Tag Archives: NPT

May 3 2010

Democracy, not inspections, will keep Iran honest

On November 19, 2003 I wrote a response letter to a Christian Science Monitor editorial entitled, “Keeping Iran Honest and Open”.  My argument was that an honest Iran doesn’t necessarily come with an opening-up policy because of the Islamic regimes hide-and-seek tactics, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s insufficient resources for ad hoc inspections, and a lack of political will on the part of the  US and other Western liberal countries.  And even if it did happen the IAEA will only see a fraction of Iran’s nuclear program and I was right, because in 2008 news of a new facility in Qom came to light.

So why did I make this claim? 

Well the answer was simple. Iran is a vast land filled with deep caves and high terrain, difficult for any IAEA team to inspect, even with the most sophisticated tools and satellite imagery, let alone a surprise visit, and let’s be honest about it, it took the IAEA 18 years to figure out that Iran was working on a plutonium-enrichment program so they had it hidden pretty well.

But the bigger issue wasn’t really about the nuclear technology or whether Iran should or could have nuclear capability, what was alarming then and is even more alarming today is  the intentions of the clerical regime in power. The real threat that is being imposed on the rest of the free world comes not so much from a technologically equipped Iran but by those men who could potentially point the bomb in various directions and launch if their demands are not met.Obviously with nuclear capabilities the regimes bargaining power would quadruple if a war was waged upon them, especially if it took on a jihad or holy war. 

For this reason, an “honest and open” policy needs to be backed by democratization within the country. The free world, led by the United States, needs to lend its support to the people of Iran to expedited progressive change by restoring values that Iranians respect dearly but have been denied over the past 31 years by a regime that has stopped at nothing to maintain power.   I was right about this issue then and I am right about it seven years later.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1119/p08s02-cole.html

May 3 2010

Iran says it is not attending NPT conference to assure the West anything

Upon his arrival to New York, President Ahmadinejad wasted no time in making his purpose for attending the NPT conference clear by telling reporters that, “we are not here to assure the West anything other than what the Islamic regime believes in and that is the NPT treaty has been a failure.”   

With this introduction my guess is that his speech tomorrow will sound less reassuring and more scolding.  To make his point I think he will touch on three key issues.    First the President will touch on the subject of  Israel’s nuclear capability in the Middle East region, its lack of transparency that has  caused great insecurity in the region, and he will express concern over Israel’s unwillingness to sign on to the NPT.     

Pushing on this subject he will most likely make the argument that if Israel has the right to such technology, as some experts estimate Israel of having over 100 nuclear warheads, then to level the playing field, other countries should abandon the NPT and pursue their own security interest as they see fit, both in the Middle East and around the world. 

To avoid this nuclear doom and gloom scenario the President’s second point will be to demand a TOTAL reduction of nuclear warheads and in doing so call on the United States to act in self interest and reduce its nuclear stockpile.  He will argue that no county can dictate to others what security means when they themselves are the bearers of insecurity.

And point three will be to recap points one and two, and accuse the United States of a double standard for having two sets of rules with regards to who can and can’t have access to weapons grade nuclear technology.   

This will certainly open the door for Iran to take a new stance on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation by suggesting that now that the treaty has failed to achieve its intended goals, every country has the right to pursue security measures on its own in order to deter regional and global threats either independently or in a new alliance formation.  And so with this speech his aim will be to push for the creation of a new none western lead global security alliance.

Personally, I DON’T have a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear technology nor do I have a problem with Iran having the bomb, however, where I do see a serious threat is in the caliber of people who have their finger on the trigger.  Ahmadinejad has time and time again made it clear that he is ready to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and has expressed his intentions openly and candidly to the world.  And to this point I think the free world should pay close attention to what will be said by the Islamic regime tomorrow.

Mar 25 2010

A unanimous Security Council vote is a world class victory

Today, both the Wall Street Journal and Fox news posted an article under the heading, “US softens sanctions plan against Iran” where it claimed that the United States, after deliberation with members of the Security Council, including China, was willing to abandon its initial position to isolate Iran from international financial markets, air restrictions and cargo shipping via land and sea ports.

While it is easy to make the argument that America has lost its backbone or influence on the world stage, or to think that a watered down sanctions regime will mean leniency towards Iran, one thing that cannot be misconstrued from a US move to build consensus is a setback or retreat on the issue of a nuclear free Middle East. 

And so I would argue that this move on the part of the United States is more tactical in nature to demonstrate that America’s interests are global interests and that America is willing to listen to its partners that also have an important role to play on the issue of global security. 

Let’s also be clear in that the real lever of power lies in Americas influence on the multinationals.  Already we have seen various oil companies pulling out of Iran or freezing their business activities in the country which in itself is indicative of Americas influence and seriousness to change Iran’s behavior in adhering with the international community’s concerns.

Therefore, a unanimous vote against Iran gives America greater clout and stronger maneuverability to push Iran into a corner by making sure that the country does not cross the threshold of turning low enriched uranium into weapons grade nuclear capability. 

This diplomatic chess game now means that for Iran to avoid greater hardship, beyond the upcoming sanctions, it will need to play by the International community’s rules or face crushing consequences in the event that Tehran still wanted to continue its defiant behavior.