War against Iran? [guest essay]

A New York Times article of June 14th, 2004 discusses the continued tension with Iran over allegations that it is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program. The article reads, in part:

Frustrated with Iran's "changing and at times contradictory" stories about its nuclear program, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency demanded Monday that Tehran provide a full accounting "within the next few months."...The Bush administration welcomed the director general's statement, and officials expressed hope that it would add to pressure from Europe and Russia - as well as the United States - to force Iran to disclose its nuclear activities. They said they would leave open the possibility of seeking action at the United Nations Security Council if current efforts failed."

This standoff about WMDs sounds very similar to the Iraqi situation back in 2003. Do you think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Do you think the UN and/or US should intervene diplomatically to stop them? Do you think the UN and/or US will intervene militarily to stop them? Finally, what do you think should happen in this situation?

Paul, an acquiantance of mine who's a scientist, wrote a much better essay on this topic than I did so I decided to cross-post it here. Republished with permission of the author.

---

Here's some background on what's going on: We have what's called the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been signed by over 160 countries several decades ago. I happen to believe this treaty was a clever step towards global disarmament.

Under this treaty, countries without nuclear weapons agree not to pursue these weapons. In return, they get aid from nuclear countries to construct nuclear power plants, so long as they agree to regular facility inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA, a UN agency). Nuclear countries, on the other hand, must devise a plan by which to achieve total nuclear disarmament in the future.

This is a good deal for non-nuclear countries for the following reasons. First of all, although you give up the right to construct bombs, you have some level of assurance that your neighboring countries are also giving up that right, with a reputable international organization enforcing a degree of transparency. Rather than each country trying to develop nuclear power plants and never knowing who is on their way to making a bomb, they have a general idea what other countries are doing. Most countries thought this was a very good arrangement.

For the nuclear nations, this partially eliminates the fear that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries. Plus, rather than rely on spy satellites and other intelligence methods, you have inspection teams that are voluntarily allowed into these non-nuclear countries.

It's the equivalent of cowboys agreeing to wear see-through pants, so that everyone generally knows who's armed and who's not.

There are a few notable exceptions, countries that are not bound by the treaty. India, Pakistan, and Israel refused to sign, and have gone on to construct nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, these are nations we'd rather didn't have these weapons. Pakistan and India have had border disputes that almost escalated to war a few years ago (until concerned capitalists in India ordered the government to chill the fuck out.) And Israel, as is its custom, harasses its neighbors and oppresses its Muslim population, knowing that, with nuclear weapons at its disposal, they don't have to fear retaliation from neighboring states as they've experienced in the past. North Korea is a different situation. They withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty last year, and claim to have constructed nuclear weapons, though it's not unreasonable to assume that, since they haven't actually tested a bomb yet, they're just bluffing for attention.

What non-scientists have trouble understanding is that building a nuclear weapon is notoriously difficult. You can have all the equipment you need, the plutonium or uranium, the centrifuges, and the enrichment technology, and still be nowhere near constructing the bomb. North Korea happens to be one of the poorest nations on earth, with people eating grass for lack of food. Their ability to construct a high-tech nuclear bomb is always overestimated. Plus, there's always the question of a delivery system. If making a bomb is difficult, constructing a long-range missile is more difficult by an order of magnitude. The chances of a "mystery missile" suddenly appearing out of North Korea and zapping California are too small to be even worth talking about.

Iran, on the other hand, is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and continues to deny their intentions to build nuclear weapons. But recently, the IAEA has accused their government of not fully cooperating with the inspection teams. As we learned in Iraq, an accusation like this is far from being the smoke that signifies fire. We have no reason to believe, yet, that Iran is trying to make a bomb. All that's happening is they're giving the IAEA some shit, which is not out of the ordinary.

George W. Bush claims, as he claimed (wrongfully) in Iraq, that Iran is on its way to constructing a bomb. After including Iran in his "axis of evil" speech, Bush has also made it clear that he intends on dealing with Iran in the same way that we "dealt with" Iraq.

In other words, where most of us see a potential danger, the Administration sees a chance to get its war on.

A little background on Iran: This is kind of a unique country in the region. Being a non-Arab country dominated by Shiite Muslims, Iran has never gotten along with Iraq or Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Iranians fear the United States even more than their neighbors, and now that we have replaced the countries on either side of them with puppet governments and large quantities of American soldiers, they have what you could call a cause for concern.

Iran is a bit less predictable than say Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not a dictatorship in the classical sense. The government is far less centralized, with a "Supreme Leader", the Ayatollah Khameini (not to be confused with the Ayatollah Khomeini, who led a successful revolution against the US-backed Shah in 1979), a President, Muhammed Khatami, and three different "armies". The leadership is not entirely contained by a central government, but sort of scattered about through different tribal leaderships, family ties, and business interests. Because of the non-unified nature of the State and the decentralized power structure, Iran's behavior is sometimes inconsistent and difficult to understand.

But generally speaking, Iran is a declared "Muslim nation", with no real separation between Mosque and State. However, the militancy they are so famous for, made so clear in 1979's embassy incident, has been on the wane for years, owing to a rise in capitalist interests and an interesting brand of Persian nationalism that doesn't seem to have expansionist ambitions. And although they are hostile to Israel and the United States, these are the exceptions. In general, Iran has been improving relations with the rest of the world and softening up in considerable ways. President Khatami, while paying lip service to hard-liner Muslim ayatollahs, is actually viewed as somewhat of a reformist, taking the attitude that introducing some Western culture is necessary so that young Iranians aren't taken in by the forbidden mystique of MTV.

Now, I don't profess to understand what exactly is going on with the current inspections situation. This news is just coming out this week, and most of us mere mortals in Washington are still waiting to see what happens. But I would say that we have very little to fear from Iran.

The bottom line is, a country like Iran does not develop nuclear weapons because it wants to start a war with the world's most powerful nation. If anything, they are looking for attention. Having a nuclear weapon is the only way to assure a country, in the age of the Bush Doctrine, that the United States won't attack you for no reason. If Iran is indeed scared that they're next on our list, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush.

The proper thing to do is to have some faith in the IAEA. Why? Because it turns out that everything Hans Blix told us about Iraq was true, and we were absolutely wrong to act on faulty intelligence from our own agencies, when they contradicted everything the IAEA was saying. What we should do is let the IAEA do its job. The last thing Iran wants is a war. They know, just as everyone else knows, that if they piss the wrong way, the United States will smite them to the ground, with or without international approval. What is probably needed right now is a update of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There's what you could call a small loophole that wasn't an issue several years ago, but has become one today. Iran is developing facilities to enrich their own uranium, a process that is just as necessary for nuclear weapons as it is for nuclear power, and because of this, it is still legal under the Treaty. We did not foresee that Iran would want to enrich its own uranium, since it could buy it for much cheaper from another country. But whether it's for national pride, nefarious purposes, or a genuine desire to develop their own technology, this is what Iran is doing. And under the law, this is perfectly legal. If we want them to stop enriching uranium, we need to make them an offer they will accept, as most countries accepted the original Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This is not a time for macho posturing. This is a time for wheeling and dealing. They have something we want, and we have stuff that they want. And neither of us could possibly benefit from conflict. The right thing to do, or at least the courteous and intelligent thing to do, would be to withdraw the "axis-of-evil" statements and try to open up normal relations with Iran. If the idea makes you nauseous, rest assured, it's for the best. Countries like Iran respond to threats, and the threat they sense from the United States is considerable. If we want to actually accomplish something without firing a shot, we need to assure them that we're not getting ready to invade their country.

It is our government's job to prevent wars from happening, and to do everything in our power, diplomatically, to defuse the tense situation in Iran today. It's not only possible, but will probably be much easier than you'd think. Iran does not want to be isolated and attacked. They want normalized relations with the world so that they can start trading and making a few bucks. Who wouldn't?

This is not to say that we shouldn't be concerned with the possible nuclear proliferation of countries like Iran. But we should recognize that hostility is met with counterhostility. If countries are becoming paranoid and wanting to get out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is because we've given them cause for concern.
We must avoid war at all costs.