Iran close to uranium enrichment — so what do we do now?
(Note: This post first appeared earlier this week and prompted an excellent, informative discussion among readers in the comments section. It has been updated in light of recent developments. I am particularly interested to know what your own proposed solution(s) to the Iranian nuclear crisis might be. — MS)
**********
Wednesday marked the appearance of Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World. It is an admirable effort by Congressional Democrats to express a national security platform that is “both tough and smart”. It is what Democrats need going forward into this year’s midterms and the next presidential election.
On Page 4, we find this: Democrats will “[r]edouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea”. Right now, let’s think about what to do about Iran.
According to the L.A. Times, “Iran is moving faster than expected and is just days from making the first steps toward enriching uranium”.
What does this mean? — “If engineers encounter no major technical problems, Iran could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within three years, much more quickly than the common estimate of five to 10 years.” Which means that, all of a sudden, we’ll have to deal with this much sooner than expected.
Iran denies that it intends to build nuclear weapons (and there’s even been an anti-weapon fatwa from Iran’s religious leadership), but its unwillingness to use Russian-enriched uranium suggests otherwise. The U.S. and the major European powers “believe Iran intends to build nuclear weapons”. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a populist firebrand, has suggested that Iran could export nuclear technology to other Muslim states. And experts are seriously pondering the prospect of a nuclear Iran. All in all, not good.
Is a diplomatic solution possible? Perhaps, but is Iran even willing to give up control of its nuclear program, or at least over the enrichment of uranium? That seems unlikely, given its moves to date. Could Iran be bought off? Perhaps, but what would it take? North Korea wants aid, that much is clear, but does Iran? In addition, who would lead the diplomatic effort? Whatever consensus there is on the U.N. Security Council is fragile. “The European Union and the Americans want to exert vigorous pressure on Iran… The U.S. and EU are willing to use a U.N. procedure that gives Security Council resolutions the force of law, and to impose sanctions.” But “Russia and China would be willing to allow Iran to retain a small cascade of centrifuges for research purposes”.
Before there can be a diplomatic solution to this escalating crisis, there needs to be some sort of agreement between the U.S. and the E.U. on one side and Russia and China on the other. Without the latter, forget the former. And I mean a real agreement, a united front, something with muscle.
On Wednesday, according to The Washington Post, the U.N. Security Council “unanimously approved a statement” demanding that “Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons”. That sounds good, but the statement “is not legally binding,” Russia and China continue to oppose sanctions, and the only real effort to do anything lies with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will “report back in 30 days on Iran’s compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium”. But then what? Will Iran already have a centrifuge up and running? Will the U.N. take a harder line? Or will there be yet more procrastination and stonewalling?
Diplomacy is my preferred option, but how long would such diplomacy take? If Iran is already close to being able to enrich its own uranium, there isn’t much time. And that — if we’re serious about stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear state (and I, for one, agree with Slate‘s Fred Kaplan that a nuclear Iran is simply not an acceptable option) — brings us to the prospect of non-diplomatic measures. And that invariably means either sanctions or military action of some sort. (Back in January, Kaplan considered various military options, none of which seem terribly appealing.)
I’m less and less confident that diplomacy will work. Sanctions won’t work if the major powers can’t even get on the same page, and there’s nothing to suggest that either Russia or China would enforce sanctions at all. So are we ready to consider military options, such as tactical strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities?
The U.S. is bogged down in Iraq, to be sure, and the situation in Iraq limits America’s flexibility, but the Iranian threat simply cannot be ignored. We must come up with a way to deal with it.
8 Responses to “Iran close to uranium enrichment — so what do we do now?”
A few questions to the blogger.
Do you think that a country has the right to proliferate nuclear weapons, and weapons period, in fear of a pre-emptive invasion from the US or from a coalition of forces?
Why doesn’t the US discuss Pre-emptive warfare with North Korea? They are just as dangerous as Iran in my opinion.
What happens if we impose sanctions, storm the place and bomb it, and we find out that Iran was only developing nuclear material for energy purposes?
Do you think that we need to get more of an Arab state diplomatic solution, versus our traditional western approach?
My last question, does a sovereign nation have the right to create nuclear energy?
I just am trying to find a clearer since of logic with Iran issue. I guess what is confusing too me is the soft approach to North Korea. Who is probably already selling nuclear technology, and they are still developing it, while their people are dying, and we give them a hall pass.
I just want some clarity from a voice that I trust.
Thanks a million.
In light of the addage that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” it might also be worthwhile to examine:
First you continue using a story based on administration claims of what IAEA said to which the IEAA replied:
But reflecting exasperation, a senior agency official dropped such reservations Saturday as he called the U.S. claims that an agency briefing on the advances made by Iran on enrichment was a bombshell “pure speculation and misinformation.�
“It comes from people who are seeking a crisis, not a solution� to the confrontation over Iran, the official said.
-
So you resort to supporting likely lies after they’ve been called.
At this point on what grounds should we support your hysteria? Why should we agree with you and Bush? We seem to have several years to pursue various courses including military attacks.
What is your response to reports that Saudi Arabia may be buying Pakistani nukes? Not implausible since they paid most of the development cost and because a regional Suni/Shia war is increasingly likely.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame one me.
We have been here before. Only last time it was “Iraq”. We were told they were close to having “The Bomb” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. We went to the UN. Members of the security council said “wait and don’t attack”. We invaded and found NOTHING. Americans died and they are still dieing. We are spending tons of money and will for years. For what? Did Iraq invade us? NO
We are now being told that “Iran” is the problem now. They are close to havng “The Bomb”. We have went to the UN. Some members of the security council are saying “wait and don’t attack” Will we invade and find NOTHING? I don’t want to see one more dead American in a war we started. Has Iran invaded or attacked us? NO
Lets look at what has been said.
Iran is enriching Uranium, its against the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
According o the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html Article IV section 1 gives all members the right to develop research and atomic energy.
Unless we catch them making an atomic bomb, buying one, or selling one it is not against the treaty. The USA is not the World Police. We have no right to invade another country. That’s right INVADE. We have to stop believing that the ends justify the means. They don’t. The USA should not be the aggressor, we should not be attacking and invading. It seems that the Bush administration is hell bent on another war. Shame on him.
iran is the next nazi germany, imagine if hitler had nukes. would we have fought to stop it ? and the question is would we loose more troops before or after the bomb. irans leader said islam will concour the world
now the question is do you want a world of freedom
or a islamic world of no freedom and sharia law?
Michael:
I generally like your blog, and enjoy reading it. But on this one I think it is time to slow down and take a few deep breaths. Your tone is sounding a little shrill, and that generally is not an indication that there is a good balance between reason and emotion.
The term “military option” is thrown around like it is some kind of simple hand tool. “There appears to be a nail head sticking up, so hit it with a hammer, that will take care of the problem.” Simple problem, simple solution, simple results. I’m afraid the “military option” to this particular situation (or most situations for that matter) is not so simple, and would not render simple results.
As you pointed out in the last paragraph, we are bogged down in Iraq. We exercised the military option against a country of 23 million (and 80% of them stood to gain from our military option). Three years later and we are in worse shape militarily than when we entered the country. Iran has three times that many people, and unlike Iraq most of them would not be indifferent to our attack. Who the hell are we kidding!
Many of their nuclear sites seem to be underground and hardened against conventional air attack. That leaves either ground attack and occupation, or a nuclear attack of our own. Are we saying that a conventional ground invasion or a preemptive nuclear attack is a real military option for the United States? Could they be done? Of course they could. But would we as a country be willing and able to handle the ensueing consequences of either of those two options. It is doubtful that the U.S. would or could handle the aftermath.
The real truth of the matter appears to be that we are entering into a very difficult situation for which we have not real proactive solutions to. Does that “suck the big one”, you bet it does. But sometimes life just plain sucks and that is that. In any case starting to build justifications for actions that are not practically doable, and would not likely render desirable results is not the thing to be doing.
None have done as requested in your blog, which was offer a viable solution. I have a simple solution: Masssive Pre-emptive military strikes against the fundamentalist terrorists. That is what the regime in Iran is. Nothing more, nothing less. For no other reason than their open support of terrorists’ organizations, we will strike at a time of our choosing. As eloquently stated beforehand, the only thing scarier than a strike against Iran is a nuclear Iran. Do we want poppy loving mullahs running a government anywhere? NO! The military option IS the only viable solution now. It will make shock and awe a thing of the past.
“…the Iranian threat simply cannot be ignored. We must come up with a way to deal with it.”
First, calling the Iranians exercising their rights under the NPT a “threat” begs the question.
Second, posulating that the “Iranian nuclear threat” is an existencial threat is absurd. MAD is a foundation of our National Security strategy.
Third, there are many threats to our national security more serious than Iran going nuclear. For instance, global warming or bioterrorism.
Finally, we are hypocritics, in that our intrinsic policy is arms for our friends, arms control for our enemies. Such a self-serving, non-multilateral, and imperialistic policy is self-defeating and strategically flawed.
Yeah, we MUST come up with a way to stop the Iranian nuclear threat-that’s the ticket.