|
| | |
Is the U.S. going soft?
Bush seems to have forgotten that Iran is already buying enriched uranium
The news from President Bush's latest European foray is not good. According to the Washington Post,
the American government has abandoned its aggressive approach to Iranian nuclearization, in favor of offering to pay the Iranians a hooker's fee, if only Tehran would stop trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush himself admitted that "Iran is not Iraq, and that "diplomacy with Iran has only just begun."
Such statements are surprising, in light of the fact that Iran has already signed a deal to
purchase enriched uranium from Russia. The deal will allow Iran to get it's nuclear program up and running in a matter of months, with a minimum of international supervision.
Just as Iraq once did, Iran places strict limits on the movements of IAEA inspectors. Diplomacy can take many months, even years, but once the Iranians announce they have acquired a dangerous atomic capability, diplomacy will be useless. The pendulum will have swung from one extreme to the other, and to a large extent the change will be irreversible.
In addition, such an eventuality will erase the option of a military strike on Iran, as such an attack could engender a nuclear reaction.
Lastly, the West has engaged Iran diplomatically on this issue for several years, giving Iran a dubious image of a country deeply engaged in deception. This is similar to what happened with North Korea: the world pursued diplomacy, failing time after time, until Pyongyang finally announced it had achieved nuclear weapons.
The United States president knows full well that his military has plans with regard to Iran - if not to attack, then at least to deter. If in fact the Bush administration has abandoned its Iran policy in favor of a weak-handed European-style policy, it would be in direct contrast to the rest of his tough Middle East policy, which is based on deterrence and forcible democratization.
This policy has so far seen remarkable achievements: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has
agreed to multi-candidate elections, Libya's Muammar Gadaffi voluntarily surrendered his weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons), the Palestinians are more conciliatory, Syrian President Bashar Assad has
declared he will pull Syrian forces out of Lebanon within a few months, a move that could also lead to the disarming of Hizbullah.
To be sure, Iraq cannot currently be considered a success story, but the Americans have made clear they intend to stay in that country for a long time. But the question must be asked: how come a policy that has yielded fruits vis-à-vis Syria and the Palestinians should not also be applied to Iran?
This issue has little to do with Israel's differences with Iran, but rather with a global danger. Even gentle Europe must understand that Iran sits on top of the world's largest oil reserve, the Persian Gulf. Once the Mullahs have acquired nuclear weapons, Iran will be able to assert its will on its neighbors, and no one in the world will be able to open a mouth in protest.
Iran will then be able to blackmail every single party with an interest in the Middle East, including not only Israel, but also Europe, America, and their interests in the region.
These possibilities are too terrible to contemplate, but if Western foot-dragging and gentle-handedness continues, they will indeed materialize. This will present a strategic threat that will undeniably and radically change the balance of power for the entire world. The United States must understand, and immediately, that this is a case of pre-emptive medicine.
-Guy Bechor is a Middle East affairs expert at Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya and a frequent contributor to the newspaper 'Yedioth Ahronoth'
|
| |
|
| Please wait for the talkbacks to load |
|
|
RSS
