Spinning for war: Ratcheting up the incendiary rhetoric on Iran
I recently argued that there is now an opportunity to roll back the incendiary rhetoric and to consider what other, non-military options should be on the table with respect to the Iranian nuclear crisis. In fact, “crisis” is too loaded a term. There is some sort of crisis, to be sure, but there is no immediate crisis. Iran is not about to build a nuclear arsenal in the near future, let alone to launch it against Israel and Europe. It’s true that Iran is now enriching its own uranium, but it’s also true that enriching uranium isn’t an all-or-nothing deal. Simply put, Iran has a long way to go before it can produce weapons-grade uranium. The U.S. and the E.U., not to mention Russia and China, need to take advantage of this short-term window to come up with a non-military solution to the problem of a nuclear Iran. After all, it’s much better to deal with a nuclear Iran in its infancy than with a nuclear Iran pushing its weight around with missiles behind its back. (The IAEA’s ElBaradei is in Tehran for talks.)
(Consider what David Ignatius wrote in yesterday’s Washington Post: “The Bush administration has demonstrated, in too many ways, that it’s better at starting fights than finishing them. It shouldn’t make that same mistake again. Threats of war will be more convincing if they come slowly and reluctantly, when it has become clear that truly there is no other choice.”)
The problem is, the incendiary rhetoric continues as the White House prepares for, and seems intent on, war. And it seems like 2002-03 all over again. Just substitute Iran for Iraq — except that Bush has little to no credibility left. The chief warmongers — Cheney, Rumsfeld, all those neocons who have disappeared into the ether like Saddam’s Republican Guard — have credibility problems, too, of course, and they’re not pushing war now the way they were pushing it back then. As far as I know, Cheney hasn’t used the words “mushroom” and “cloud” on the Sunday talk shows yet. But Rice, who seems to have been given the lead on this (because at least she has some credibility left) and who is at least working with the U.N., has stated that “strong steps” are needed. And McClellan — whom, one presumes, still speaks for the White House — has stated that “[i]t is time for action”. Strong steps and action… vague, no?
In addition, Bloomberg (which may as much of a White House spokesman as McClellan) is reporting this: “Iran, which is defying United Nations Security Council demands to cease its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges at its Natanz plant.” This according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Stephen Rademaker. Which means, of course, that there isn’t much of a window. If Iran is only days away from building a nuclear bomb, then surely there are no suitable options other than military ones.
But is this even true? It would appear not. According to the BBC, Iran may still be two or three years away from enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels. And that’s if all goes well. (It may not.) True, this is much smaller than the ten-year window predicted by the CIA and various experts on nuclear technology, but two or three years is a bit more of a window than, say, 16 days. Surely there is still time to consider non-military options.
Iran has stated that it has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent. Here’s Juan Cole:
The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.
So what’s going on?
What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%. They are using their challenge to the Bush administration over their perfectly legal civilian nuclear energy research program as a way of enhancing their nationalist credentials in Iran.
Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush’s poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again.
If this international game of chicken goes wrong, then the whole Middle East and much of Western Europe could go up in flames. The real threat here is not unconventional war, which Iran cannot fight for the foreseeable future. It is the spread of Iraq-style instability to more countries in the region.
Bush and Ahmadinejad could be working together toward the Perfect Storm.
I’m obviously much more concerned about a nuclear Iran than Professor Cole is. A “civilian nuclear energy research program” is one thing. But do we trust Iran to stop there? Are we really prepared to deal with a nuclear Iran that at the very least has the capacity to build nuclear bombs? And if the goal is peaceful, i.e., nuclear energy, then why didn’t Iran allow Russia to enrich its uranium? It seems to me that the risks of a nuclear Iran are simply too high for us to back off entirely.
Yet Professor Cole is surely right that much of this is political bluster. Iran is a deeply nationalistic country. Young Iranians may look favourably at American culture, but they look even more favourably at their own nation, at Iran’s political autonomy. What could be more popular, more appealing to Iranian nationalism, than refusing to give in to U.S. and European demands on such a high-profile issue as nuclear technology and the prospect of nuclear weaponry?
And Professor Cole is also surely right that Bush is rattling his sabres. After all, what does he have left?
We need to pull back from these short-term considerations and focus on devising a solution to the long-term prospects of a nuclear Iran. As I’ve said before, military action may eventually be necessary. And this reckless game of chicken may indeed take us to that point whether we like it or not. But there is truth and there is spin. The spin is the incendiary rhetoric of impending doom, of a crisis that is about to burst. The truth is that there is still time.
May the truth win out.
9 Responses to “Spinning for war: Ratcheting up the incendiary rhetoric on Iran”
Micahel, I think that you may be underestimating Iran and overestimating the time available to fix the situation.
Juan Cole is an authority on modern religious movements in Iran and Iraq. I completely accept him as such on that subject. Not on nuclear proliferation or Iran’s nuclear development program. His credibility on those subjects is no more than yours or mine.
Iran’s progress has by all accounts been much more rapid than expected. The reasonable conclusion would appear to be that either they’re very very talented, very very lucky, or there are things they’re not telling us. Probably all three.
I, too, think there’s time to do more things than bomb or invade. But there’s no time for shilly-shallying.
16 Dsys! 16 Days! OMG, they’ll have nukes in 16 days!!
FOR THE LOVING OF FREAKING GOD, PEOPLE, GET A FREAKING GRIP.
Iran has, what 164 centrifuges?
With which Iran has produced what, about .01 gram of enriched uranium?
In order to produce enough enriched uranium to power a single atomic weapon, Iran would need 5,000 centrifuges. Or maybe 50,000; all I know is what I read on the blogs.
But the phyics are not flexible. You need X amount of enriched uranium to make a nuke; each centrifuge can only produce some infinitestimal fraction of X.
Having 164 centrifuges making a fraction of a gram of enriched uranium is to making an a-bomb what refining a single drop of gasoline from a pitcher of oil is to hopping in the car for a cross-country drive.
The “nukes in 16 days!! is absolute, utter, incredible fantasy.
Christ Almighty, have a little self-respect. Stop being such suckers for every line the Bush Admin peddles.
I’m not pitching the 16 days, CaseyL. I’m assuming the 271 days that David Albright suggests. Are you accusing him of peddling the Bush Administration line?
If someone had a plan that wouldn’t make the situation worse, I would support it, but all this hand wringing seems a tad absurd. I’ve worked with nuclear safety issues, as a physicist, for decades, and nothing Iran has done keeps me up at night.
Do they have the potential to cause havoc at some point in the future? Yes, but so does Pakistan, North Korea, China and Russia. Manufacturing, deploying and successfully detonating a nuclear weapon is not simple. At this point everyone is focused on enrichment, but there are a slew of other technical problems between the Iranians and the bomb. Not to mention social, religious and strategic hurdles.
Calmer voices need to win this debate and the lesson of Iraq need to sink in.
People need to remember that wars tend to spiral out of control. Containment and Cold war is better that any “thunder run” solution.
Iran secured the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy when it signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in the 1970′s and entered into a Safeguards Agreement, which became effective on 15 May 1974. This right was added to the treaty as an incentive to encourage non-nuclear nations into signing, thereby strengthening the treaty.
My question is, Why does everyone who discusses Iran’s program only rely on what this person has said about the program or quote Sec of State Rice’s latest rhetoric and claims. The best source of information I have found about Iran’s nuclear program, comes from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) personnel responsible for program oversight on the ground. The IAEA and the international community have spent the last 32 years dealing with Iran, in order to achieve the level of cooperation we see today.
For the latest information on Iran’s program, please see the IAEA’s Information Circular dated 3 Feb 2006. I believe that paragraphs 1 thru 11 on pages 4 &5 of this Information Circular fairly and factually sum up the Iranian nuclear “crisis”. There were problems with the program early on (IMHO Iran was testing the IAEA resolve to see what they could get away with), but the economic and political climate have changed and the IAEA is very effective and knowledgeable in ensuring safeguards are in place.
Iran has since given up trying to fool the IAEA and has complied and cooperated fully with the IAEA. Iran is 100% within their right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful means; a right secured by signing the NPT. It took 32 years to get Iran to this level of cooperation and to be fair, since 1974 to date, not one nuclear power plant in Iran has come on line, even for a second. Why? It is because of the effectiveness of the IAEA safeguards.
Now, 32 years later. After the IAEA has finally achieved a satisfactory level of cooperation, this administration comes along and claims better knowledge and intelligence than the IAEA? Come on, wake up!
These are the same people who fixed the facts and intelligence around the policy to invade Iraq. These are the same people who where “wrong” about WMD’s. These are the same people who were “wrong” about the aftermath in Iraq. These are the same people who were “wrong” about the amount of troops needed for the initial invasion mission. These are the same people who were “wrong” about the cost for the war in Iraq. These are the same people who were “wrong” about the levels of preparation for Hurricane Katrina. These are the same people who were “wrong” about the UAE port deal. These are the same people who were involved with Jack Abramoff. These are the same people who lied about unwarranted domestic wiretaps. And these are the same people who lied about the Valerie Plame leak.
I do not trust this administration. I do not believe they ever tell the truth. Please let the IAEA do it’s job. We must find a way to create peace in the region, not war. War is not pretty and war is not fair, especially to all the children involved.
Bull Dog, what are you smoking?
“Iran has since given up trying to fool the IAEA and has complied and cooperated fully with the IAEA.”
I don’t care what the Bush administration says. I don’t believe a thing coming from them. But I also don’t think that we necessarily have a clue as to what capabilities Iran really has.
I certainly don’t believe that their interest in nuclear capability is peaceful. As Michael said, if that was their real interest they’d have no problem with Russia enriching their uranium.
For there to be a possibility of a peaceful solution the Iranians would have to be interested in compromise. I have yet to see any indications that they are. With Russia and China willing to block the possibility of any form of sanctions there is no good answer that does not involve force. Iran’s current government or anything close to it cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons for the security of our country and many others.
The administration wants us to believe that Iran is on the brink of creating a weapon , but there is that credibility problem. The administration will have a lot of work convincing skeptical public, even in the Republican ranks. I am less worried about an atomic bomb and more concerned about a dirty bomb, a device they could put together now. They have increased the range of their missiles and could threaten Israel with radioactive poisoning as an intermediate step while they continue their bomb research.