Or, does anyone still believe sanctions deter Iran?
Today Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, announced that his country has the ability, now, to process uranium on an 'industrial scale'. (Link)
Ari Larijani, Iranian chief diplomat, claims that there are now 3000 centifuges installed at the Natanz nuclear facility. 3000 centifuges means that in nine months Iran could possess enough highly enriched uranium to create a warhead . Naturally, as the linked article reports, everyone from the US state department to the IAEA is denying the claim, calling it a bluff. But what cannot be denied (whether or not Ahmadinejad's and Larijani's claims are true) is that by simply making the claim at all Iran is giving the finger to the USA on a grand scale.
'Before an audience that included his cabinet, senior mullahs and dozens of foreign ambassadors, Mr Ahmadinejad warned security council members that Iran would "reconsider its treatment towards them" if they continued to oppose its nuclear ambitions. "They have seen again and again that our nation is powerful enough to do that," he said to chants of "death to Britain", "death to America" and "death to Israel". "I advise them to observe the legal rights of different nations and stop monopolising, because that will not be to their benefit."
Whatever the truth of the Iranian claims, there was no mistaking the disdain shown for two mild sanctions packages passed by the security council so far, and the threat of more if Iran does not cease uranium enrichment by May 24.'
This is either an act of complete indifference to any possibility of consequences following on it (which in itself is a form of provocation); or it is an act deliberately designed to raise the stakes in, and the temperature of, the controversy surrounding Iran's real nuclear capabilities and its supposed ambition to possess nuclear weaponry.
Personally, I'm completely convinced that certain elements within the Iranian regime, in particular the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are extremely desirous of possessing both the capability to build a warhead and the weapon itself. I'm equally convinced that there are factions within the regime that are pragmatically aware of Iran's real economic difficulties and view the issue, and Ahmadinejad's handling of it, as a potentially disastrous diversionary adventure meant to take attention away from the President's domestic failures and bolster his position.
There's no way to know with certainty, from the outside, who is winning that debate and what it's outcome for the internal politics of Iran will be, or what consequences for Iran's international relations will be produced by it. The spooks in various Secret Services may have some idea; but the likes of JUsers won't find out until those consequences actually take place. But we all know at least some of the realities of political and military conditions in the Middle East, and on the basis of those widely known realities it's possible to speculate with some justification.
One of those known realities is the eagerness of the Israelis in their own defence. I cannot imagine that the Israeli military would for an instant tolerate the real possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran on its doorstep (as opposed to the hyped-up possibility useful in manipulating domestic and international politics). They have already, in the raid on the reactor at Osirak (Link) in Iraq on 7th. June 1981, demonstrated the unwavering will to pre-emptively strike at such a threat. With or without American cognizance or aid, if the Israelis are convinced that the facility at Natanz possesses the capability to enrich uranium on an 'industrial' scale, they will attack it. And since the facility is largely if not entirely deep underground, it's apparent that nothing short of nuclear-tipped 'bunker busters' are going to get the job done. Nor is it beyond the bounds of possibility that Natanz is not the sole site where Iran has enrichment capabilities. Persians are cunning: if I were the Iranians I would let it be known that I had only one such facility and make sure that its location was obvious - while conducting the real work elsewhere. Iran is a big country.
Nothing remotely good could come from such an attack, even if it succeeded in eradicating the Natanz facility. It would utterly inflame Muslims throughout the world. It would vastly increase the likelihood of another 9/11 atrocity occuring somewhere in the West - it would make another such act a certainty. Since there is no certainty where such enrichment facilities are located, such attacks might need repeating more than once. And, ultimately, they would fail. You cannot put genies back in bottles. If the Iranians have the knowledge base to build such enrichment capabilities in the first place, and the will to produce a weapon, then in the end the weapon will be theirs - no matter how long it takes. Ultimately, the only thing that will prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is either regime change, or eradication; Iran would have to go the way of Iraq.
Regime change forced from without would cost countless billions more than has already been squandered on Iraq. It would inevitably exacerbate the existing tensions between Turkey and the Kurds and through that festering bitterness the conflict would spill over first into Turkey itself and then into the rest of the European continent. Even if Turkish/Kurd relations were completely stable, Europe is over-run by Muslims. Britain's Asian population has very extensive links to Pakistan, and many of the supposedly 'British' Asian youth are constantly exposed to and sympathetic with Radical Islam.
There are deep resentments in the Pakistani population toward Britain's role in Iraq and its support of the USA - along with virulent hatred of Israel. I can't say I blame them. British/Pakistani relations are complicated by the history of Empire and conflict over current immigaration policy as well as social inequality. It isn't easy being Pakistani in Britain. And I can't say that I don't understand the Iranian will to get nuclear weapons.
The USA flattens Iraq. The USA tiptoes around North Korea and fawns on Pakistan. The USA invaded, conquered and destroyed Iraq with complete impunity. The likelihood of the USA invading either North Korea or Pakistan (no matter how much the US bitches about tribal areas that no one but the mullahs and warlords rule) is virtually nil. If you have nukes even the biggest baddest bad boy on the planet will kiss your ass while paying you for the privilege.
I'm certain that any attack on Iran by Israel (particularly Israel) would turn the 'British' Pakistani population, and similar populations throughout Europe, into consciously malign - as opposed to merely resentful - and willingly active enemy encampments. Military action against Iran will plunge Europe into a de facto state of war, the first conflict of the 21st century likely to match or exceed in scal the great conflicts of the 20th. Of course, such a war, if it occurs, would not remotely resemble those other wars. A war without trenches or fronts, more like a Stalingrad writ large, with every house a fortress to be taken.
The alternative to forcing regime change by direct action is to encourage its development from within, delicately exploiting conditions internal to Iran. Diplomacy of this sort requires something more than the 'axis-of-evil' mentality of Bush and his ilk, and a very great deal more than the confusion that reigns over Democratic 'policy' for the region. Encouraging trade, encouraging the emergence of ideas opposed to theocracy, exploiting the avarice and ambition of youth. All of this in the context of responding to the politics of an extremely volatile and unpredictable region.
I see no evidence that this approach has even the remotest support in Washington or anywhere else in America. Bush and his Merry Morons are incapable of managing it. The Democrats are just as incompetent and unimaginative and even more divided than the Republicans. The majority of the American people want the war to go away and the troops to come home, having no concern beyond that point - except the natural desire to keep gas cheap and the lights on.
I believe that very soon now someone is going to decide that Osirak2 is a real necessity and in the vital interest of the Israeli people. I can't say I blame the Israelis. I wouldn't want a nuclear-armed Iran sitting at my shoulder, either.
All of this is speculation of course. But it's not unreasonable speculation. Years ago I attended a conference at Hull University as a post-grad student. it was a discussion of the nature of political legitimacy and the threats it faced in the coming decade or two.
This was in 1995 or 96. There was an analyst from the British Ministry of Defense attending. His presentation included a prediction of conditions likely in the next ten or fifteen years. The MoD believed that a series of small wars would be likely, culminating in a major conflict sometime in the first decade of the new century.
As a very general outline it's an apt description of the process Europe has gone through since then. All that's missing is the major conflict. I honestly believe it's on its way, a rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem. Just as in the poem, the center of things will fold up and collapse: irrespective of the truth of Ahmadinejad's and Larijani's claims. There are interesting times ahead.
C'est la vie - c'est la guerre.