Giving War a Chance

"We need to give diplomacy a chance to work. New sanctions now, on top of the ones that are already in existence and will continue to be implemented, we fear would be taken as a sign of bad faith, not just by the Iranians but, indeed, by our partners in the P5+1 and other countries around the world whose co-operation we require to implement the sanctions and make them effective."
Tony Blinken, American deputy national security adviser

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

 

"I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, nor abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions."
Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, chairman, Senate foreign relations committee

U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Democratic Senator Harry Reid has not yet publicly revealed how he will sway to the winds of change. But leading U.S. Democratic and Republican senators have been busy writing up new legislation for the purpose of reinstating the full force of sanctions, and to be prepared to impose new ones, because they have fairly good memories, going back at least a week or so, when Tehran's lawmakers stated tersely they have the inalienable right to nuclear production, and nothing will halt them in their divinely-ordained purpose.

If the U.S. Senate is hostile to the new, hoped-for 'halt' to Iran's march to nuclear-armed missiles, the U.S. Congress is not that far behind. Among its members there are enough who are skeptical to the point of outright hostility to auger, when they return to business, a potential palace revolt. Muted somewhat by the lapse of several weeks, but redolent of disgust with their own government at leading the world into a very uncomfortable place. With a fanatical theocracy skilled at buying time and leading the international community time after time down the garden path of trust.

The Obama administration, which portrays itself as the champion of peace, using all means at its disposal to achieve it, and for its deep understanding of motivations and alienation among disparate countries, has stuck not only America's head out a tad too far into having temporarily brought 'peace' to the fore allowing in the process, eager global industries to resume their friendly, remunerative relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, but merely bought a slender bit of time before a very real, punishing war may yet erupt, one that will not restrain its presence to the Middle East.

"The ideology of Nazism called for the creation of a racial aristocracy. The ideology Iran’s rulers embrace calls for a religious aristocracy. Utopian theories rooted in atheism were the principle cause of carnage in the 20th century. Is it really inconceivable that the principle cause of carnage in the 21st century will be Utopian theories proclaimed to be ordained by God?"
" My best guess (and I’d prefer to be wrong): Sooner rather than later, the sanctions rope unravels. Once that happens, Iran’s rulers — the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism abroad, egregious abusers of human rights at home, and nuclear proliferators — offer less, not more. There will be calls to reestablish and even enhance economic pressure but it may be too late. Iran’s rulers will continue toward their near-term goal: a quicksilver nuclear-breakout capability."
"Their longer-term goals include hegemony over the Middle East, control of the region’s vast petroleum resources and the Strait of Hormuz (vital to the international economy), and impunity for the terrorists they sponsor. Non-proliferation will be as dead as disco — the Saudis and others will obtain the weapons they need to defend themselves against what they understand to be a dangerous and unpredictable enemy. (Israel, they have always known, is not that.) Over the decades ahead, the odds of a major war, one in which nuclear weapons are used, will rise; as will the possibility of terrorists acquiring and deploying nukes. This will be the legacy we leave our children."
Clifford D. May, Foundation for Defence of Democracies

In the meantime, Senators Bob Menendez, Democrat, and Mark Kirk, Republican, are preparing their bill, a measure insisting that the administration commit to every thirty days certifying Iran is adhering to the terms of the six-month interim agreement. The question could arise, with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif assuring his critics in Iran that 'some construction' is slated to continue at Arak. A statement that French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal responded to unequivocally:

"In the interim accord, the Arak reactor is specifically targeted and the end of all work at this reactor. In the agreement and the text, which has been approved by the Iranian authorities, the Arak reactor is clearly targeted."

A general view of the Arak heavy-water project, 190 km (120 miles) southwest of Tehran January 15, 2011.  Credit: Reuters/ISNA/Hamid Forootan

But then, the interpretation of the agreement respecting uranium enrichment has been quite different between, for example, the Iranians and the United States authorities. As for Arak, if the direction of the final negotiations are to have the installation completely dismantled, what then is the purpose of proceeding with any kind of construction there?

"The agreement is silent on the manufacturing of remaining key components of the reactor and its continued heavy-water production."
"Technically, such efforts are not reasonable if the goal is either to dismantle the reactor or modify it to a more proliferation-resistant, smaller light-water reactor as one of the alternative paths of producing isotopes for medical and industrial purposes."
Olli Heinonen, former chief U.N. nuclear inspector: written analysis.