Unwisdom of attack on Iran, and not much new in IAEA report

despite the rhetoric about last chances, there is still time for a peaceful way out of the crisis. The Obama administration has no stomach nor money for another war, and its generals insist that every way they game the scenarios, America comes out the loser.

The IAEA report: what does it really mean and will it lead to war with Iran? byJulian Borger 9 November 2011 guardian.co.uk Tuesday’s IAEA report has rekindled the global debate over what to do about the Iranian nuclear programme with a familiar array of options on the table: engage, sanction or attack. The various protagonists are familiar too. Russia is complaining the IAEA report has spoilt the chance of renewed dialogue, the US, Britain and France want a new push towards tighter sanctions, and Israel is threatening to strike unless the international community sorts the matter out in the next few months.

There is something a little phoney about all the sound and fury. There is nothing in the report that was not previously known by the major powers. The West and Israel supplied most of the original tip-offs for the annex on weapons development, while Russia was briefed and no doubt knew one of its own scientists had been lecturing the Iranians on how to make explosive implosion devices (ostensibly for making tiny diamonds).

Furthermore, the bulk of the report is historical, referring to the years leading up to 2003. Its interpretation depends largely on whether you are a glass half-full or half-empty sort of person. On the one hand, the IAEA is confirming beyond reasonable doubt that there was a centralised, heavily funded, programme (codenamed Amad and run by a man called Mohsen Fahkrizadeh from his daintily titled “orchid office”). On the other hand, the report is also adamant that Amad was halted in 2003.

After that, the report offers evidence of lower-key computer modelling of nuclear detonations in a more diffuse, scattered manner, albeit by some of the same people. But the evidence for this is sketchier, and it is clear the UN inspectors are less confident about making assertions about the more recent period.

So again, its significance is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. However, it is clear that this is not a race to a bomb. If anything, it is a tiptoeing, an ambling or (as Jeff Lewis at the Monterey Institute of International Studies puts it) a moseying towards weapons capability.
The new, unpublished US national intelligence estimate, apparently takes this nuanced view…..

Far more worrisome is the possibility that Iran has a parallel, covert programme underground somewhere, silently spinning away while the world and its inspectors keep eagle eyes on Natanz and Qom etc. This is very hard to pull off as the whole fuel cycle has to be kept under wraps from the moment the uranium ore comes out of the ground. There is evidence that Iran has tried to do this, but also evidence that the international community has had success thwarting those efforts.

So despite the rhetoric about last chances, there is still time for a peaceful way out of the crisis. The Obama administration has no stomach nor money for another war, and its generals insist that every way they game the scenarios, America comes out the loser.

However, there remains a scenario in which the US could get drawn into a conflict involuntarily. If Israel launched air strikes on Iran but failed to finish the job, leaving much of Iran’s hardware intact, Tehran could well retaliate against both Israel and the US, as it has threatened to do. That is certainly the expectation of the Pentagon’s top brass……

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2011/nov/09/iaea-nuclear-iran-israel1?newsfeed=true