Iranian Alert -- June 22, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” Most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

Kennedy: America at Risk of Nuke Attack

June 22, 2004
The Associated Press
The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- America is at greater risk of a nuclear attack from terrorists because of the Bush administration's ``single-minded focus on Iraq,'' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said. In remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday, Kennedy, D-Mass., said North Korea and Iran have continued unchecked with their nuclear buildups while the United States preoccupies itself with Iraq.

``Instead of leading the world against the real threat of Iran's nuclear program, the president chose to lead America alone into the quicksand to counter the mirage of a threat in Iraq,'' Kennedy said in the remarks, prepared for a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He said the administration's efforts to rid Iraq of a nuclear program it didn't have not only has destroyed U.S. credibility around the world, but has made al-Qaida terrorists more determined to launch a nuclear attack on America.

Kennedy said the United States would be better off under the leadership of Democrat John Kerry, who ``has pledged to make preventing nuclear terrorism an absolute priority.''

The remarks come as the International Atomic Energy Agency is investigating nearly 20 years of covert nuclear activity by Iran. Tehran maintains its program is meant to generate electricity, but the United States claims it is a weapons program.

President Bush, who recently indicated a willingness to work more closely with France and Germany on nonproliferation issues, has labeled Iran part of an ``axis of evil'' with North Korea and prewar Iraq.

But Kennedy said the administration's unilateralism has caused a serious setback in nonproliferation policies. And he said Bush has compounded that neglect by pursuing research into a new type of nuclear weapon, called ``bunker busters.'' The Senate last week rejected an effort to strip funding for the administration's research into mini-nukes.

``It is incredibly dangerous in this day and age to have a president who is so obviously resistant, uncomfortable and inept in working with other nations,'' Kennedy said. ``Their approach to nuclear issues is erratic, unrealistic and irresponsible.''

Kennedy noted Kerry's recent pledge to appoint a Cabinet-level official to oversee nuclear terrorism issues, and would speed up the lock-down of nuclear weapons materials.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kennedy-Nuclear.html

Iran Official: UK Sailors in Iran May Be Freed Soon

June 22, 2004
Reuters
Paul Hughes

TEHRAN -- Eight British sailors seized in Iranian waters could be released soon if investigations show their incursion was not ill-intended, an Iranian military official said, potentially defusing a serious diplomatic spat.

The Royal Navy personnel appeared in blindfolds on Iranian television on Tuesday and the British government summoned Iran's ambassador to London and called for their release.

Some Iranian media reports said the Britons were carrying sophisticated maps and arms and would be prosecuted, but Ali Reza Afshar, deputy head of the armed forces chief of staff, said they could be freed shortly.

"If the result of the interrogations of those British military men shows that they didn't have any bad intention, they will be released soon," he told the ISNA students news agency.

In a separate report citing "unofficial sources," ISNA said Iran's Revolutionary Guards had been ordered to free the men. It said they would be handed over to British authorities "in the coming hours or tomorrow morning."

Revolutionary Guards arrested the Britons on Monday on the Shatt al-Arab waterway which marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran.

Britain said the group was training Iraqi police and was on a routine mission delivering a boat to an Iraqi river patrol.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said: "We want to resolve this situation as quickly as possible ... We have asked for full details and access to them."

Earlier, an unnamed Revolutionary Guards official told the semi-official Fars news agency the men had confessed to entering Iran's territorial waters deliberately and would be tried.

"They were fully armed. Besides their personal arms, they were equipped with advanced rifles, night vision systems and other type of equipments," the official said.

A Tehran-based political analyst, who declined to be named, said the contradictory statements emerging from Iran on the Britons' case were "probably the result of some kind of battle going on inside the Iranian regime" between reformist and hardline elements.

"We probably won't see a solution until that battle is resolved."

DIPLOMATIC TOING-AND-FROING

Ali Ansari, Middle East expert at University of Exeter, pointed out that Britain, unlike the United States, has tried to engage with Iran's leaders in recent years.

"I think there'll be a couple of high-level contacts ... There'll be a bit of diplomatic toing-and-froing, then they'll be released ... in a matter of days," he said.

Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has told British counterpart Jack Straw he would personally look into the matter.

Britain's Defense Ministry said the Britons had been delivering a small craft to the Iraqi Riverine Patrol Service. The boats carried only the sailors' personal weapons, it said.

A British military source acknowledged the British boats may have strayed into Iranian waters. "It was quite a confused situation. The weather was appalling and this happened in a confined stretch of water," he said.

Britain has had a rocky relationship with Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution and tensions have flared again in recent months over Britain's involvement in Iraq and its criticism of Iran's cooperation with U.N. nuclear inspectors.

While deeply opposed to the U.S.-led war and occupation of Iraq, Iran has turned a blind eye in the past to minor incursions by foreign aircraft and boats on its western border.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5483875

World Of Worry Over Nukes

June 22, 2004
CBS News
CBS Broadcasting Inc

The Bush administration is pressing for more cooperation from suspected nuclear weapons developers Iran and North Korea, but coming under criticism for neglecting the danger of nuclear proliferation.

The United States, North Korea and four other nations agreed Tuesday to discuss a freezing of the North's nuclear program and inspections that would lead to its eventual dismantlement, a South Korean official said.

And Secretary of State Colin Powell hinted that Iran faced the prospect of U.N. economic sanctions if it did not prove to the world it has no nuclear weapons.

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said America is at greater risk of a nuclear attack from terrorists because of the Bush administration's "single-minded focus on Iraq."

In remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday, Kennedy said North Korea and Iran have continued unchecked with their nuclear buildups while the United States preoccupies itself with Iraq.

"Instead of leading the world against the real threat of Iran's nuclear program, the president chose to lead America alone into the quicksand to counter the mirage of a threat in Iraq," Kennedy said in the remarks, prepared for a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The United States alleged before the war that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and an active program for nuclear weapons. No stockpiles have been found. Evidence has not surfaced of active programs in chemical or nuclear weapons, although some facilities for biological weapons work may have been maintained.

President Bush has said the Iraq war was justified by removing a brutal dictator who opposed Middle East peace and allegedly had links to terrorists.

In remarks to the Carnegie Endowment on Monday, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei said that "all evidence to date indicates that Iraq's nuclear weapons program had been effectively dismantled in the 1990s through IAEA inspection — as we were nearly ready to conclude before the war."

He claimed that "the Iraq experience demonstrated that inspections — while requiring time and patience — can be effective even when the country under inspection was providing less than active cooperation."

The Massachusetts Democrat said the administration's efforts to rid Iraq of a nuclear program it didn't have not only has destroyed U.S. credibility around the world, but has made al Qaeda terrorists more determined to launch a nuclear attack on America.

Kennedy said the administration's unilateralism has caused a serious setback in nonproliferation policies. And he said Bush has compounded that neglect by pursuing research into a new type of nuclear weapon, called "bunker busters." The Senate last week rejected an effort to strip funding for the administration's research into mini-nukes.

But the United States is not the only one getting blame. In his remarks Monday, ElBaradei slammed the Security Council for failing to take action against North Korea.

"This lack of response, this inaction, may be setting the worst precedent of all, if it conveys the message that acquiring a nuclear deterrent, by whatever means, will neutralize any compliance mechanism and guarantee preferred treatment," he said.

The Korean nuclear standoff began in October 2002, when the United States said the North admitted running a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement. The U.S. cut off fuel shipments, prompting the North to throw out international inspectors. U.S. intelligence has estimated that North Korea already has one or two crude nuclear devices.

Two earlier rounds of talks among the two Koreas, China, Russia, Japan and the United States ended with little progress.

Some of the governments are now working on plans to offer the North aid in exchange for suspending its clandestine efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

In Tokyo, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said North Korea appeared to be more cooperative this round, and expressed hope for "major progress."

But the chief U.S. delegate, James Kelly, expressed less optimism.

"There is no particular reason to be optimistic, but I've come prepared for serious discussions," Kelly said.

North Korea has suffered food shortages and other problems since disclosing in the mid-1990s that its state-run farm system had collapsed after decades of mismanagement and the loss of Soviet subsidies. The North wants aid in exchange for an initial freeze of its nuclear program.

But the United States says it will only offer assistance to North Korea's faltering economy if the isolated dictatorship proves its willingness to undertake a "complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling" of its program.

Under a plan being discussed ahead of the talks, the United States would not give assistance, but Japan and South Korea would provide aid in stages, a senior Bush administration official said in Washington.

In September, when the IAEA holds its next scheduled meeting, "judgments can be made as to what action might be appropriate" against Iran, Powell said.

His statement followed an assertion in Tehran by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons. At the same time, the ayatollah vowed Iran would not give up its program to enrich uranium for fuel in nuclear reactors.

"If Europeans and others are really worried that we may acquire nuclear weapons, we assure them that we are not seeking to produce such weapons," Khamenei said.

"But if they are unhappy about Iran's access to the outstanding nuclear technology and want to stop this trend, I tell them they should be assured that the Iranian nation won't give in on this," he told a gathering of university officials.

Last Friday, the U.N. nuclear agency rebuked Iran for covering up its programs and warned it had little time left to disprove it had a nuclear weapons program.

Asked how close the United States was to seeking U.N. Security Council sanctions, the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said "that will depend on what Iran decides to do."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/22/tech/main625301.shtml

Iranian TV Shows Two British Sailors Apologizing

June 22, 2004
Reuters
Reuters.com

TEHRAN -- Iranian television broadcast footage Tuesday of two British sailors arrested Monday on the Shatt al-Arab waterway apologizing for entering Iranian territorial waters.

"The team wrongly entered Iranian waters and we apologize for this mistake because it was a big mistake," one of the sailors, identified as Sergeant Thomas Hawkins, said in comments dubbed into Arabic and shown on Al-Alam television.

Hawkins, dressed in military fatigues, said his team of eight sailors had been one mile inside Iranian territorial waters when they were arrested by Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Another sailor, chief petty officer Robert Webster, said the team had wrongly entered Iranian waters on a mission accompanying a vessel from Umm Qasr to Basra.

The arrest of the sailors threatened to cause a serious diplomatic rift between Iran and Britain. But an Iranian military official said they could soon be released if investigations show their incursion was not ill-intended.

The Royal Navy personnel appeared in blindfolds on Iranian television Tuesday and the British government summoned Iran's ambassador to London and called for their release.

Some Iranian media reports said the Britons were carrying sophisticated maps and arms and would be prosecuted, but Ali Reza Afshar, deputy head of the armed forces chief of staff, said they could be freed shortly.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5484668

Iran's Hardliners Urge Showdown With UN Nuclear Watchdog

June 21, 2004
AFP
IranMania

TEHRAN -- Members of Iran's now-dominant conservative camp are increasing their calls for the Islamic republic to resume uranium enrichment and cease tough UN inspections in retaliation to yet more criticism from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to top national security official and nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani, Iran will soon decide its next step after being chastised by the UN nuclear watchdog for failing to ease suspicions over its atomic programme.
Rowhani has already suggested Iran could resume uranium enrichment activities, the most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle that the IAEA had demanded be halted pending the conclusion of its inquiry into its programme.

Although officials say resuming enrichment is not in immediate view, other retaliatory measures -- such as resuming the assembly of centrifuges -- do appear to be under consideration.

Many of Iran's hardliners, who cemented their grip on power after they won disputed parliamentary elections in February, want the regime's leadership to take a much tougher line.

On Monday, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said it was essential for the Islamic republic to master the nuclear fuel cycle, but again denied the country was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

"It is essential because if the Iranian people cannot" produce their own nuclear fuel, "they will be dependent on outside sources and if these countries decide not to supply us, our stations will be useless," Khamenei said in a speech carried on state television.

Measures proposed by some hardliners include pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), refusing to ratify the NPT additional protocol allowing tougher inspections and getting back down to enriching uranium.

Each would provoke a major crisis with the IAEA, which in turn could decide to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for sanction.
"We should continue our peaceful nuclear activities and the Majlis should not ratify the addition to NPT," cleric and hardline MP, Mohammad Reza Faker, told the student news agency ISNA.

"In our discussions with the Europeans and the IAEA, we committed ourselves to suspending enrichment in order to facilitate the job for the Europeans to close Iran's case at the IAEA. But now, as they have not lived up to their part of the deal, it is time to take the country's interest into account and to boldly go forward."

The European Union's "big three", Britain, France and Germany, secured Iranian cooperation in negotiations last year. But by drafting th harsh resolution passed last Friday at the IAEA, they clearly signalled they felt Iran was failing.

Iran insists it has met its commitments and accuses the Europeans of betrayal.Officials here also contend that mastering the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes is permitted under the NPT.

"Iran should resume uranium enrichment. This is Iran's right," said another conservative MP, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh.
"The tone and wording of this resolution is harsher than the previous ones, since they are asking us to reconsider a programme that we have invested so much in."

Another new conservative MP, Ali Abasspour Tehrani, told the Jomhuri Eslami newspaper that "neither the IAEA or any country has the right to restrict any country from pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."In addition, the far-right Jomhuri Eslami paper on Monday branded IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei "a big liar".

"If the US and the Europeans continue to endanger our national interests, we will take the necessary action," warned Hossien Nejabat, another MP.

"Getting out of the NPT based on a timetable is one option, although Iran is not currently pursuing this," he added.Alaodin Borujerdi, the new conservative head of the parliament's foreign affairs committee, warned that MPs were unlikely to ratify the additional protocol which Iran signed in December.

Such a step would signal an end to tough UN inspections the regime is currently allowing.Kayhan newspaper, the mouthpiece of the religious right-wing, said the IAEA was testing the new parliament.

"The (IAEA) board of governors is overtly blackmailing us, therefore it is expected from the majlis to frankly announce their definite decision not to ratify the additional protocol," the paper wrote in an editorial.

http://www.iranmania.com/news/220604l.asp

Russia Stands Good Chance Of Being Awarded Bushehr II Contract By Iran

June 22, 2004
RIA Novosti
Novosti

MOSCOW -- Russia stands a good chance of winning the contract for the construction of a second leg of the nuclear power plant in the Iranian port of Bushehr, Rajab Safarov, Director of the Russian Center for Contemporary Iranian Studies, said at a news conference on the RIA Novosti premises Tuesday.

"This summer, the Director of Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear Energy, Alexander Rumyantsev, is going to Iran, where he will probably sign a contract with the Iranian side for the construction...of a second leg of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Bushehr II," Mr Safarov announced.

According to him, Western European countries and even the United States are among the bidders.

Russia is more interested in cooperating with other countries in the nuclear power industry than in arms trade, the official said. He reminded his audience that the first leg of the Bushehr project had brought to Russia as much as one billion dollars.

Mr Safarov predicted that the International Atomic Energy Agency would close its Iranian nuclear dossier in September. "September will see a session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors and an IAEA general conference. And I think it is in the course of these two events that the Iranian dossier will be closed, " he said.

In reply to a RIA Novosti question, Mr Safarov described as absurd some of the criticisms in the IAEA's latest resolution on Iran. "To begin with, they are obliging Iran to prove to the world community the peaceful character of its nuclear programs, something that violates the principle of the presumption of innocence," he remarked. Proving the link, if any, between a country's nuclear program and the development of nuclear weapons is the IAEA inspectors' job, he pointed out.

Mr Safarov also said the most recent IAEA resolution on Iran was conflicting and that it revealed the agency's double standard policy vis-a-vis Iran.

"On the one hand, the resolution points out that Iran cooperates with the IAEA in such a way as if the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which empowers the IAEA to make surprise inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, had come into force already. The resolution also underlines that Iran has let IAEA inspectors check all facilities subject to verification, including defense industry installations even. This comes alongside allegations that Iran is not active enough and a demand that it should prove the peaceful character of its nuclear programs to the global community," Mr Safarov said.

In his opinion, only one point in the IAEA resolution is clear-cut, that which concerns the uranium trails on the centrifuge parts found in Iran by international inspectors. The Russian official believes, however, that the Iranian side has given sufficient explanations of the fact (Iran claims it has purchased the P2 centrifuge parts already with trails from a third country). Now, the IAEA will have to trace the source of the radioactive materials on the centrifuge, Mr Safarov said.

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4491896&startrow=1&date=2004-06-22&do_alert=0

Iran: Fomenting Crisis?

June 22, 2004
Stratfor
Stratfor.com

Iran seized British patrol boats in the Shatt al-Arab in southern Iraq on June 21. The move is intended to indicate Iran's ability to trigger diplomatic crises and remind the world of Tehran's political and military relevance in the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Analysis

Iran seized three British patrol boats in the Shatt al-Arab in southern Iraq on June 21. Britain confirmed it had lost communication with three boats in the area. Iran and Iraq claim rights to the 120-mile Shatt al-Arab waterway, the confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers that feeds into the Persian Gulf. Both states have naval vessels patrolling the waterway, with Iran controlling the approaches to Abadan and Khorramshahr.

The seizure is an attempt by Tehran to revive its relevance in the region. Iran likely seized the British boats deliberately, with the intent of stirring up a minor diplomatic crisis. The goal is to remind Europe and the United States that Tehran continues to play a critical role in the region -- one with a military and political reach in Iraq. More minor diplomatic crises with Iran are likely to erupt in the coming weeks.

Iran expected a much greater role in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq than it has achieved. Since the 1980-1988 war, Tehran has worked to secure the country's Western flank by cultivating ties with Iraq's Shiite population and backing militant groups -- including the Iraqi Hezbollah, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The United States has proven more adept than expected at negotiating the multitude of ethnic, religious and regional rivalries in Iraq and seems poised to hand over power to a government not wholly run by Shia.

Meanwhile, Washington and London are pressuring Tehran's nuclear program. On June 18, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) censured Iran, warning that it had not fully cooperated with efforts to investigate the extent of its nuclear program.

Washington is pushing for the U.N. Security Council to consider the matter -- a move that could conceivably lead to sanctions against Tehran. The United States claims Iran is building nuclear weapons and points to evidence of a uranium enrichment program with potential military uses. Iran denies the charge but continues to stall IAEA investigations.

Iran views itself as the natural and rightful leader of the Gulf region. It historically has projected power through land and sea assets and has tapped the populations of Arab Shia in neighboring states to influence regional politics.

Iranian military activity in the Persian Gulf has been mostly dormant for more than 15 years. Iran last took an offensive stance during "the tanker war" -- the maritime portion of the Iran-Iraq conflict of 1980-1988 -- when Iranians and Iraqis regularly targeted oil tankers at each others' port facilities. Iran went so far as to launch Chinese-made Silkworm anti-ship missiles at tankers docked in Kuwait.

To ensure the flow of oil from the Gulf, the United States shelled Iranian oil platforms and re-flagged and physically escorted oil tankers in and out of the Gulf. Iran is not about to trigger a war with the United States. With the U.S. presidential elections only four months away and Iran having achieved few of its goals in Iraq, Tehran needs to do something.

Iraqi sovereignty will not translate into another war between Baghdad and Tehran. But neither is Iran's western flank locked down. Nor can Iran be certain of the extent of its ability to shape Iraqi domestic politics or its foreign policy.

On June 21, senior Iranian officials incited controversy with the West through a barrage of belligerent statements. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei criticized the nuclear arms hegemony of the United States and Europe, saying, "The big powers see their illegitimate profits in their economic, cultural, scientific dominance over other nations and pursue the strategy of preventing other countries from attaining scientific independence."

Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the chairman of the Expediency Council, criticized U.S. military actions in Iraq, mentioning U.S. warplanes bombing Iraqi cities and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. And Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi criticized the European Union for its position on the question of nuclear arms.

In a bid to demonstrate its military and political influence in the Gulf, Iran has revived a territorial dispute with the United Arab Emirates. The Iranian navy seized several UAE fishing boats near the Qeshm and Siri islands, and Iran has also had recent naval disputes with Qatar.

The statements and the boat seizures come at a critical juncture in Iranian foreign policy. The United States and its allies are moving forward with the establishment of a government in Iraq. Iran has been unable to influence that government. Al Qaeda's guerrilla war in Saudi Arabia is hitting its stride, and all eyes are focused on the near-daily attacks against Westerners and the question of continued oil output.

Events that will determine the future of the region are taking place. Stuck on the sidelines, Iran is trying to alter this trend. A minor diplomatic crisis with London will not completely reverse Tehran's political fortunes, will set the stage for future contention and provide the Iranians with a general idea of how the British would handle crises. The move -- a probe intended to elicit information and intelligence rather than a full-scale response -- heralds Iran's intent to take political, and perhaps military, risks to revive its role in the Gulf.

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=center&storyId=233384

Why an Iranian Bomb Matters

June 22, 2004
IntellectualConservatism.com
Roger Howard

The most important reasons why an Iranian bomb matters are the least-mentioned.

At their Board meeting in Vienna last week, the governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency once again conjured visions of a specter that has long haunted the Western imagination -- the prospect of the Iranian mullahs developing the fissile material for a nuclear bomb that could one day target the cities of Israel and even southern Europe. And as the IAEA inspections continue and serious doubts about Iranian activities remain, that specter looks unlikely, for the moment at least, to be exorcised.

Why, though, is the prospect of an Iranian bomb a cause for such alarm? While Tehran is rational enough to accept that its own use of the weapon would provoke nuclear retaliation and destruction, runs the argument, their own protégés in the Middle East may not be so sensible. As a sworn enemy of Israel, Iran could easily smuggle fissile material to militia groups that could conceivably unleash them on Israeli or Western civilian populations not by firing a missile but instead by detonating them inside their towns and cities.

No one seriously disputes this is a cause for serious concern, as serious as the prospect of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence passing its own nuclear materials into the hands of its own proxy forces in Kashmir. But it is not, however, the paramount reason why an Iranian bomb really matters because it is a threat the outside world can easily deter: if your protégés use your weapons, we can simply say to the Iranians, then you are accountable and must pay the price.

Nor is it enough to say that the development of an Iranian bomb would provoke a regional arms race that could prove highly destabilizing, just as India’s nuclear program during and after the 1960s provoked a comparable Pakistani reaction. But Iran’s current situation differs considerably from the Indo-Pak model. Israel, its regional enemy, and Pakistan, a possible future rival for influence and resources, are both nuclear powers already and the other countries that might feel threatened -- Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkey -- are already well-protected by the long arm of the American nuclear umbrella. With whom, then, is this arms race going to occur?

The most convincing reasons to be deeply concerned about an Iranian bomb are in fact the least mentioned. The first is that the development of a warhead would be seen by ordinary Iranians as a huge national achievement and thereby enormously boost the prestige of the present regime. If this helps to sustain the rule of the mullahs, then of course the cause of democracy and human rights inside Iran would be dealt a very hard blow.

Viewed in these terms, stopping the development of an Iranian bomb is one of the very few things the outside world can constructively do to assist the humanitarian cause. The decade-long efforts of the European Union to promote human rights inside Iran has achieved nothing, not least because anything that smacks of foreign interference immediately raises hackles and so becomes counter-productive. “The truth is that European Critical Dialogue has failed to deliver,” as a senior Western diplomat told me in Tehran last autumn, admitting that the single supposed achievement of the policy -- a moratorium on the stoning to death of some criminals -- officially ended a practice that was already dead in practice. But we are not powerless to prevent the mullahs from reaping a political harvest of nationalism when they successfully test-fire a nuclear device.

The other main reason why an Iranian bomb would matter is that the possibility of serious political unrest inside Iran over the next few years cannot easily be discounted. It is of course possible that the mullahs will cling to power in the same way as the Chinese communists have clung to their own, buying off their enemies and introducing populist measures as well as ruthlessly suppressing disorder. But should the regime crumble before violent street protests, then the ensuing anarchy could easily allow nuclear materials to be spirited away by anyone who can bribe or steal their way into its nuclear installations. And just as former Soviet and Iraqi scientists were headhunted when their own masters fell from power, so could destitute Iranian scientists one day also prove easy targets for foreign governments wanting their expertise.

So for these rather different reasons the prospect of an Iranian bomb is indeed a deeply alarming one. Let us hope that it’s within our power to stop it from ever being realized.

Roger Howard is the author of Iran in Crisis? Nuclear Ambitions and the American Response.
http://zedweb.cybergecko.net/cgi-raw/a.cgi?1%2084277%20474%203

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3542.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.