America's Iranian Self-Deception

[WABA]

• 

• OPINION
• FEBRUARY 27, 2012

America's Iranian Self-Deception

Let's admit the facts about its nuclear program and then have an honest debate about what to do.


By FREDERICK W. KAGAN AND MASEH ZARIF

Americans are being played for fools by Iran—and fooling themselves. There is no case to be made that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

There is no evidence that Iran's decision-makers are willing to stop the nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions or anything else. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Friday that it has made no progress in its negotiations with Iran and that Iran continues to accelerate its enrichment operations, which are in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and agreements with the IAEA.

Yet the policy discussion in the U.S. is confused. Former Ambassador Dennis
Ross writes that the Iranians are ready for talks. Anonymous administration officials refer to one of the most dangerous Iranian nuclear installations, Fordow, outside the city of Qom, as "a Potemkin facility." The media are full of comparisons to Iraq in 2003, when suspicions that Iraq was pursuing a covert nuclear program led to war.

People are conflating intelligence assessment with policy recommendation. The prospect of war with Iran is so distasteful that people are desperate to persuade themselves that the problem is not serious.
Related Video



Facing economic pressure and rampant inflation, residents in Tehran question whether their vote in the March parliamentary elections will have an impact. (Video: Reuters/Photo: Getty Images)

IAEA inspectors on the ground at Iran's nuclear facilities reported the following facts on Friday: Iran's inventory of centrifuges enriching uranium isotopes has been steadily expanding, along with the stockpiles of uranium enriched to 3.5% and 20%—important stages on the road to weapons-grade uranium. Iran has installed and run advanced centrifuges in the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. Iran has buried an enrichment facility under a small mountain at Fordow, installed air-defense systems around it, and brought new centrifuges online there.

Iran is developing techniques and technologies needed to turn weapons-grade uranium (which it is not yet producing) into an atomic bomb. The IAEA reported that the Iranians "dismissed the Agency's concerns [about weaponization] . . . largely on the grounds that Iran considered them to be based on unfounded allegations." The Iranians have denied inspectors access to the facilities that inspectors suspect are being used to work on weaponization.

The price of this refusal, including U.N. and international sanctions, has devastated the Iranian economy. Unemployment and popular dissatisfaction with the regime are high. Unprecedentedly harsh sanctions imposed by the Obama administration are driving off customers for Iran's oil.

What peaceful purpose could be served by accepting such damage to pursue an illegal nuclear program? The international community has repeatedly offered Iran enriched uranium for its reactors to produce both electricity and medical isotopes—and Iran has refused. Iran's behavior makes sense only if its leadership is determined to have a nuclear program that can develop and field atomic weapons.

The pressure on Iran's economy and tensions within its political elite persuade some observers that Iran's leaders are nearing a decision to trade the nuclear program for relaxed sanctions. That may be true—but there is no evidence for it. Iran's leaders continue to insist on Iran's right to the nuclear program as it is being built. No Iranian leader has suggested that Iran should comply with the IAEA or abandon the program.

Western observers are confusing internal Iranian disagreements about how to manage their economic challenges with disagreements about foreign policy. Increasing external pressure this year could fracture the Iranian leadership on this issue, but no one has adduced any convincing evidence that is happening.

Iran is, however, preparing rhetorically for war with the West. Iran's military has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, attack American naval ships passing through it, and pre-empt what it perceives to be preparations for an attack on Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other political figures have seconded these threats, and no Iranian leader has denounced them.

By contrast, there has been no vocal outcry for military action against Iran in the U.S. Even Israel's threats have been muted and confused. The bellicosity in this crisis is coming almost entirely from Tehran. Why should a state seeking a peaceful nuclear program work so hard to whip up war fever?

Some say that Iran's leaders are irrational. But their statements and actions in this instance—juxtaposing bellicosity with offers of negotiations—make perfect sense if they are intended to cover the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

The Iranians are advancing technically as fast as they can to acquire the fuel for a nuclear bomb. They also are pursuing key elements of a weaponization program separately and covertly. At the same time, they have attempted to draw the IAEA inspectors into protracted negotiations that would buy time to reach what the Israelis call the "zone of immunity" after which Israel no longer has a viable military option.

Add it up any way you like: Iran is starting to race to reach a breakout point at which the international community will be unable to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, short of a massive American military strike. The evidence available supports no other conclusion.

This is not a recommendation for a military strike on the Iranian nuclear program. One could decide that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities is preferable to the consequences of a military strike, or one could accept at face value President Obama's statements that the prospect of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal is unacceptable (which implies a willingness to use military force to prevent it). But the debate must take place on the basis of a reality not skewed to support one or another policy option.

Those who oppose military action against Iran under any circumstances must say so, and must accept the consequences of that statement. Those who advocate military action must also accept and consider the consequences—regional and possibly global conflict and all of the associated perils of war. But neither American nor Israeli nor any Western interest is served by lying to ourselves and pretending the predicament will go away.

Mr. Kagan is director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Zarif is research manager at the Critical Threats Project and leads its Iran team. Mr. Zarif's new report on the Iranian nuclear program can be found at http://www.irantracker.org/nuclear-program/zarif-timelines-data-estimates-february-27-2012





</DIV>

[New Ron]

.The prospect of war with Iran is so distasteful that people are desperate to persuade themselves that the problem is not serious.

This is the problem. We all know what Iran is doing, from the IAEA report themselves, but we are so scared of what a war with Iran would mean, we somehow want to find a way to avoid it, even if it means lying to ourselves. When I say we I am being tactful cause there is alot of "we" to go around. Europe, America, Asia and even one former Mossad chief turned idiot. In short we behave like useful idiots.

Until ofcourse its too late....

This is EXACTLY what happened with Hitler and the nazis and the world!

[vahit]

İrans nucleer power scary . But may be in the future can turn againts to Russıa. Because they are neigboor and finally they will have discussed issue .
Even right now, they have common project and common interest that means some things bound to competition.Compettition means rivality and conflict.
Before the Second World war Russia was ally with Nazis Germany and later figth each other ,U.S. came to help Russia to defeat to Nazis.

[Paparock]

Iran Announces New Nuclear Milestone
Israel weighs taking action
by P. David Hornik

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/davidho...-west-fiddles/

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced this week that Iran now has “11,000 centrifuges active in [uranium] enrichment facilities.”

That’s a thousand more than the 10,000 centrifuges that, according to a May 25 report by the International Atomic Energy (IAEA), Iran was operating just two months ago.

Never fear. Also this week, the P5+1 powers (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany) held their second round of expert-level nuclear negotiations with Iran in Istanbul.

Actually that event got little coverage, reflecting an understandable boredom. But if these talks—already downgraded from the level of diplomats to that of technical experts—are now understood by all to be a transparent joke, they continue to be important: along with the sanctions imposed on Iran, they allow President Obama and other Western leaders to tell themselves, and others, that they’re doing something—rather than nothing—to stop Iran’s march toward the bomb.

And the sanctions? If the talks are a sham, aren’t the sanctions a bit more meaningful?

The answer is no, because they’re full of holes.

As the Wall Street Journal noted earlier this month (full article reprinted here): “Though economic sanctions still haven’t slowed or stopped Iran’s nuclear drive, the Obama Administration has decided to make them even weaker…so weak, in fact, that all 20 of Iran’s major trading partners are now exempt from them.”

What that means is that once a country has “significantly reduced” oil imports from Iran, the State Department can—and generally does—exempt it from the sanctions regime. India, for example, merely pledged to cut its Iran imports by 11%—and can keep buying Iranian oil at will. Japan stopped 22% of its Iran purchases in 2011—and is now home-free to keep buying. The same holds true for Iran’s biggest customer, China, after Beijing cut 25% of its Iran imports.

“To be sure,” the Journal acknowledged,

Iran is feeling some pressure these days. The EU…has instituted a total embargo. South Korea has said it will zero out imports, too. All told,Iran’s exports have plunged 40% this year compared to last…. [T]his will cost Iran about $8 billion per quarter, or 10% of GDP. Throw in hyperinflation and stagnant growth, and Iran is suffering real economic pain.

But enough pain to stop the 30-year nuclear drive of a revolutionary regime built around a messianic cult of martyrdom? A regime with foreign currency reserves between $60 billion and $100 billion, and which would net more than $40 billion in oil revenue even with a 40% drop in sales?

Such questions, of course, answer themselves. Neither President Obama nor any other Western leader—no matter how much they keep insisting that talks and sanctions will ultimately work—claims that they’ve made a dent in Iran’s nuclear program so far, and the reason is that there wouldn’t be an iota of truth to it.

Not surprisingly, then, Iran shows no sign of being deterred by the West and indeed is openly contemptuous of its efforts. In addition to Ahmadinejad’s boasts about ongoing centrifuge production, Iran has publicized a plan to build nuclear-fueled submarines.

Olli Heinonnen, former deputy director-general of the IAEA and now at Harvard’s Belfer Center, notes that a bill to that effect has already been approved by Iran’s Majlis (parliament) and is set to be debated in the coming days. As Heinonnen explains, building even a single, small nuclear sub would require Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs—the more notable considering that Iran has already produced about enough enriched uranium for five.

“An Iranian move in the direction of upping the ante with nuclear powered vessels,” says Heinonnen, “is both dangerous and needless.”

Needless, that is, unless one is driven by the jihadist and supremacist values that have propelled the Iranian Revolution since 1979.

Israel, the country at the brunt of Iran’s terror and genocidal threats, has no choice but to be realistic about the state of affairs.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a military graduating class this week that diplomatic talks and economic sanctions “are not enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program.” He also said:

We may be required to make difficult decisions concerning the national security of Israel and ensuring its future…. I am well aware of and know the difficulties and complexities involved in thwarting Iran’s achievement of nuclear weapons.

However, I know beyond a doubt that dealing with the challenge itself would be infinitely more complex, infinitely more dangerous and far more expensive in terms of both human lives as well as resources.

Indeed, this week Israeli media were rife with claims and speculations that Israel is aiming to “thwart” Iran’s nuclear program by the fall. Such claims have already been made, and weren’t fulfilled. On the other hand, Iran keeps pushing forward while hopes that Obama and other Western leaders were serious about the problem are fading fast.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/davidho...-west-fiddles/

[New Ron]

Most people are waiting for the mushroom cloud to take it seriously.