Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dina Esfandiary

GET UPDATES FROM Dina Esfandiary
 

It's Time to Deal With Nuclear Iran

Posted: 16/11/11 23:00

The IAEA report on Iran's nuclear programme, released on 8 November, was the most damning report to date; describing in painful detail Iran's suspicious activities and weaponisation work.

The media hype and the build-up surrounding it was unprecedented, fed by selective leaks prior to its release.

But the report brought nothing new to the table. All the information it contained was already known to national intelligence agencies, and very little of it described activities conducted after Iran's temporary freeze in 2003. So why all the fuss?

Although the IAEA pointedly described that its information came from "more than ten member states", it is reasonable to assume that the bulk of it was the work of American and Israeli intelligence agencies. The report was essentially a compilation of previously known information with the IAEA's stamp of approval. This begs the question, why the need for IAEA blessing?

The international community has come to a standstill on Iran. Years of fruitless attempts at negotiations coupled with threats of military action and increasingly aggressive sanctions have not convinced the Iranians to change their course. Quite the opposite, no matter what is thrown at it, the Islamic Republic continues undeterred. So the West has decided to apply pressure any way it can.

Enter the IAEA.

The agency's legitimacy as international guarantor of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime (NPT) and the safety and security of civilian nuclear programmes, is being used to garner international support for more aggressive policies against Iran. In this particular case, for stronger international sanctions.

Although Israel has once again been banging the drums of war, it doesn't want to launch a strike against a powerful country like Iran, unless it has too. At least, not yet. Israel's hesitating because it is aware that it will not stop the programme, buying it, at most, two to three years, while increasing Iranian resolve and public support for nuclear weapons.

Israel views Iran as an existential threat. If the information in this report was enough on its own, to spark a military response, it is likely that Israel would have already done so. In responding to such threats, Israel has shown that it is prepared to live with international condemnation, like when it bombed Al-Kibar in 2007.

So the pressure the US and Israel placed on the IAEA to release this information was in support of another policy. The report is intended to generate momentum for a fifth wave of international sanctions against Iran.

To date, international sanctions have succeeded in slowing down Iran's programme. They have restricted access to essential foreign goods and materials that Iran cannot produce indigenously. They have also targeted individuals and entities involved in its nuclear and missile programmes, and raised the cost of doing business with Iran.

But they have not eliminated Iran's capacity or desire to continue on its nuclear trajectory. What would be required to affect Iran's strategic thinking, is not tighter unilateral sanctions from the US, EU and other allies, but the implementation of a unified sanctions regime, from all Iran's major trading partners.

But that isn't going to happen. Russia and China have not hidden their opposition, with the Russians immediately ruling out participation in new sanctions, and China loath to consider any policy which would have any negative impact on its energy supplies.

So the IAEA report has essentially preached to the choir, confirming to the international community what the Western governments have known for sometime. But what it hasn't done, is gain the support of the necessary partners for the kind of sanctions regime which would change Iran's strategic calculus.

There is no immediate apparent way to break this stalemate. Unless there is a major change in Iran's strategic calculus, which is not foreseeable at the moment, it is time to start thinking about policies to deal with a nuclear Iran.

 
The IAEA report on Iran's nuclear programme, released on 8 November, was the most damning report to date; describing in painful detail Iran's suspicious activities and weaponisation work. The media ...
The IAEA report on Iran's nuclear programme, released on 8 November, was the most damning report to date; describing in painful detail Iran's suspicious activities and weaponisation work. The media ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 92
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
19:18 on 07/12/2011
"it is time to start thinking about policies to deal with a nuclear Iran.", she says. Oh, but we have been thinking about it. The conclusion is: that is the nightmare scenario. Their military nuclear program must be stopped, even if it means war.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hass
16:09 on 18/11/2011
The IAEA report -- far from being "the most damning -- turned out to be a farce that even former weapons inspectors laughed out loud at.

Give the scaremongering a rest, we're not buying it
14:17 on 18/11/2011
Until no nation possesses nuclear weapons all nations need them. Israel would have everyone disarmed but itself. Iran poses no threat to the U.S. The Iraq war was founded on a lie and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. and the world is seeking to change the demographics of the middle-east by having the U.S. at perpetual war to continue their land and resource grab. Until Israel is out of U.S. politics there will be no peace and the Zionist thugs which include theFederal Reserve will see to it that there is no U.S. economic recovery.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Taxim
13:52 on 18/11/2011
There is a once in a generation opportunity for the US and Israel to demonstrate leadership and alter the algebra of the entire Middle East by offering to relinquish Israeli nuclear weapons in exchange for an no-nukes in the region agreement. With rapid political change in the region and the popularity of Iran as low as that of the US it shouldn't be missed. I will be, of course, but such leadership would rapidly and fundamentally change both Israels and the US standing in the worlds most important region just as the Western economies sink below the horizon.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Speight
11:56 on 18/11/2011
7 mentions of the word "Israel" in a short article.
And not one mention of THEIR secret nuclear programme or nuclear weapons.
Not to mention their and the USA's constant threats of war against Iran.

And you want us to be worried about Iran?
12:14 on 18/11/2011
Yes because Israel has these weapons and has no intention to use them whereas Iran would use one as soon as possible against Israel
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Speight
12:40 on 18/11/2011
Do you really believe that media-hyped rubbish?!
photo
PermanentVacancy
Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.
13:49 on 18/11/2011
Will your crystal ball please give me the lotto numbers for saturday also?
11:28 on 18/11/2011
The author makes statements which demonstrate either;1. Lack of knowledge about both the IAEAs obligations and Iran's obligations as a signatory to the NPT; or 2. She has bought into the much hyped up reporting of the IAEA report which has provided no new evidence that was not previously known to the IAEA, which has now become a political tool of the U.S. and some of her western allies in order to do to Iran what was done to Iraq.

Advocating greater sanctions on Iran by not only the war hawks but Iran's trading partners in order for Iran to give up her inalienable rights as a signatory to the NPT, a country who is not in violation of her obligations under the NPT is a crime against the Iranian people unless the hardship on the innocent does not bear on ones' conscious.
..

This entire demonization on Iran has nothing to do with its civilian nuclear program but all about Israel and its desire to remain the sole power in the Middle East and as for the U.S. it is about regime change and creation of another puppet client state.

Some suggested reading;

Iran's Nuclear Program and the Legal Mandate of the IAEA

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/2011/11/dan-joyner-iaea-report.php

Spinning Iran's centrifuges
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/11/opinion-the-iaea-report-on-irans-nuclear-program-alarming-or-hyped.html
03:32 on 18/11/2011
It's Time to Deal With Nuclear Neocon Warmongers Like the IISS.
00:54 on 18/11/2011
The IAEA should be required to disclose their sources of information so the worls can fact check their claims. Otherwise this IAEA report is just war propaganda.
This comment has been removed.
19:02 on 17/11/2011
What an absolute disgrace of an article. Why should Iran not have nukes? The real question is when is somebody going to deal with a nuclear West -- the actual aggressors and lunatics and pillagers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
waldopepper
I'd tell you all about me if you were my friend.
07:58 on 18/11/2011
The author as far as I can tell made no comment on the rights of Iran to possess such weapons, merely that one day soon Iran will have the bomb and that policy to deal with that eventuality need to be conceived.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Speight
11:56 on 18/11/2011
And Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades... we should deal with them??
This comment has been removed.
16:43 on 17/11/2011
If nothing else, Iran’s pusuite of a nuclear weapon has at least shown us the the left was never really concerned about the proliferation of nukes. Remember the marches and demonstrations against US nuclear weapons in the 70’s and 80’s? The left fell over themselves to tell us about the dangers of nuclear weapon proliferation, at least when it came to the US. But an Irainian bomb? Meh. The left will deny that Iran wants a bomb, then they’ll talk about how Iran has never ever gone to war, finally the honest ones will say something to the effect that since Israel has the bomb why shouldn’t Iran. Many, not all, on the left tacitly approve of an Irainian nuclear weapon because they see it as a solution to the Israeli problem.
jhNY
Mercy.
21:41 on 17/11/2011
"Many, not all, on the left tacitly approve of an Irainian nuclear weapon because they see it as a solution to the Israeli problem."

Though worded with a bit of care, this is nonetheless a baseless projection of yours-- you show no proof that anybody on the left approves "of an Iranian nuclear weapon because they see it as a solution to the Israeli problem", which is to say, the annihilation of the state of Israel by nuclear bomb.

Prove otherwise.
16:42 on 17/11/2011
Anyone in the Pentagon will conform that Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend itself for its nuclear enemies threatening Iran with war. It would be fooIish for lran not to have a nuclear defense. The IAEA report is a hoax designed to promote war against Iran, and it hides the sources of information used to fabricate the report, so we cannot check out if it is true or it is yet another lie to make another war. The people who are pushing for war against Iran are the same people who make war against Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOtDGGNw-v0
17:33 on 17/11/2011
x2
photo
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
16:57 on 08/12/2011
You say "anyone in the Pentagon", but in fact, NO ONE in the Pentagon confirms that. You are making up support for your unsupportable position.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
niumarmion
a temporary being
16:24 on 17/11/2011
After a terro ist state acquires that technology, they can smuggle it into our country, perhaps in a bale of MJ. This needs to be considered.
jhNY
Mercy.
21:50 on 17/11/2011
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Elements in their military and intelligence services harbor and support the Taliban, if not some more radical Islamist political organizations. So part one of your fear is already upon us. As for the second part, it's as likely that nuclear materials could be hidden in any number of ways in any number of imports, legal or otherwise, that enter the US every minute 24/7.

The US intelligence agencies have known all of this since BEFORE 9-11. Congress has been briefed, as have two presidents. Yet there is still to date no comprehensive inspection of containers and no concerted effort afoot to secure our ports or airports from such danger, as there is likewise no real effort commensurate with the threat along our southern or northern borders.

Which leads me to conclude that: the threat is not perceived, despite appearances, to be serious by those in charge of making assessments of same, or the threat is real, but nobody wants to raise taxes so as to pay for what it would cost to seriously address the threat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
niumarmion
a temporary being
00:04 on 18/11/2011
The bale of MJ was used as an example of how easy it is to smuggle something in. You can be sure of this: those in charge are incompetent.
photo
PermanentVacancy
Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.
14:03 on 18/11/2011
Israel sold 9 nuclear warheads to South Africa and when the ANC came to power they S.A. govt. wanted to get rid of them so the US took 6 and Thatcher agreed to take the three remaining. Britain was double-crossed by a shady arms dealer who sold the three warheads on the black market. North Korea detonated one of them a couple of years ago, the other two remain missing...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
16:22 on 17/11/2011
There is a certain irony that it has been almost 20 years that those who believe the hype and rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program, but don't think there should be a war, have been saying 'we must be prepared to deal with a nuclear Iran' and yet Iran continues to abide by the NNPT, all enriched material is, according to the IAEAs inspectors, being used for legitimate civilian purposes of being stored for such, and none of it enriched above the Low Enriched Uranium level. We all got a laugh at Harold Camping, and he was only wrong about the date twice. I wonder when Colbert or Stewart is going to be brave enough to do a segment poking fun at those who've seen the dates they assured the world was the day Iran would have a nuclear bomb pass, then seen their 'corrected' date pass, then seen the 'corrected, corrected' date pass...

PS don't kid yourself, a 'military action' that 'targetted Iran's nuclear program' would, if it resulted in serious damage, be seen as, and responded to as, a declaration of war on Iran. And one of those reactions would almost certainly be the launching of a sustained attack on the uninspected, non-NNPT compliant Israeli nuclear program, which would bring the US into the war even if it hadn't been part of the attack