The stealth nuclear threat
BY FAREED ZAKARIA
11 August 2004

WHO could have imagined that alliance management would be a hot election issue in America? But it is. John Kerry's repeated pledge to restore relations with America's allies has struck a chord. The trouble is, if he is elected president, Kerry is going to find that promise hard to keep - at least with America's allies in Europe.


Most of them would be delighted to see Kerry win, but that doesn't mean they will be more cooperative on policy issues. Terror is understandably on everyone's mind, but there is yet another growing danger over the horizon. Early into a Kerry administration, we could see a familiar sight - a transatlantic crisis - except this time it wouldn't be over Iraq, but Iran.

The threat to America from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, if they ever existed, is in the past. Iran, on the other hand, is the problem of the future. Over the last two years, thanks to tips from Iranian opposition groups and investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has become clear that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In the words of the agency, Iran has "a practically complete front end of a nuclear fuel cycle," which leads most experts to believe it is two to three years away from having a nuclear bomb.

European countries were as worried by this development as Washington and, since the United States has no relations with Iran, Europe stepped in last fall and negotiated a deal with Iran. It was an excellent agreement in which Iran pledged to stop developing fissile material (the core ingredient of a nuclear bomb) and to keep its nuclear programme transparent. The only problem is, Iran has recently announced that it isn't going to abide by the deal. As the IAEA's investigation got more serious, Teheran got more secretive. One month ago the agency condemned Iran for its failure to cooperate. Teheran responded by announcing that it would resume work in prohibited areas.

That's where things stand now, with the clock ticking fast. If Iran were to go nuclear, it would have dramatic effects. It would place nuclear materials in the hands of a radical regime that has ties to unsavoury groups. It would signal to other countries that it's possible to break the nuclear taboo. And it would revolutionise the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would feel threatened by Iran's bomb and would start their own search for nuclear technology. (Saudi Arabia probably could not make a bomb but it could certainly buy necessary technology from a country like Pakistan. In fact, we don't really know all of the buyers who patronised Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's nuclear supermarket. It's quite possible Saudi Arabia already has a few elements of such a programme.) And then there is Israel, which has long seen Iran as its greatest threat. It is unlikely to sit passively while Iran develops a nuclear bomb. The powerful Iranian politician Ali Rafsanjani has publicly speculated about a nuclear exchange with Israel. If Iran's programme went forward, at some point Israel would almost certainly try to destroy it using air strikes, as it did Iraq's reactor in Osirik. Such an action would, of course, create a massive political crisis in the region.

In the face of these stark dangers, Europe seems remarkably passive. Having burst into action last fall, it does not seem to know what to do now that Iran has rebuffed its efforts. It is urging negotiations again, which is fine. But what will it tell Iran in these negotiations? What is the threat that it is willing to wield?

Last month, the Brookings Institution conducted a scenario with mostly former American and European officials. In it, Iran actually acquires fissile material. Even facing the imminent production of a nuclear bomb, Europeans were unwilling to take any robust measures like the use of force or tough sanctions. James Steinberg, a senior Clinton official who organised this workshop, said that he was "deeply frustrated by European attitudes." Madeleine Albright, who regularly convenes a discussion group of former foreign ministers, said that on this topic, "Europeans say they understand the threat but then act as if the real problem is not Iran but the United States."

American policy toward Iran is hardly blameless. Washington refuses even to consider the possibility of direct talks with Iran, let alone actual relations. Europeans could present Washington with a plan. They would go along with a bigger stick if Washington would throw in a bigger carrot: direct engagement with Teheran. This is something Teheran has long sought, and it could be offered in return for renouncing its nuclear ambitions.

But for any of this to happen, Europe must be willing to play an active, assertive role. It must stop viewing itself merely as a critic of American policy, but rather see itself as a partner, jointly acting to reduce the dangers of nuclear proliferation. And it should do this not as a favour to John Kerry but as a responsibility to its own citizens and those of the world.

or flip the flop

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kerr-a12.shtml

You mean Europe didn't take all necessary steps to guarantee the line was followed exactly?

Is Iran part of the war on terror?

bump

I've got to say that I hope we aren't wrong about this.

Their actions at the Olympics are the tip of the iceberg for the hate that seethes in that society.

Their charter indicates nothing less than the full destruction of the state of Israel, make no mistake about that.

Don't worry about Iran, Jack. Kerry will get France to tell him what to do.

and

This is a smiley re-enactment of last Tuesday night no?

Glimpsing the furry dildo (affectionately referred to in our house as the wookie fooker)

And after insertion

So Em, is this a kind of a Carville and Matlin relationship that you have with Jedi?

Nah, it's our resident queen/sock, jack.

He's obsessed with me.

Did jack ever tell you that his favorite movie is Gods and Monsters?

Scary and sad at the same time....

On whether Kerry would be more of a Hawk on Iran always bear in mind that the politician to the 'left' will often overcompensate for their perceived 'softness' in military matters and move more to the right than ever thought possible.

So it is quite likely that Kerry would continue the hawkish policies of Bush. He would have his party over the barrel much as Blair has had over the Labour Party in the UK by dangling the fear of a split leading to the neo cons back into power. He could then face down the liberal wing.

I hope that would not come to pass but the logic of politics and power point that way.