Iran: clear menace, difficult solution

Iran is at this day and according to Bush the most important menace USA (and the rest of world, I add) has to face. Not only there are reports of Iran sending weapons to Iraq that even can penetrate the military armours, but also, according to Bush, some of the most powerful explosive devices now seen in Iraq come from Iran.
Vital Perspective offers us the Hans Blix perspective on this matter:

Dr. Hans Blix, the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector, does not believe the IAEA has the hard evidence Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb or that Iran has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. What Blix fails to grasp is that the nature of the regime is secretive, and the world cannot afford to wait for hard evidence of a nuclear weapons program to come in the form of a missile test.

His perspective is rather different than that of John Bolton‘s:

“The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran’s nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States.

“Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline program.

“I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.”

Winds of Change thinks that there is not going to be any invasion of Iran, and that it’s unlikely that the mullah regime will anounce the termination of its nuclear weapons program. Also, they think that the mullahs already have the bomb made with North Korean plutonium. The Times reported some months ago that “North Korea’s plutonium pile” attracted Iran:

The belief that Iran and North Korea are talking about plutonium stems from a recently reported offer of oil and gas from Tehran in exchange for nuclear technology.

The discovery by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2004 that North Korea had sold an estimated 1.7 tons of uranium to Libya established a precedent for the sale and showed how hard it is to stop, diplomats say.

So the problem remains intact: what to do with Iran? Israpundit quotes Bohlinger saying:

Military strikes would be a godsend for the regime in Iran, especially the hardliners that the United States most fears. Targeted strikes on several key installations might indeed disrupt the nuclear program, but again these would generate immense consequences for the US and its allies. Military strikes would create ill-will from ordinary Iranians and extend indefinitely the lifetime of the regime. Such strikes also would not be enough to topple the regime and no government now has the manpower or will for such an occupation.

To the degree that military strikes would be successful and would manage to destabilize the regime, US foreign policy would be faced with a vortex of anarchy stretching from Islamabad to Damascus. The internal chaos in Iran in the early 1980s showed how deep and virulent Iran’s ideological divisions can be. All of these divisions could be strengthened or influenced by elements outside of Iran were the regime to collapse. This, coupled with the potential for ethnic unrest from the almost 50% of Iran that is not Persian, could lead the country into a long civil war. Furthermore, even if a stable regime were to emerge, there is no guarantee that it would be a more responsible international citizen.

I do not agree with him though in other things, mainly that the main worry of USA is the undermining of its influence in the region, and the consequently growing of Iran’s. The problem here is a) Iran has menaced Israel with “wiping it off the map” and US. b) the mullah regime is an autocratic one that violates repeatedly the human rights and so just for the Mullahs does not matter how much the citizens are going to suffer or how much of them will die. c) Iran sponsors Hizbollah and other terrorists movement in the world. So, really only US should be worried about a nuclear Iran?

No, all the world should be worried.

Even the regime thinks that the military strikes are not impossible. As Krishna from A Deeper Look reports:

Iran’s leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Teheran as they prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear programme, the Sunday Telegraph has been told. The complex of rooms and offices beneath the Abbas Abad district in the north of the capital is designed to serve as a bolthole and headquarters for the country’s rulers as military tensions mount.

The construction of the complex is part of the regime’s plan to move more of its operations beneath ground. The Revolutionary Guard has overseen the development of subterranean chambers and tunnels – some more than half a mile long and an estimated 35ft high and wide – at sites across the country for research and development work on nuclear and rocket programmes.

The number of people against the regime grows everyday. Today, for example, it’s been reported that 1000 workers from the Kerman coal mines have gone on strike; that approximately 150 workers of the Miral Glass factory have not been paid for more that 11 months set the factory on fire, that 300 workers from Iran Auto factory gathered in a protest, that hundreds of workers from the Sangrood mines have remained unpaid for 13 months.

StrategyPage contends that it is unlikely the Iranian regime can be changed from within, as the mullahs have shown that they will massacre peaceful opposition.

Anyway, Bolton has said about the conversations the mullah want to have with US, that “There are still areas of disagreement… but I am very encouraged”. Secretary of State Rice has called Iran also to resume negotiations, and, at the same time she has called the country a “central banker of terrorism”.

And that is another problem: the Iranian sponshorship to terrorist organizations. According to the Counterterrorism Blog, the Lebanese army is asisting its Hizbollah allies to squeeze Al-Qaeda elements out of the Southern Lebanon. Whatever their intentions, the suspects of the Al-Qaeda attack in Israel, who have been arrested by the Lebanese army, have testified about the success of Al-Qaeda in the region. The future of this “war” will depend on the next steps the Syrian and Iranian Governments will take.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,



Filed under Energy matters, Iran, Israel-Palestine, terrorism, USA

2 responses to “Iran: clear menace, difficult solution

  1. ACB

    What about the Saudi threat?

    Most of the 9/11 money was fronted by Saudi.

    Iran is bankrupt, it can throw a few IEDs at Iraq but that’s it and its nuke technology is kiddies stuff. Whereas Saudi money could BUY a fully working nuke from a corrupt Russian general, or for one to be stolen froma decomissioning site.

    Let’s not forget how many of the 9/11 hyjackers were Saudi too. America is looking in the wrong direction.

  2. I am not saying Saudis are not a threat. Of course, the 9/11 bombers were Saudis, and Osama Bin Laden is just the same. I have some posts in Eurabian News (in Spanish) about them. Their goals are just the same of Osama bin Laden -mainly the Global Caliphate-: the only difference is that they think they are going to achieve it by peace and demography.
    Having said that, Iran, although in a very bad economic situation, maintains a very good relation with a lot of countries who are in a very bad energetc situation, such as China, mainly. Russia although is not in need of energy, was helped by Iran in Afghanistan -the only Muslim country who aided Russians- and have had a very good relationship with the Ayatollahs and mullahs since their coming to power.
    Some time ago a read about the Taliban, and one of the things they said was that while a very poor state, they have channels who are very important for their own purposes.
    Having said that, I think that Saudi Arabia, by now, is a more “intelligence” threat: that is, about neutralising terrorists in West, rather than a military one. And so, I think that is a less far danger. I mean, Saudi Arabi has not menaced formally -as Iran has- to all the West, because when Ahmadinejad said that he wanted Israel wiped off the map, he also said, that that was afterwards having destroyed he West -and the US-.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s