On October 16, 1962, the United States was minutes away from nuclear war. Intelligence revealed to President John F. Kennedy showed that the Soviet Union had placed nuclear weapons and missile launchers in Cuba, just miles away from the United States. Twelve days of exhaustive negotiation between Kennedy and the Soviets led to the eventual drawdown of nuclear arms. Nevertheless, nuclear annihilation is still a problem to this day. Iran is attempting to enrich uranium to the point that it can put a nuclear warhead onto a missile. Today, we will first go underground to identify the problem of Iranian nuclear capabilities; second, seek out the nature and implications of such capabilities; and third, observe and examine the world’s means for engaging the gathering threat posed by Iran.
First, let us go underground and identify the burgeoning problem at hand. American intelligence sources believe that Iran is inching ever closer to having a nuclear weapon. Iran is a nation in the middle of the Persian Gulf, a region strategically vital for American economic interests, namely oil. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a radical hardliner; he consistently calls for the destruction of a major US ally: Israel. He blasts the West for attempting to deny the nuclear capabilities of Iran. According to an article in the April 14, 2006 Independent of London, the Iranian President said that if anyone is angered by the progress of uranium enrichment in Iran, they should “die of this anger.” A nuclear weapon in the hands of someone calling for the death and destruction of another nation is unsafe and dangerous.
Furthermore, Iran’s original justification of enriching uranium, facilitated by the Russians, was for civilian energy purposes. However, enriching uranium to weapons-grade status does not have anything to do with civilian energy. According to an article in the April 13 Los Angeles Times, Iranian scientists say that they have already enriched uranium to a level appropriate for civilian purposes, but they now want to greatly increase the intensity and amount of uranium they are enriching. According to the previously cited LA Times article, Western nations, including the United States, believe that Iran is trying to enrich nuclear material to build an atomic weapon. The Iranians sit on a large oil reserve, and thus do not need nuclear technology for civilian energy purposes. Given the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership, and the fact that they are actively enriching uranium, the prospect of a nuclear Iran is not farfetched.
Now that we have identified Iran as a possible nuclear power, we must now look at the implications of such a development. The emergence of Iran as a nuclear power would have a disastrous effect on the broader Middle East, and for the West. A nuclear Iran would further destabilize the already tenuous situation in Iraq. Iran and Iraq have been bitter enemies since the time of Saddam Hussein, and a nuclear weapon could lead to further animosity between the nations.
Then there is the issue of terrorism. Iran is a major supporter of Hizbullah, a group labeled terrorists by the US State Department. Hizbullah is based in Lebanon, and the group has committed terrorist acts against Israel in the past. The anti-Western rhetoric of the Iranian President also matches closely with the ideology of al-Qaeda, and there is a possibility that Iran would be willing to sell its knowledge and technology to the terror group. This charge, trumped up be American neoconservatives, is one of the justifications given for a military campaign against Iran.
Then there is the issue of Israel. Israel is a strategic and strong ally of the United States, and is within striking distance of conventional weapons already in Iran’s possession. Israel has both nuclear weapons and a missile defense system, but that may not deter Ahmadinejad, who has said that the “Zionist entity” (he does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation) is on the verge of being eliminated. This statement, according to an article in the April 15 New York Times, is also furthered by Ahmadinejad’s characterizing of Israel as a “rotten, dried tree" that would collapse in "one storm." A leader making such radically obscene and outlandish public comments must not have the means to use a nuclear weapon.
Lastly, let us examine the options that America, and the rest of the world, has when engaging Iran about its possible nuclear weapon. There are two options: diplomatic negotiations or a military campaign. The problem with either option is that we truly have no clue about what capabilities the Iranians actually have. According to an article in the April 17, 2006 New York Times, the Iranians have consistently overstated or understated capabilities in the past, depending on whichever was more appropriate for the situation or forum involved. There was widespread speculation in the West about the existence of a secret program of uranium enrichment, but there was no proof. According to the previously cited New York Times article, the Iranians have been researching and using P-2 ultracentrifuges, advanced technology developed in Pakistan by black market nuclear scientist AQ Khan. A statement by President Ahmadinejad about the P-2 ultracentrifuges is leading to a much closer investigation into the allegation of secret uranium enrichment in Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The current method of engagement has been diplomacy, but we have no idea how long patience will run in this administration. After the spurning of the United Nations by the United States over the issue of Iraq, the Bush administration has been much more careful about using the UN for diplomatic purposes. An article in the April 12, 2006 New York Times states that the US wants to impose economic sanctions on Iran via UN Security Council Resolutions; however, two permanent members with veto power, China and Russia, are against the idea. There are rumors circulating about possible military campaigns, but according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the idea of eliminating Iran’s nuclear sites militarily is extremely difficult to undertake.
Reports are now rampant about an impending military campaign against Iran, led by the United States. A story by Seymour Hersh in the April 17, 2006 issue of The New Yorker states that multiple military operations against Iran are in the works, including one involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons to take out the sites of uranium enrichment in Iran. Immediately after this story was published, the Pentagon insisted that this was “fantasy,” with the President even going so far as to call it “wild speculation.” Complicating the matter, Hersh uses a myriad of anonymous sources, thus making it difficult to press anyone in the government about the veracity of the report. Seymour Hersh has an outstanding record of accomplishment as an investigative journalist however; his reporting is what broke the story of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.
With diplomacy and a stroke of leadership, in 1962, President Kennedy avoided a nuclear war. The opportunity for such leadership is here again, in 2006. Despite the unknown capacity of the nuclear program in Iran, President Bush can lead the world by curbing the nuclear ambitions of Iran. How he approaches this great opportunity for leadership could be the determining factor in whether a nuclear Iran becomes a reality. Here today, we took a look at the issue of nuclear capabilities in the Persian Gulf. By first identifying the growing problem in Iran, secondly, ascertaining its implications, and thirdly, examining courses of action, we can see the crisis in Iran in an entirely new light.
