Is Iran a Nuclear Threat?

To contact us Click HERE
The GOP contenders appears to firmly believethat Iran is an evil in the world that needs to be dealt withappropriately.  Rick Santorum has accusedIran of initiating aggression toward the United States since 1979. Santorumbelieves firmly that Iran’s hostilities towards the United States stems fromits opposition to the American propogation freedom in the region “I don’t apologize for theIranian people being free for a long time and now they are under a mullacracythat tramples the rights of women and gay.”  Likewise, Gingrich had some choice words for Iran. “We have failed for a decade to deal with Iran” stated Gingrich.  A decade? At least Santorum is willing to goback further in history.  PerhapsGingrich should have marked the inauguration of the controversial Iranianpresident as a starting point.
Not surprisingly Michelle Bachmanhas considered the Nuclear Iran a major issue in the Middle East . An issue that Mr."one-time president" Barak Obama isavoiding. Somehow Bachman forgets that Obama said about Iran. In an interview with Katie Couric, Obama said that he supported Israel’sattack on the Syrian nuclear reactor. Why wouldn’t Obama support a similarattack against an Iranian nuclear reactor if its under the pretense of “defense?”How can anyone mistake Obama’s ingratiating nature towards Israel. Most of theGOP candidates lack any sapience on Iranian-U.S. history.  Of course not all GOP candidates agree on Iran.Ron Paul’s pertinacious views on foreign policy have often made him a target ofcriticism from other members of the GOP. 



The main reason why GOP candidatesare critical of the Iranian regime originates from statements made by Iranianpresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that were erroneously mistranslated.  In a speech delivered by the newly electedIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Ministry of Interior conferencehall in Tehran in 2005, Ahmadinejad is reported as saying that Israel “Shouldbe wiped off the map.” Even Israel apologist Alan Dershowitz acknowledged thatthe phrase “Wipe Israel off the Map” is a mistranslation. However, this is notthe first time the Iranian leader has used inflammatory language against Israel.During the same speech at the “World without Zionism” conference MahmoudAhmadinejad is alleged to have made the following statement: “Anybody who recognizesIsrael will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”  In one of the most portentous statements, theIranian leader has been quoted as saying that if America intervenes with Iran’snuclear program it will be “Punched in the mouth. The Iranian nation will go onits war with power.” Ahmadinejad’s combative rhetoric combined with his denialof the holocaust has been a major source of tension.

IRAN's POWERLESS LEADER


It is worth noting that Iranian political capital is not thesole propriety of the president. Most of the power in Iran is concentrated in the hands of theSupreme Leader who oversees all policies, controls the states military andpolice branches. The picture gets further complicated because the Assembly ofExperts, a governmental body consisting of 86 Islamic Scholars, is in charge ofdeciding the religious leader. The membership into the Assembly of Experts isdecided by the Council of Guardians, another governmental body that is partiallycontrolled by the supreme leader.

In contrast, the President serves a ceremonial role and is both accountable tothe Majis and the Supreme Leader. The president signs bills into laws once they havepassed through the Majis. The president also has the power to award ministerialappointments.  THE EVIDENCE


It is within this complicated political context that emerges a potenially "Nuclear Iran" from the perspective of the U.S.. The evidence in support of a "Nuclear-armed Iran"s is ambivalent at best. In2007 a report by the National Intelligent Report said that Iran had halted itsnuclear weapons program. Not everyone arrived at the same conclusions. In an op-edpiece written for the New York Times, Nuclear arms control experts, ValeryLincy and Gary Milhollin said that Iran is building a water reactor that can beused to produce plutonium--the main ingredient for making a nuclear bomb.  Furthermore, Dershowitz said that intelligenceagency recently discovered a military facility buried deep in the mountains ofthe holy city of Qom. According to an article written in Foreign Affairs,Matthew Kroening, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on ForeignRelations, warned that Iranian nuclear facilities should be attacked when Iraninstalls advanced centrifuges in Qom, or when its current “stockpiles ofUranium reaches weapon grade levels of 90 percent.” THE COUNTER-EVIDENCE


    Not everyoneagrees that Iran is enriching Uranium explicitly for nuclear weapons.  In a blog post by political commentator NimaShirazi, Iranian enrichment has reached approximately 20 percent. The Uraniumwas not used to build weapons of Mass destruction but to create Medicaldiagnostic isotopes to treat and scan 800,000 cancer patients. While manyneocons are convinced Iran has a nuclear bomb Shirazi’s article in ForeignPolicy Journal provides strong evidence to the Contrary.

IRANIAN PROVOCATIONThe skepticism some haveover  Iran’s intention is not without merit. Iran’s history toward Israelhas not always been amicable. In 1992 Iran was accused of attacking the IsraelEmbassy in 1992. Two years later Iran is accused of bombing the ArgentinaJewish Mutual Association. It also does not help when weapons from Hamas andHezbollah are traced back to Iran. The United States has also been avictim of Iranian hostilities including the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy,the Hizbollah bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks and embassy in Beirut in 1982and the bombing of the U.S. Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s. Giventhese events its clear why most politicians are adamant towards the truculentpresident.

Although, to be fair, Iran hasalso been the victim of state-sponsored violence including in the late 80s  when the  USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian flightcontaining 300 passengers. In addition to the bombings of Oil Platforms,America was also responsible for a political coup in 1953 that overthrew ademocratically elected leader in favor of a brutal despot. Perhaps one ofthe most memorable examples is the U.S. support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.The use of ballistic missiles and chemical weapons on civilian and military targetsagainst Iran has lead Iran to question Washington’s commitment to peace in theregion. Also the United States has encirciled Iran literally. Inaddition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the United States has logisticalsupport in the UAE and Oman. Furthermore, the United States also has a militarypresence in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Given this environment its no wonderwhy Iran might be inclined to obtain nuclear weapons as a preventative measure.

SANCTIONSThe source of Iran’s tensionswith the west is based on economics as well as regional ambitions. Dershowitzclaimed that the allocation of Iranian funds to Palestine andHezbollah has crippled the Iranian economy and caused inflation to increase bytwenty percent and unemployment by ten percent. Dershowitz quotes an Iranianwho alleged that one percent of the Iranian budget is earmarked for Palestine. The truth is more complicated. Twenty percent is not a big deal considering that inflationsoared to 600 percent from 1978-1990.

  In thepast there were multiple factors that increased the rate of inflation includingthe migration of workers to Iran who received higher salaries than theirdomestic Iranian counterparts. One of the major causes of inflation issanctions. In the 80s Ronald Reagan issued an executive order prohibitingIranian goods from being sold in America except for news, and crude oil refined.As a result of this policy intermediary goods were reroutedcausing the price for imports to rise.

Given thesefacts it is easier to understand the complexity that is underlying the nuclearstandoff between Iran and the United States. NUCLEAR HYPOCRISY

Moreover, if the United States wants to have leverageover Iran’s nuclear ambition then it needs to be consistent with its positionon nuclear proliferation. In 2000 the U.S. rejected some of the 13recommendations for nuclear disarmament proposed by the Non-proliferationtreaty review conference.
The United States hasyet to criticize India for its accumulation of nuclear weapon whilesimultaneously rejecting the content of the NPT. In addition, Iran has offeredto suspend enrichment if the European Union guarantees security against Americanaggression provoked by Israel. Yet the European Union has refused to agree tothis stipulation.

Iran has stated previously thatits nuclear technology is for civilian use such as electricity. Critics ofIran’s nuclear program state that Iran has plenty of oil to meet its energyneeds and are using this as an excuse to deceive the world of its true and nefariousintentions. These same critics appear to willfully forget Iranian history. During the governance of the shah, the U.S. encouraged Iran todevelop nuclear technology. According to MIT professor Noam Chomsky, MIT wasencouraged to train Iranian nuclear engineers. Even Henry Kissinger admits tothis historical blunder. At the time, Kissinger stated that Iran should developnuclear technology to free up their oil reserves.

LESSONS FROM OSRIAK


Inevitably, it is hard to discussthe consequences of a military strike against a nuclear facility in the MiddleEast without mentioning Israel’s attack against the Osriak site in 1981. From apro-Israeli perspective Israel attack on Iraq discourage the country from future nuclear plans.International Relations scholar Kenneth Waltz disagreed and said that the eventencouraged other Arab states to support Iraq in its pursuit of a nuclear bomb.In his book the Case Against Israel’s Enemies Dershowitz, claimed that Iraqileaders said that a nuclear bomb was being built “specifically” for Israel. YetDershowitz provides no footnotes that link to specific quotes from specificIraqi leaders. What makes Dershowitz’s comments more susceptible to criticismis when he writes:

“Iran is the only country thathas actually threatened to use nuclear weapons to attack its enemies”

 On the contrary, nuclear physicist, RichardWilson found that the Osriak site was unsuitable for plutonium production.   In the aftermath of the attack, the missionwas condemned by both Margaret Thatcher and Jean Kirpatrick , the then U.S.ambassador to the United Nations. There is even a lack of consensus on thenumber of causalities. Dershowitz asserted that only one person died. On theother hand, Blogger Nima Shirazi claimed that the military strike killed tenIraqis and one French civilian researcher.

How are we to know if themilitary strike against Iran is appropriate if we cannot come to a consensus onthe impact of the Osriak strike?
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCY

There is one crucial differencebetween Osriak and a potential   pre-emptive strike against Iran. Unlike Iraq,an attack on Iran could have serious international implications.

Both Russia and China have strong ties to Tehran. Most ofIran’s nuclear material is exported from Russia, and much of Iran’s oil isexported to China. According to Aijaz Ahmad Iran could be a part of an AsianEnergy Security Grid that acts as a counterbalance against Western dominance ofenergy supplies. However, this might change if India and China engage in a jointagreement to develop hydrocarbon exploration and production, which could have anoticeable impact on oil dependency in the future.

Russia’s relationship with Iran has not always been cordial.Since the war between the two countries in the 19^th centuryIranian-Russian relations have fluctuated. Issues such as access to the Caspian Sea, and the treatment of Muslimsin Chechnya have soured the two countries relationship. Still, there are instances of Iran-Russia cooperation. This is particularlydemonstrated in Russia’scontinual technical support of the Iranian missile program

It is important to understand that any attack on Iran’snuclear facility could result in massive civilian causalities given the urbangeography of most of the sites.  

Even if Iran’s critics are correct there are other means ofdeterrence that should be explored other than war to disturb the IranianNuclear program such as The Stuxnet computer worm that has been used toattack Iran’s computer programs and has led to a suspension of enriching  Uranium. Other methods might include sabotage,bribery and Targeted killings.

Of Course these are recommendations under the pretense thatIran will attain Nuclear weapons to assault Israel.  Notwithstanding, Israel is not the onlycountry in the region that wants to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Saudi Arabiais notorious for stating that the U.S. should “cut off the head of the snake”referring to Iran. Part of the peninsular country’s concern stems from increasing Iranianinfluence in Iraq.  In a Wikileaks cabletitled “Saudi King Abdullah and Senior Princes on Saudi policy Toward Iraq,” theForeign Minister, Prince Murqrin, said that the kingdom should help UnitedStates in curtailing Iranian “subversion.” The Prince added that more travelbans and restrictions on bank lending should be imposed on Iran by theinternational community.

The political vacuity that has defined the debate over Iran’snuclear goals is astonishing. There is no doubt that Israel and Saudi Arabiahave legitimate concerns regarding Iran. It also does not help that Ahmadinejadhas made some pugnacious remarks referring to Israel and the west. Still, givenAmerica's record of intervention in Iran, it is conceivable why Iran would want to secure aweapon as a measure of detterence. If the United States wants to curtail the spread of nuclearproliferation in the Middle East then it needs to start understanding thepolitical, international, economical context from which a nuclear Iran isemerging. Even if there was a coordinated attack on an Iranian facility thatwould not improve relations between the United States, and Iran or between Iranand Israel but it would make it more dangerous. Until all countries cometogether to explore their differences in a spirt of cooperation there willnever be peace in the region with or without nuclear weapons.