On November 18 Iran put an end to its charade of considering the Western proposal to send some of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for enrichment. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said: "We will definitely not send out our 3.5 per cent enriched uranium."
What makes this even more outrageous is that the proposal was not even a serious attempt to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. It merely addressed one small piece, shipping its stockpile of low-enriched uranium from the Natanz nuclear facility to Russia for processing into fuel rods for a research reactor producing medical isotopes. Its utility was only as a "confidence-building measure."
Confidence building, says Iran, is for suckers.
Iran has shown pretty conclusively what canny observers have been saying all along: Iran views the nuclear talks simply as a tool to delay sanctions while continuing along its path to becoming a nuclear power.
How long will the West play Charlie Brown to Iran's Lucy, forever landing on his back with a thud after she pulls away the football he's running to kick? It is hard to escape the idea that either we are negotiating because we love negotiations for their own sake, or because we are afraid to consider the alternatives.
It is past time to draw conclusions. This need is sharpened by the ongoing history of Iranian deceit. In the latest revelation, Iran concealed a nuclear facility near Qom, contrary to its obligations under the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, until President Obama blew the whistle in September. After inspecting it, the International Atomic Energy Agency noted that it will have 3,000 centrifuges. These are too few for generating energy, but enough to produce bombs. The IAEA report added, "Iran's declaration of the new facility . . . gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities in Iran which had not been declared to the agency." In plain language, Iran probably has a network of hidden nuclear facilities of which we may be wholly ignorant.
It is clear that negotiations are failing because the Iranian mullocracy wants nuclear weapons more then they want anything we are currently offering, and more than they fear anything we are currently threatening. We have given them no convincing reason to abandon their nuclear ambitions. So we must increase the pressure with the "crippling" sanctions that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised.
Senate and House committees recently passed bills imposing sanctions on gasoline exports, a weak link in the Iranian economy. Congress should complete the legislative process with dispatch. President Obama should announce his support for the bill and his intention to sign it as soon as it hits his desk, and to implement it immediately.
Some say that sanctions should be a "last resort." (The former "last resort," the use of force, has apparently become unthinkable for some.) The problem with "last resortism" is two-fold. First, its proponents don't always mean it. They will never resort to the last resort. There is always another round of negotiations to attend, another report to consider, another concession to make. Like Godot, last resorts never arrive for them. Second, while one side may be negotiating in good faith and avoiding last resorts, the other side may be feverishly pushing toward its goals--goals hostile to peace and security.
When considering our options, this thought must never be lost: However unappealing the alternatives, there would be nothing worse than genocidal Islamists with nuclear arms. That must be prevented. Obama must realize that his efforts to negotiate with the mullocracy, however well-intentioned, must come to a close, and the next step taken.
Comments
Your article leads to an important question: Is it possible to hit Iran with tough enough sanctions? Unfortunately, the answer is probably: nyet. Russia will not approve of them, which leaves us but one choice - a military option. Otherwise, we must be resign ourselves to accept that those crazy unstable knuckleheads that are in control of the wonderful nation once ruled by Cyrus the Great will soon have The Bomb.
Putin/Medvedev's Russia continue's the Mid-East policy of the Soviet Union, which is pursue disruption. Stalin supplied arms to Israel during its War of Independence in 1948 because that was the best way to disrupt British influence, the dominant force in the region at the time. It then support Arab nationalism when that was the most disruptive force. It then supported terrorism when that was the most disruptive.
Today, the most disruptive force in the Middle East is Iran with Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Russia will not sanction the Mideast's biggest disruptor.
America's standard for saying which countries can have nuclear weapons is simple: Countries we like can have them. Countries we dislike can't.
To much of the rest of the world, our double standards appear sanctimonious, self-righteous, and based on a notion that some are inherently responsible enough to be "trusted" with these weapons of the apocalypse, while others are not.
Most disruptive force in the middle east is a religiously fanatical regime who thinks that it represents god's will on earth. That my friend is the state of Israel and a bunch of crazies here in our country who support that idiotic folklore.
Let's say there is such a thing as 'crippling sanctions.' Let's say Russia and China will allow such sanctions to become UN resolutions. Let's say countries will actually respect UN resolutions. But will such sanctions really force Iranian leaders, the crazy Islamist nuts you believe they are, to change their minds, stop enrichment and surrender their uranium stockpile unconditionally?
Even if sanctions are imposed and implemented, they'll be sanctions for the sake of sanctioning, not to achieve anything.
Use of force? Sure, next time, vote Palin (again).
SLAVERY IS STILL ALIVE.
Not a day goes by where i don't see some kind of racist, double-standards, hypocracy directed towards Iran - or somebody else. Isreal, India, Pakistan hav nulear weapons, South Korea, Brazil, and other are building a few with US's help - and US, UK, France, and the GANG are harrassing Iran, threatening, Iran, and DEMONIZING every sigle day.
The more your SLAVER mentality is directed towards Iran, the more you will lose Iranians - THEY CAN SEE IN FULL DAY LIGHT THAT YOU ARE TREATING IRAN WITH HYPOCRACY AND LIES AND DEMONIZATION ...
This author is yet another RACIST man with SLAVERY METALITY who is making value judgement on iran - and want sanctions to kill many iranian civilians so he can make iran a SLAVE of US ...
It will never happen.
Long live Iranian People.
I bett the autor was either a jew or an pro american puppet. first they IEIA report did never mentioned some things in the way they are presented here. secondly, western media tend to cover one side of the story, just like eastern media cover their side of the story. the truth is always somewhere inbetween. and never forget who where the imperialists. and for god sake, isn't it the US who is involved within literly every war???please tell me the first war US wasn't medelt in. so the us and their allies should shut their mounds, and remove their asses from the middle east.
Something needs to be done and done now, this situation is dire and should be paid attention to immediately....
What the article neglects to mention is that the Iranian government did agree to swap their uranium for highly-enriched uranium, but that they weren't going to send their uranium out of the country first. They wanted to do a "simultaneous swap" where they would receive the highly-enriched stuff IN IRAN before the low-enriched stuff left the country. Why? Because they don't trust the Western powers to front up with the highly-enriched uranium. And ask yourself: was that such a big thing for Iran to ask? If the Western powers seriously intended to swap, why wouldn't they accept this deal? It makes you wonder how credible the Western offer was. The fact that the West didn't just accept the counter-offer shows how dubious their intentions were, and how wise the Iranians were to distrust them. If it's a "confidence-building measure" then for goodness sake why not give Iran some reason to have confidence?
Two points and a question: Regardless of what their foreign minister says, Iran did agree to the swap. My sources are the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Spain's El Pais and the Los Angeles Times. All those papers can't be wrong. Secondly, although I agree sanctions are in order if the swap does not go through, there has never been a single instance in history where sanctions alone, regardless of how stringent, have been successful. I wish there were something we could do to support the democratic movement inside Iran, an educated nation ripe for democracy. Do you think we, the U.S., can do anything from the outside to encourage democracy in Iran? (Anything legal, that is.)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!