Iran Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

PREFACE

CHRONOLOGY

Sept 2002: Work begins on Iran's first reactor at Bushehr.
Dec 2002: Satellites reveal Arak and Natanz sites triggering IAEA inspections.
Nov 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and allows tougher inspections.
June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating.
Nov 2004: Iran suspends enrichment under deal with EU.
Aug 2005: Iran rejects EU plan and re-opens Isfahan plant.
Jan 2006: Iran re-opens Natanz facility.

It is this final development that has me (and several million others worldwide) a little concerned. The Natanz enrichment plant was shut down by the UN in 2003 during strict inspections of the country.

Now, it appears that Seyyed Ali Khamene'i really, for lack of a better term, doesn't give a damn about what the United States or the rest of the industrialized thinks about his actions. PARADE Magazine published its annual "Top 10 Worst Dictators in the World" segment. As expected, Sudan's al-Bashir, North Korea's Kim Jong-il, and Burma/Myanmar's Than Shwe claimed the #1, 2, and 3 spots respectively. Ayatollah Khamene'i placed 9th, however, if he tears his country with him into a national war (which is quite possible) we might see him move on up the list.

So begs the question: "what do we do?"

I really don't see the Bush administration in a good light for this situation.

1) Their unilateralist attitudes scare me. More and more we see the effects of a dominant GOP failing to adhere to public opinion. And, despite how fickle it may be, the opinion of the electorate should always be considered over presidential zeal.

2) Their confidence is just too great. Condoleezza Rice is a perfect example of this. She was quoted as saying that Iran has "crossed the threshold," this says to me that there's no turning back. She's also quoted as saying that "Iran is in dangerous defiance of the international community." In short, she has called them out.

This is also the first time that we as a country see ourselves unprepared for a conflict. Bluntly, we don't have enough troops to stomach a war with a capable opponent like Iran. All roads would, therefore, lead to a draft if we declared war.

But it's a Catch-22 as well. Do we sit around and wait long enough for the EU to take action while the problem in Iran festers? Looks like we're stuck between Iraq and a hard place.

Curious, very curious...

[innovation]

Sammi- The NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) was signed between states possessing nuclear weapons and the rest of the international community. The deal was that the "nuclear club" would aim for eventual disarmament, while the rest of the international community would work for non-proliferation and use nuclear technology only for peaceful/civilian purposes. So yeah, there is already a general consensus that non-proliferation and eventual disarmament is the way to go. The negotiation itself is rather fair; we just need to prove that we're aiming to fulfill our side of the bargain, rather than further developing our nuclear weapons program.

Also, the Iranian government is not trustworthy. It has collaborated with the DPRK (who withdrew from the treaty, pursued a nuclear weapons program, and now claims to have developed weapons- not the best nation to associate oneself with) in creating missiles and has proven hostile to the international community (e.g. that wiping-Israel-off-the-map comment by Ahmadinejad). Iran has proved willing to buy nuclear materials illegally, and who knows? Once it requires the technology/materials necessary, it might be willing to sell these materials to other non-nuclear states and actually further proliferation. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is a huge threat to the Middle East (Israel especially), and it could potentially start an arms race in that area.