Daily Times

The on-off talks on Iran’s nuclear question have been going on here and there at different times but without any progress. The United States, which is under constant pressure from Israel, wants Iran to forgo its nuclear capability under international verification. The Iranian contention though, is that their nuclear programme is designed for peaceful purposes and not for bomb making. Nevertheless, its opponents are adamant that Iran is heading towards a nuclear weapons programme. Therefore it must be stopped even if it means launching a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities. There is some difference of opinion, though, about the timeframe for Iran to make the bomb.

Israel is the foremost proponent of the pre-emptive strike. But sensing dangers if it were to go it alone, as articulated by some in its intelligence and military establishment, Israel’s pre-emptive rhetoric seems intended more to push the US in that direction or, at the very least, to make sure that it has the tacit, if not formal, US go ahead. In that case, if things go wrong, the US will finish the job started by Israel. However, even for the US, it will not be a walkover, if its recent military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are anything to go by.

Such an Iran mania is very dangerous, not knowing where it will all end up. That is when the world is not even sure whether or how far Iran will go in its nuclear quest. Even among its detractors, there is no suggestion that Iran already has a nuclear bomb or is even close to having one in a short period of time. The western intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have not come out with any definite intelligence regarding this.

The most they can say is that Iran is being secretive about its nuclear activities by not disclosing everything, while working on its centrifuge technology to the bomb grade level of 90 percent and over. At present, Iran is believed to have a 20 percent enrichment capability. And efforts are around at all levels to impede or destroy its incipient nuclear programme that may or may not reach the optimum level of making the bomb. For instance, it has been struck by the Stuxnet computer virus, blamed on Israel, to slow down or wreck its centrifuges, its nuclear scientists have been killed, and its economy is being crippled by the most comprehensive sanctions of its kind mounted and led by the United States.

It is all justified in the name of the argument that an Iranian bomb will not only be a threat to Israel but to the rest of the world. It will start a race for nuclear weapons in the volatile Middle East. If Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which is a threat to all its Arab neighbours and Iran, did not start a nuclear race, it is hard to believe that Iran’s non-existent (so far) nuclear bomb will trigger such a race. In any case, why single out Iran by projecting it as some kind of a personification of all that is wrong with nuclear weapons, and blame it for the sins of all the other nuclear powers?

Iran will be right not to go for a nuclear bomb because its security cloak is largely deceptive as these weapons are more for deterrence and/or status than actual use. The consequences of nuclear warfare are too horrible to contemplate, and it is high time that those with huge nuclear arsenals take the lead in nuclear disarmament to make a moral case for other countries. Until then, in this world of power projection, a nuclear bomb will continue to have currency and appeal.

Importantly, though, where does Iran stand in its nuclear quest? Even the usually hawkish (US) Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) hedges its conclusions on Iran’s bomb. In a recent report on the subject, it says, “Iran is already capable of making weapons-grade uranium and a crude nuclear explosive device.” However, it is “unlikely” to make the bomb this year “in large part because it will remain deterred from doing so and limited in its options for quickly making enough weapons-grade uranium.” The ISIS believes that Iran is engaged in “nuclear hedging”.

The report cautions against any pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear sites. It says, “Limited bombing campaigns are unlikely to destroy Iran’s main capability to produce weapons-grade uranium…” It adds, “More importantly, Iran has mastered the construction of centrifuges and has likely even secretly stockpiled an unknown number.”

Therefore, “An ineffective bombing campaign [of the pre-emptive kind] that does not eliminate these capabilities would leave Iran able to quickly rebuild its programme and would motivate it to launch its own Manhattan Project [like the US did to become a nuclear power], resulting in a Middle East region that is far more dangerous and unstable.” In other words, it seems to advise against cornering Iran into breaking out as a full-fledged nuclear power with all the consequences for the volatile Middle Eastern region.

As Steve Coll has written in the New York Review of Books, while highlighting the findings of the ISIS, “Between the constraints facing Iran [technical and economic] and the poor prospects for military action, then, it is misleading and irresponsible to describe preemptive war today as a rational, justifiable option for either Israel or the United States.” But the US’s political dynamics, especially in the current presidential election campaign and the power of the Jewish lobby, is making its political establishment more than usually hawkish.

For instance, speaking recently to the Israel Bar Association, the US ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro said, “At a certain stage, we are going to have to decide whether diplomacy isn’t going to work.” He added, “It would be preferable to resolve this [Iran’s nuclear issue] diplomatically…than the use of military force. But that doesn’t mean that option is not fully available — not just available, but it’s ready.” And he was speaking for his government in Washington.

Hopefully, it is sheer political rhetoric. If not, the world might be about to enter an even more dangerous period in an already volatile region. And the consequences might be felt far and wide from any disruption to oil supplies at a time when the world is already in the midst of an economic crisis.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au