There’s a very intriguing discussion of the Iranian situation going on over at European Tribune. The discussion is framed as a series of questions and, while I’m a late-comer to the discussion, I’d like to put in my two cents. Here’s their summary. I’ve added my own observations. The coloring, etc. is in the original. My observations are bolded.
- Is Iran looking to build a nuke?
- Why?
- Deterrence
- See North Korea
- Offensive action
- Another possible motivation is to gain prestige and influence in the region and within Islam as a whole.
- Deterrence
- Dangerous?
- Terrorists
The instability of the regime is of significant concern in this context. - Unreasonable action
- Fear that theocracy acts irrationally
- Terrorists
- Is a civilian programme believable?
- Peak oil
- Iran needs power in the future
This is not a credible explanation: the power that could be generated by utilizing the natural gas vented from its wellheads exceeds the power that could be generated by the nuclear reactor under construction over its lifetime.
- Strategic interest
- control of fuel cycle
This is also not credible: Iran does not have sufficient domestic uranium resources to achieve this objective.
- control of fuel cycle
- Would make Russian proposals or external control unpalatable
- Iran needs power in the future
- Peak oil
- Evidence of military intent
- IAEA
- Casting of uranium
- Blueprints
- allegedly sold by CIA
- Secret facilities
- Gas centrifuges
- IAEA
- Why?
- Scale of problem
- Adds one more nuclear power to the region
- Not very friendly to the west.
- Widely seen as irrational players
- Would take at least five years, probably rather more
This is an incorrect reading of openly available intelligence. What the intelligence reports suggest is a timeframe of 3 years ± 2 years. That’s a significantly more urgent problem.
- Adds one more nuclear power to the region
- Players
- Iran
- Clergy
- Has authority over military
- Has issued fatwa against use or ownership of nuclear weapons
- How much of a challenge to the theocratic rule would developing weapons be in the light of that?
- Hard to say how much weight to attach to it.
- President
- Acts crazy
- May be able to hold act against clerical power if he can hold popular opinion
- Wasn’t first choice of the clergy
- Has had trouble getting appointees through parliament
- Popular Opinion
- Nukes seen a sign of strength in some quarters
- Clergy
- US
- Administration
- Want to invade Iran
Is there actual evidence of this?- Same pattern as in Iraq
- Part of PNAC programme
- Control over oil bearing area
- Good for associated companies
- Hide disaster there
- Help in October elections
Our elections are in November.
- Same pattern as in Iraq
- Honestly consider Iran an imminent threat
- No evidence why they would
How about the repeated statements of several different members of the Iranian regime?
- No evidence why they would
- Want to invade Iran
- Cui bono
- Many interests
- Administration
- EU
- What are our interests?
Perhaps it bears mentioning here that Britain and France have made statements rejecting the credibility of Iran’s statements about its nuclear development program.
- What are our interests?
- Iran
“No evidence why they would.” Are the authors serious? How about the fact that they open Parliament with chants of, “Death to America.” How about the fact that when they parade their military, on the side of the missles is painted, “Death to America.” …or something similar. Amazing.
“Honestly consider Iran an imminent threat” and “No evidence why they would.” Are the authors serious? How about the fact that they open Parliament with chants of, “Death to America.” How about the fact that when they parade their military, on the side of the missles is painted, “Death to America.” …or something similar. Amazing.
I’m going to have to go read the link, but on first look, I was struck that Israel was not mentioned. I fear that Israel has the most to fear from Iran going nuclear.
Well, I read the link and all of the comments, and I’m not terribly impressed with their reasoning.
I agree with you, Beth. They’re highly selective in what they’re willing to consider.
Well, if we’re so wrong, why don’t you come and explain our errors? Happy to discuss it.
Doesn’t look like you’re all that willing to think outside your own box…
I’m happy to discuss anything, anywhere, any time. However, I have little interest in going to a blog to be beat up on and your invitation suggests the latter rather than the former. You’ve gone out of your way to attack me rather than investigating what I’ve written on the subject to see what I believe.
I’m also not sure that I have anything to add to my several posts on the subject. Just search for “Iran”. I’m one of the few bloggers on this side of the pond that believes that the Iranian regime is rational (a conclusion that I believe we share).
Our main source of disagreement appears to be on the facts rather than on the interpretation of the facts. Go to the many links to reliable non-partisan sources that I’ve provided in my posts.
Here’s what I believe is the consensus view:
– Iran is developing nuclear weapons
– the time frame is 5 plus or minus 2 years
– Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is troubling
– there aren’t any attractive options for preventing that
Do we have anything to discuss?