Pocatello Idaho State Journal March 14, 2006
Commentary: Sometimes doing nothing is the best approach
By Jodeane Albright
Is Iran bluffing or is the United States being belligerent? When it comes to deciding what Iran's intentions are concerning its nuclear program and whether they pose an honest threat to the U.S., the truth is not straightforward.
In recent days the Bush administration has claimed Iran's uranium enrichment efforts are a clear step toward development of nuclear weapons. Bush has stated Tehran has enough nuclear material to create as many as 10 atomic bombs. On the other hand, Iran's supreme leader, the cleric Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on Iranian government decisions, has made it very clear where his nation stands:
“Authorities are obliged to continue toward achieving advanced technology, including nuclear energy. The people and the government will resist any force or conspiracy ... This time they (the United States) have used nuclear energy as an excuse. If Iran quits now, the case will not be over. The Americans will find another excuse.” (AP story March 9).
Iran's history with nuclear power goes back to when the Shah was in control. GlobalSecurity.org points out the shah planned 20 nuclear power reactors in the country; all those plans came to an abrupt end with the 1979 revolution, which coincided with the hostage-taking, and Iran-U.S. relations sank like a stone.
According to Payvand's Iran News, their Natanz facility, the most notable of Iran's nuclear power plants, was revealed to the world Feb. 9, 2003, and does not violate the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. They say the treaty allows Iran to build any nuclear facility, including one for uranium enrichment, as long as it used for peaceful purposes.
Payvand's News said that Iran's foray into nuclear research and development began in the middle 1960s, with the U.S. working through bilateral agreements between the countries. Dr. Mohamed El Baradei's mission in Iran in the 1970s, as written in a July 13, 2003 article by Drs. A. Etemad and N. Meshkati in the Iran News, points out the United States encouraged Iran to build several nuclear reactors, with the help of U.S. energy companies. In 1975, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology signed a contract with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to provide training for nuclear engineers. At that time the reasoning was building nuclear reactors in Iran was a good way for the U.S. to recover the cost of oil it was buying from Iran.
But after the shah was thrown out and sought both treatment for his cancer and asylum in America, the revolutionaries in Iran washed their hands of the U.S.
Is it possible Iran's leaders today are doing nothing more than fulfilling what the shah started, offering alternative energy sources to their people instead of relying on oil?
A glimmer of truth in all of this back-and-forth rhetoric between Washington and Tehran is that currently Iran does not have nuclear weapons, although this year Iran established it is capable of producing some types of material to build atomic bombs.
Certainly the language coming from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about causing America “harm and pain” and public statements seeking the destruction of Israel are alarming and irritating. Yet Stephen Zunes, a professor at the University of San Francisco's Peace and Justice Studies program, in a March 8 AP story said Iran probably is not at a point where it can launch actual nuclear bombs at Israel or anywhere else.
‘‘... If I was an Iranian strategic planner and I saw my country on the list of the axis of evil and I saw that one country (Iraq) had given up its nuclear weapons program, allowed inspectors in and then was invaded, occupied and overthrown anyway, well ...” Zunes said.
It's obvious the U.S. doesn't trust anything Iran says, and vice versa. This makes it difficult to move beyond a standoff between the two nations.
Embroiled in a nasty and bloody war with Iraq, one of Iran's declared enemies, the U.S. should not, particularly now, wave the red cape in front of the bull. Joseph Cirincione, director of Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment summed it up:
“The administration never developed a plan beyond regime change. The basic problem is this administration came in with what they thought was a radical new approach to proliferation that turned out to be hopelessly naïve and dangerous.”
With typical Bush administration ineptitude and misunderstanding, the U.S. has not seen beyond its own narrow view of Iran, and it has little knowledge of the complex relationships Middle Eastern nations share with each other.
But Iran is setting the stage for danger. In its intense desire to have power and control developments throughout Middle Eastern nations, the West cannot take any utterances or moves from Tehran lightly. Nor can Iran do whatever it wants to do, for or against other countries, such as Iraq and Israel.
As of March 13 an AP story said a deputy head of Iran's National Security will head to Moscow during the next few days for consultations. Interestingly, the desire for consultation came from Iran. This may be a sign Iran is not being as all-out stubborn as first thought.
In the meantime, the best move is to let these growling dogs be, since that's what the United States and Iran are doing with each other. The sensible action is for both Iran and the U.S. to walk away. As reluctant to back off as it is, the Bush administration should do just that. Iran will likely continue enriching its uranium, secretively or otherwise. But so far it hasn't sent tanks into Israel or aimed missiles at the U.S.
The United Nations could say that if a weapon is detonated, then Iran will be invaded and the Iranian program neutralized. The U.S. will know, through military satellite surveillance, when Iran detonates a nuclear weapon; that should be the indicator for invasion. Until that possibility is made real, both sides should do nothing.
© Copyright 2006, Reuters
