to make its own nuclear weapon. But how worried should the world be - and must Ahmadinejad be stopped, by force if necessary? Certainly, Ahmadinejad has gone out of his way over the past year to project an image of himself as a hysterical monster, calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' and describing the Holocaust as a 'myth'. His government, which swept away a group of reformers in a landslide election victory last June, has been as hard-line as any since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, cracking down on dissident students at home and disregarding the warnings of the international community to end his nuclear ambitions. Even such pro-Iranian countries as Russia and China agree that Tehran has behaved badly and must be reined in. And there's no doubt that Iran has been duplicitous in its dealings with the UN's nuclear watchdog for years. There's also little doubt, for all Tehran's official denials, that the purpose of developing technology to enrich uranium is aimed at providing the option of making a bomb. AND with yesterday's announcement that Iran has produced its first batch of enriched uranium, right on the eve of a visit by the International Atomic Agency chief Mohammed el Baradei, Iran made it very clear that it doesn't care a fig for the world's opinion. Does that leave war as the only option to bring the Mullahs to heel? George Bush said earlier this week that preventing Iran from acquiring nukes 'doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy'. But at the same time, American news reports have revealed that the U.S. is making covert contingency plans for both a military attack and for regime change in Iran. U.S. special forces teams have teamed up with anti-regime Arab insurgents in South Iran, and Washington has dramatically increased funding for exile groups who want to overthrow the regime. More worryingly, the Pentagon is also reportedly considering options for a limited strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, up to and including the use of nuclear 'bunker-busting' bombs. While our Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says an attack on Iran is 'inconceivable' and the idea of a nuclear strike is 'completely nuts', he also believes, along with the White House, that Iranians are yearning to be free of their ruling mullahs and declared his support for their 'aspirations for a freer and more democratic future'. However, the truth is that the regime appears to be more popular than it has been for years - thanks in large part to the U.S.'s saber-rattling. Under the previous, reformist, president, Mohammad Khatami, the regime was shaken by student protests, and it seemed possible that a Gorbachev-like wind of change was blowing in Iran. But in pursuing his nuclear ambitions in defiance of Washington, Ahmadinejad has managed to rally his people as Khatami was never able to do. 'People from every walk of life think that Iran should be able to develop its own nuclear power, and even nuclear weapons,' says Abbas Afsaneh, a Tehran-based writer. 'Even those who dislike the regime hate even more being pushed around by America.' In this light, America's favoured approach of sweeping UN sanctions - backed by the threat of force - may be part of the problem, not part of the solution. Many in Washington would have us believe that Iran's irresponsible behaviour is proof of the Islamic regime's inherent irrationality and instability. But in reality, much of Tehran's behaviour is dictated by something eminently rational - the simple desire to survive. Ever since George Bush included Iran in his 'Axis of Evil' in June 2002, Tehran's rulers have been convinced it is America's aim to topple their regime. In order to prevent that happening, Tehran has made sure that the U.S. and Israel have had too much on their hands to attack Iran. Supporting the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah, arming Shiite insurgents in Iraq, and whipping up anti-Western feeling during the recent controversy surrounding the publication in Denmark of cartoons depicting Mohammed are part of that self-defence strategy. The same goes for developing nukes. What better way of defending itself against foreign aggression than having a nuclear deterrent? Unwittingly, George Bush's belligerence seems to have proved the catalyst behind Iran's latest spurt of nuclear research. FOR many Iranians, the quicker they can join neighbouring Pakistan and Israel as members of the nuclear club, the safer they'll feel. Iran and the U.S. are locked in a vicious circle. The more America piles on the pressure, the less possibility there is for Ahmadinejad to back down without a fatal loss of face. Driving Iran into a corner can only lead to disaster. Moreover, the Iranian leader has made sure, through his ties to Shiites in Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah radicals in Israel and Lebanon, that he has the capability to set the whole Middle East ablaze if attacked. The West's best chance is to try to change Iran, not just change its leadership. Iran's recent waves of student prodemocracy protests are in abeyance now, for sure, but not irrevocably so. Fully half of Iran's population is under 30. The battle for Iran's future starts with them. So far, the mullahs have successfully brought them behind the clerical regime by stirring up a foreign foe - America - against whom they can unite, and a massive influx of oil money has allowed them to buy popularity through massive spending sprees. But that popularity could be ephemeral. Deprived of an external enemy, the corruption and hypocrisy of the regime will again come to the forefront. And there is still time to engage Ahmadinejad rather than bully him into further acts of foolishness. Tehran is far from being able to develop an effective bomb. Enriching uranium for a nuclear reactor is still a long step from making highly enriched uranium for a bomb, and even having a bomb is not an effective weapon without a sophisticated delivery system. Even with a delivery system, the technology of Israel's nuclear weapons system is so far in advance of anything Iran could have in the foreseeable future that any attempted attack on Tel Aviv would bring a massively disproportionate retaliation. Fortunately, though, we are not yet at the stage of having to calculate the odds of mutuallyassured destruction in a Middle Eastern nuclear war. The only way to keep things that way is to do everything possible to rekindle the reformist aspirations of Iran's youth - and, above all, avoid pushing its demagogic president further along the irresponsible path he has chosen. |