Iran’s enriched uranium and the possibility of preventive war
Well, it was only a matter of time, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. If you missed it, Iran has announced that it has “succeeded in enriching uranium to new levels,” according to The Washington Post.
Is this a crisis? Yes. We simply cannot accept a nuclear Iran and, obviously, Iran is well on its way to becoming a nuclear state. So what to do? Reports suggest that the Bush Administration is preparing for war and that a plan to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities is on the table. J. Kingston Pierce, responding to a Seymour Hersh piece in The New Yorker, recently addressed those reports here. At Slate, Fred Kaplan, argues that we are probably not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran, that, in fact, there may be any number of reasons why the nuclear option is on the table. Eric Alterman, contra Kaplan, thinks that it’s all quite possible.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Iran has apparently succeeded in enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, “an amount consistent with a fuel cycle and far below the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon”. This is an improvement, from Iran’s perspective, but there’s still a long way to go: “Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, using a smaller cascade, and separately enriched uranium to about 15 percent during laser experiments in 2002. Bomb-grade uranium must be enriched to a level of well over 80 percent.”
This development is indeed “a significant breakthrough in Iran’s nuclear program,” and we do need to take it seriously. But it’s imperative, I think, that we roll back the incendiary rhetoric and consider what other options should be on the table. I would not and do not rule out a military strike, or perhaps even a more significant military campaign, but the use of military force should be the last resort, not the first — and certainly not in this case, given what repercussions a military strike could have.
As Kaplan argues: “Pre-emptive war — attacking a country to keep it from attacking us or an ally — is sometimes justifiable. Preventive war — attacking a country to keep it from developing a capability to attack an ally sometime in the future — almost never is.” We need to be extremely careful not to cross the line from the former to the latter. Think how a U.S.-led strike would play throughout the Muslim world. What would happen in Iraq? How would al Qaeda respond? Those two questions alone should give us pause to consider other, non-military options.
Thankfully, there is still time. Perhaps not much, but having even a little time is better than having none at all.
10 Responses to “Iran’s enriched uranium and the possibility of preventive war”
The uranium enrichment is far from a real threat. We must use diplomicy to try to block further acquistions of materials used for enrichment. The NPR treaty allows for uranium enrichment for scientific and industrial use. Our rhetoric is not justified for enrichment at this low level.
More terrorism from the Bush administration. Scare us all. Duck and cover. Just in time for the ’08 elections. ENOUGH ALREADY!
I suspect the scare talk may be a way of helping diplomacy along. In particular, reminding the Russians and Chinese of how much they have to lose from a war, and making sanctions on Iran more attractive to them.
“More terrorism from the Bush administration. Scare us all. Duck and cover.”
AHHHHHHH!!!!!! *runs around in a panic*
Hold it, haven’t I heard all of this stuff before?
Iran has 636,000 sq. miles versus 168,000 sq miles for Iraq
Iran’s population 68 million versus 26 million for Iraq
Combine that with the fact that Iran has much more rugged terrain, a Much less sympathetic population, and a commanding position on the strait of Hormuz.
A simple linear scaling of the forces needed would probably not be enough.
Unless we carpet bomb them back to the stone age like we did with Germany or Nuke them like Japan, but such actions without them striking first would probably make us guilty of war crimes.
Oh, I forgot. And much more oil money.
Its good that you pointed out the difference between the 3.5% percentage they have achieved verses the 80% they need.
Now the next question is, what quantity has been enriched to 3.5%?
They could make this claim even if they only enriched a couple of grams.
While they need about 15 to 25 kilogram at 80% for a uranium device.
(And of course there is always the question of the Iranian’s credibility. It’s quite possible this is completely theater. After all, Saddam’s bluster turned out to be hot air.)
Well Bob, considering Iran has some of the best engineering universities outside Europe, or the US, I’d say it isn’t bluster. But I still don’t want war with Iran, because they aren’t a paper tiger like Iraq.
There seems to be a consensus that the end result is not acceptable.
I don’t believe for a second that Iran expects to just sit there, happy as a tick, holding “the bomb” over its enemies heads. Ahmadinejad knows that even if the U.S. suddenly decided that perhaps a preemptive (or even preventative) approach isn’t ours to make, Israel will never just sit there and wait for death to fall from the sky.
It’s suicide.
So there must be another reason Iran’s president is being so flagrantly inciteful. What is he trying to get out of this? What does he stand to gain by provoking the world, and risking everything?
Is it negotiating muscle re: Iraq? Is it a new role in the oil distribution market? Is it simple insanity?
Ahmadinejad is not anywhere close to being the real power in Iran Pollmom. The clerics control Iran, and they want no war either. This is politcal posturing much like a presidential election. They want a diplomatic thumb in the US’s eye on the world stage is all, to gain back their pride lost over the last 500-700 years. I honestly don’t mind them regaiing their pride, but even they know using nukes won;t achieve that. The fact of having nukes or producing nuclear power is a source of technological pride, and the latter should be allowed them. Do remember the Persians gave the world algebra, great writings, amazing artworks, and craftsmanship for centuries. Try to imagine the US becomming an also ran country after being on top for centuries, and how we might react.
Now I say afford them their pride, but I don’t say afford them the pride to make war and destroy ANY country or peoples. Then all bets are off and they become a parking lot.