nuclear-news

What is the price of the West getting it wrong on Iran?

 ‘spy vs spy’ approach is not sustainable. Eventually there will be a loser. The least worst option is for a dual approach of diplomacy and sanctions.

Middle East WMD 2.0 – Someone Will Be Proven Wrong on Iran, Huffington Post,  Paul Herouxm, 9 Feb 12, The current stand-off with Iran should be called “Middle East WMD 2.0.” No one knows Iran’s true intentions.

There is little concern with the outcome that Iran is not pursuing a weapons program and the West does nothing — this is the right course of action. Nor is there too much concern with the outcome that Iran was pursuing a weapons program and the US stops the program through
force — if it is truly justified and can be proven, then so be it.

But what if we get it wrong?

What if the skeptics are right? Suppose nothing is done and Iran
develops a nuclear bomb.

There is no evidence to prove that Iran is building a nuclear weapon,
but there is evidence to suggest that their nuclear program may not be
exclusively intended for peaceful energy purposes. So what would a
nuclear armed Iran look like?

First, there would be little chance that the US or Israel would attack
Iran if Iran had a nuclear weapon. In fact, talk of attacks on Iran
are the result of the uncertainty that Iran’s nuclear program is
causing. So, if Iran didn’t want to be attacked in the long run, it
should have a nuclear weapon program. But in doing so, it would invite
an attack in the short run. Either way, the current regime is mainly
interested in self preservation, and more so that monopolizing the
region….
It is hard to say what kind of tense stand-offs would occur between
Iran and the West (who is Iran’s chief antagonist). The US had tense
stand-offs with the USSR, China, and Pakistan on a number of
occasions. None of these resulted in a nuclear exchange; it may be the
same with Iran……
Much of the world would not be too concerned if Iran possessed a
nuclear weapon. China, Russia, most African nations and even many
South American nations would not feel any imminent threat.
Unfortunately, the number of countries that seem to be threatened by
Iran are fewer than the number of countries that are indifferent.
Certainly no country ‘wants’ to see another member of the nuclear
club, but most seemingly do not seem threatened.

In short, the possession of a nuclear weapon by Iran would seriously
complicate international relations and it would do so without even a
nuclear attack. A nuclear attack is unlikely because as homicidal as
the regime is, it is not suicidal.

What if the skeptics are wrong? Supposed Iran is attacked but there
was no nuclear weapons program.   The first most obvious consequence
would be that oil price speculation would increase…..
….Another consequence of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is
that the regime would suddenly enjoy the full support of a citizenry
that it is currently at odds with. Moreover, this would probably
result in loud internal calls for Iran to positively pursue a nuclear
weapons program. The Iranian people are good people. I know from
personal exposure. They are a nationalistic people and they do not
want war. This is a point the West should be mindful of and work
with…..
‘spy vs spy’ approach is not sustainable. Eventually there will be a
loser. The least worst option is for a dual approach of diplomacy and
sanctions. If the West can convince Iran that it has much to gain by
cooperating, then Iran will benefit. If Iran can convince the West
that its nuclear program is truly intended for energy purposes, then
Iran will benefit. Unfettered IAEA access will likely provide Iran
with this. If the West can avoid striking Iran but still successfully
resolving this stand-off, the West will benefit…..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/middle-east-wmd-20-someon_b_1265006.html

February 10, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general