"The idea that there's a military solution is absolutely bonkers." -- Mohamed ElBaradei
When you hear a word like "bonkers" coming from the mouth of a Nobel laureate, you know he's at wit's end.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is not the only one afraid the US will attack Iran. Even some Republicans are on red alert. According to a resolution Representative Walter Jones (NC) has introduced to the House, it's "crystal clear" that the authority Congress granted the administration to wage war on Iraq wasn't one-size-fits-all. If Bush & Co. want to attack Iran, they've got to fill out new forms and go to the back of the line again.
Nor does much of the Pentagon have the stomach for it, as reported by The Times of London, with a handful of admirals and army generals considering resigning in the face of a preemptive strike by the US. But it wouldn't be the first time the military is dragged kicking and screaming into war. Besides, the Air Force, as usual, is down with bombing.
Just for argument's sake, let's give the administration one last benefit of the doubt. Is attacking Iran really all that "bonkers"?
After all, Iran has just received a failing grade from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for defying the UN Security Council's demands that it cease uranium enrichment. Though no smoking gun has been found, even David Kay, the weapons inspector who gave Iraq a clean bill of health, affirmed that the "clandestine and very difficult-to-penetrate nature" of Iran's nuclear work "leaves no doubt that it is designed for a nuclear-weapons program." (The Atlantic Monthly)
Then there are the charges it's shuttling "explosively formed penetrators" used in constructing IEDs (improvised explosive devices) to Iraq. It may not be true, but, repeated often enough, it insinuates itself into the good graces of the public. Heck, we've all been wondering what a country that's sitting on a sea of oil needs nuclear energy for anyway.
Why, it's almost as if Iran were invented for Dick Cheney's "one-percent doctrine." You know, the one that mandates US action against a threat even if it's only one percent likely to materialize. Maybe we shouldn't be too hasty to let our horror at the Iraq war poison our minds about an attack on Iran. We don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face, do we?
But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Iran may have a dream, but its uranium enrichment program is besieged by technical problems. Since the smuggling operation of Pakistan's dirty old nuclear man, A.Q. Khan, was busted, Iran has no outside help.
Even more damning to the administration's case is that, under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (to which Iran is a party), Iran has an "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This continues to elude the media, to which "uranium" is interchangeable with "the Bomb." But uranium is as integral to nuclear energy as it is to nuclear weapons. In fact, preventing the enrichment of uranium is in itself a violation of that article.
Besides, Iran really does perceive a need for nuclear energy. Turns out its supply of oil is neither endless nor is it making the country rich. Iran sells much of it abroad and instead of using that revenue to fund new drilling projects, it spends it on state-supported firms to employ its restive, young citizens. In addition, the price of gas –- 35 cents a gallon -- not only acts as an opiate for the masse, it does nothing to discourage depleting the country's oil supply.
Scenes from a Dysfunctional, Triangulated Relationship
But are nuclear weapons really at the heart of our beef with Iran? After all, the administration is cavalier about the nukes of other states, notably North Korea, which it's trifled with, alternately threatening, ignoring, and using it to score a diplomatic coup. In fact, preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is secondary to "regime change" for Bush & Co. Though their motives for that are probably as muddled to themselves as anyone else.
Counted among them, though, must be punishing Iran for funding those Hezbollah upstarts, not to mention paying back the mullahs for the 1980 hostage crisis. Besides, as long as Iran has oil, the administration wouldn't mind a new regime with which it could sign an oil law, as with Iraq, that gives foreign oil companies "national treatment." In other words, they'd be on equal footing with the National Iranian Oil Company. The new regime would also deal all of its oil in dollars, not partly in euros like Iran does.
Ironically, Iran's nuclear program traces its origins back to President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. After the Shah signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the US offered to sell him nuclear reactors with fuel and lasers capable of enriching uranium not just for peaceful purpse but to the point of weapons grade. Who was the driving force behind that bright idea? Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But due to the 1979 revolution, the deal failed to materialize.
Russ Wellen is the nuclear deproliferation editor for OpEdNews. He's also on the staffs of Freezerbox and Scholars & Rogues.
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth." -- Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Do you suppose we could elect a President and Vice President who could understand this article? Let me reword that: do you suppose we could elect a President and Vice President who WANTED to understand this article?
by
Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 145 comments)
on Friday, March 2, 2007 at 4:44:35 AM
. . . to think how little actual interest they have in foreign affairs. ("Brinksmanship" is more their style.)
Has anyone noticed how not only isn't Bush interested in matters of government, but he doesn't seem interested in anything?
I guess he's a sports fan. Supposedly he reads a ton of history books. If that's true (which I doubt), where does he find the time? We can't help but conclude it's an escape from real governing.
In contrast, another one of our worst presidents was over-invested in foreign policy: Nixon, who lived an breathed it with Kissinger.
by
Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments)
on Friday, March 2, 2007 at 6:23:19 AM
