The New Year is less
than a week old and we’ve already reached a crisis with
Iran. On Tuesday a top Iranian nuclear official informed the world
that Iran would resume ‘peaceful’ nuclear research
and development activity on January 9 after suspending the program
for two and a half years in the face of international pressure.
Yesterday
The Guardian published excerpts from a July 2005 intelligence
report gathered by the governments of Britain, France, Germany,
and Belgium showing that despite having suspended its official
‘peaceful’ nuclear program, Iran has been “successfully
scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop
a nuclear bomb.”
What to do? Iran insists
it has the right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
to enrich uranium to power its new Russian-built nuclear reactor
in Bushehr. However, major members of the international community,
including the United States, reject the idea Iran wants or needs
nuclear power for peaceful purposes and are convinced, with good
reason, that Iran’s true desire is to reprocess spent nuclear
fuel for the production of nuclear weapons.
All efforts
to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions have failed.
Talks with the EU-3 have gone nowhere. Strong words of condemnation
from the IAEA and threats of sanctions by the UN have produced
nothing. Short of a military strike in the coming months, there
appear to be few, if any, options left for preventing –
or, more accurately, delaying – Iran’s ability to
produce a nuclear weapon.
For those
who are paying attention, we’re watching a two-part rerun
of history. The first part is a rerun of the “agreed framework”
deal with North Korea. Back in 1994 the world celebrated the signing
of the framework as a major achievement only to find out years
later that Kim Jong Il had begun violating the pact shortly after
the ink had dried.
Eleven and half years
later North Korea remains an unstable, outlaw regime - but now
one most likely with the capacity to inflict mass murder with
a nuclear device. Just as importantly, North Korea also has the
ability to sell nuclear material and technology to the highest
bidders around the globe including terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.
Iran has pursued a
similar strategy, using protracted negotiations with the UN and
the IAEA as a stalling tactic while racing to fulfill its nuclear
ambition covertly. As the primary state sponsor of terrorism in
the world, Iran represents a significantly greater threat to the
West as a potential proliferator and distributor of nuclear technology
and material to terrorist organizations.
The second
part of the historical rerun is even more unsettling. In 1925,
more than 14 years before the outbreak of World War II in Europe,
Hitler published Mein Kampf in which he outlined “the
Jewish peril” and stated his desire to rid the world of
the evil of Judaism. Few took such fantastic claims literally
at the time, but by the end of 1941 when the first concentration
camps were completed at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka to facilitate
the “final solution of the Jewish question,” it was
clear Hitler had indeed been a man of his word.
Eighty years later
the world is faced with a similarly fanatic ruler who has stated
in very plain terms that Israel should be “wiped off the
map.” The prudent response is not to scoff at Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s extreme utterances but rather to assume
that he too is a man of his word.
Ultimately,
regime change is the only way to resolve the conflict with Iran.
But that’s a long-term strategy not well suited to address
our short-term reality: are we prepared to live with the potential
consequences of Iran becoming a nuclear power in the near future
under the control of a man like Ahmadinejad? Or must we do everything
in our power to delay the mullahs in Iran from acquiring the capacity
to kill millions of people despite the obvious political consequences
of taking such action?
The answer
to these questions largely turns on whether the West believes
that Ahmadinejad will adhere to the traditional rationales of
deterrence and whether he will abstain from providing nuclear
assistance to terrorists. So far, there is precious little evidence
to suggest he will do either, though we can always hope that a
nuclear Iran will act rationally and responsibly. Then again,
as history has repeatedly shown, hope isn’t a very effective
strategy.
Tom
Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.
