Rushing into Iran

In the news lately has been the nuclear threat of Iran. Iran has been intent on continuing nuclear research, which many (everyone in the American, Chinese, Russian, French, English, and German governments, and the media) fear will lead to a nuclear weapon. Although this seems likely, one must consider the possibility that Iran legitimately wants a civilian nuclear power program.

Take this news from Jan 15th, stating that Iran hopes to decrease oil consumption drastically over five years. Building a nuclear power plant is certainly one way to do that. Although Iran is sitting on a huge supply of oil, they import more than half of the oil they use.

This aside, from here on in, we'll assume Iran does want to build a nuclear weapon. Just like the tens of thousands America has, and Russia has. Like the nuclear weapons that France, England, India, and Pakistan have. China having nuclear weapons proves that we can take a nation, previously viewed as a hostile (I’m talking Korean War/Cold War days, but still relevant), and bring them into the international community. This is what should be tried with the situation in Iran. Instead, we seek to have sanctions placed against them by the United Nations, that push Iran out of the international community, and give them justification to have nukes as a bargaining tool or last resort defense.

Yesterday, Iran called for talks to resume with France, England, Germany (the EU3), but has been turned down by France already. The best suggestion so far, initially declined, but apparently being reviewed by Iran, is one made by Russia. Russia says it will enrich the uranium for Iran, who would then use it in a nuclear reactor. This is similar to how President Clinton averted war with North Korea (apparently we were days from war) by making a deal where we would give a nuclear reactor to North Korea in exchange for a freeze on nuclear weapons R&D.

But unfortunately, as I write this, a story was released that asserts with certainty that Iran will be referred to the UN security counsel:

"One way or another it will move to New York," a senior European diplomat told AFP,
certain that the United Nations watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency will send
Iran before the Security Council when the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors meets in
emergency session in Vienna February 2-3.

This is disappointing, as not a lot of diplomacy has actually taken place yet. Also, Iran has threatened to forbid snap inspections by the UN Nuclear Watchdog if they are referred. A war with Iran is possible, and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has said military action is a possibility. Even Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York was said to have agreed with Graham, although the context of the article leaves some ambiguity. Perhaps a better answer would have been that "it is far too early to consider military action." This stance was taken by Republican Trent Lott (R-Ms) and Evan Bayh (D-In), but both "strongly supported" sanctions against Iran.

The situation is clearly thorny, but moving way too fast. If Iran wants to bring us back to the bargaining table, this should be welcomed. A deal must be reached; sanctions did not work in Iraq, and would probably make things worse in Iran. The solution isn't clear, and definitely wouldn't be best known by myself and most civilians, but it is clear that military action should be a long way from discussion.

I'll have a letter in Newsday about this is the coming week, so check that out if anyone on Long Island is reading.