Geopolemics.com ::


Posted on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 10:27 AM
	What to do about IRAN-A fresh Approach? IRAN is progressing steadily towards nuclear ownership which they calculate will make them proof against invasion, (but who was going to invade them anyway?) They see themselves competing with nuclear Israel as the regional power, who of course also have the guarantee of US support. As signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty IRAN has an unquestioned right to create a civil nuclear industry. They accept oversight from the IAEA and will be obliged to continue to do so. If however they bar the IAEA’s inspection rights then they are in breach of the treaty. The conventional response is to put in place painful sanctions but the only one realistically likely to work is to ban their oil and gas exports, and that is unlikely to gain sufficient support to be effective. Japan obtains a substantial part of its requirements and is contracted to take a large part of IRAN’s output. Anyway deducting Iran’s oil from the world supply would enormously increase world prices, it would be a self- inflicted blow to world economic recovery . It can be seen that sanctions that only affect certain bystander countries and not others, are unsustainable. Other sanctions might be uncomfortable for Iran, but not painful enough to be effective. Israel’s alternative proposal to bomb IRAN’s capacity to make nuclear weapons, however would guarantee a new middle eastern war, which would conceivably close the Persian Gulf, with enormous impacts on exports of Saudi, Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil exports, let alone those of Iran. Neither Iran nor anybody else, would believe that Israel had done such a thing without the US sanctioning it, and so would regard US targets as ‘fair game’ and much more available. Also since Israel itself has the status of a covert nuclear power (authorised only by its allies), there can hardly be a moral nuclear argument that distinguishes between them and Iran. An IAF ‘surgical strike’ aimed at Iran’s nuclear capacity, which logically will by now be well dispersed around that large country, is highly unlikely to do more than delay a useable nuclear weapon, but with at that time much more angry reason to seek to use it. A military invasion of Iran is unfeasible. Quite apart from there being a total lack of international support for it, any study of the IRAQ-IRAN war shows the astonishing degree of self-sacrifice that Tehran would demand of its Shi-ite citizen-soldiers. Also the Gulf would be closed to shipping at Hormuz by the Republican Guard with incalculable losses to the oil exports of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait and the shortage of supply would drive world prices up again, to some dizzy and inflationary level. It can be seen that one avenue after another is blocked off by political or military unfeasibility. So what remains? We are coming to the view that the emphasis should move towards “No First Use,” a doctrine to which ALL the nuclear armed nations should subscribe, (and watch them wriggle, confronted with that proposition). Consider, who would IRAN threaten with a newly acquired weapon - Israel? Not unless they were committing national suicide. Israel has a large nuclear force and the best airforce in the region, capable, were it to be employed, of the effective destruction of Iran’s economy, whose one or two basic weapons not yet available, but eventually possibly there for attacking Israel, would be completely outclassed. The Sunni nations that surround them? Pakistan: has the nuclear arms and airforce to destroy Iran in a nuclear war. Saudi Arabia: There is little doubt that Sunni Pakistan would threaten nuclear reprisals, if Sunni Saudi Arabia, financial patrons of Pakistan were threatened by Shia Iran. This is what we would propose: Iran is entitled to continue with its civil nuclear program, subject to continuing supervision and positive reports by the IAEA. If Iran expels the IAEA or otherwise inhibits their supervision, then that should trigger a warning that expulsion of IAEA can only mean and would be interpreted by the UN, as a conversion to a military program. This should be followed by the US offering Saudi Arabia a nuclear umbrella. Israel would also be offered a nuclear umbrella – an automatic strike against any first use by Iran or anyone else. So if Iran is really determined to have its own nuclear weapon in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, of which it is a signatory, on top of international sanctions against them, there should be a warning that any first use by them would be suicidal and bring down on them a nuclear response.

Comments
Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in