U.S. and Israeli Threats Push Iran to Join the Nuclear Club
by Anne Miller
Women in chador ride motorcycls in Yazd There are rumblings of possible military strikes on suspected nuclear facilities in Iran by either the US or Israel. Ariel Sharon has encouraged President Bush to take a harder line with Iran over its nuclear program. The Pentagon has reported to Congress the plan to sell a hundred 5,000-pound GBU-28 "bunker-buster" bombs to Israel. The report speculated that such bombs could be used in an attack on Iran's nuclear program. George Bush has said publicly that "all options are on the table" with respect to Iran.
Chances are that if the Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons, it will eventually acquire them. Any military interference on the part of the US or Israel will only delay, not prevent, Iran's nuclear acquisition. The US actually supported Iran's nuclear ambitions during the Shah's regime in the 1970s. The Ford administration actively supported Iran's bid for nuclear power, approving the sale of up to eight reactors to Iran in 1975.
The nuclear reactor in the town of Bushehr (which had not come on line as of May, 2005) was begun with the help of West Germany in the 1970s. In 1995, Russia signed an $800 million deal with Iran to finish the reactor. Under the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, non-nuclear weapons states are permitted to have civilian nuclear power in exchange for not producing nuclear weapons. Now the US is saying that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, because the process can be transferred to the building of weapons. The Iranian government insists that it is interested only in civilian nuclear power, and that Iran should not be denied technology so freely available in the West. Many Iranians, even several environmentalists we spoke with, agree.
However, when one reads about Iran's relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in recent years, it seems reasonable to conclude that some sort of weapons program is also being developed. Some suspect nuclear activities have been discovered in Natanz and Arak. In 2003, IAEA inspectors found hidden centrifuge facilities provided by Pakistan in Natanz. Natanz is known to be a 800,000- square-foot complex that has the potential to be hidden from the air by covering the roof with sand. The US and Israel probably do not know the location of all of the facilities.
US threats strengthen the most fundamentalist forces operating in the country and quash the democratic forces trying to get a foothold.Why would Iran want nuclear weapons? And what, if anything, would prompt Iran to forgo its nuclear ambitions? Most countries do not want and do not have nuclear weapons, and many countries that once had them, including South Africa, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Argentina, and Ukraine, have since renounced them. Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the threats made by the US and Israel, and because there is prestige in being a member of the "nuclear club." Even many ordinary Iranian citizens I spoke with wonder why they should not have nuclear weapons if Israel and Pakistan can have them. The idea that they should be denied them simply because the US says so makes no sense to them. However, people also say that there is no conceivable "win" for Iran in ever using a nuclear weapon, and that Ayatollah Khamenei is only interested in ruling and protecting the resources of his own country, not the world.
Iran's concerns about future pre-emptive strikes by the US are founded in fact. The Bush administration has made it clear that it wants to pursue new nuclear weapons in the form of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) that could be used against a number of possible targets, including nuclear facilities in Iran.
If the US is serious about helping to curb proliferation in Iran, it needs a new strategy. The Bush administration can start by refraining from humiliating Iran with its ridiculous and inflammatory rhetoric, as it only serves to buttress the most conservative forces within the country and trigger nationalism among ordinary Iranians. The forces of nationalism work the same way in any country: If people feel a threat from an outside force they will quickly choose solidarity with one another over division.
Our government must reassure Iran in word and deed that Iran's national security is not threatened by the US or Israel. It must actively engage in supporting regional security measures and nuclear disarmament efforts in the Middle East, and removing the incentives for proliferation. It is in the world's best interests, including Israel's, that we have a nuclear-free Middle East. The nuclear disarmament community needs to emphasize this demand and work to support leaders and policies focused on disarming Israel and creating blanket security and transparent inspection measures in the region. The UN resolution that ended the 1991 Gulf War explicitly called for a WMD-free Middle East. To date, there has been zero progress.
Official relations between the U.S. and Iran have been suspended since 1979. The EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany) talks with Iran have recently faltered, with Iranian officials threatening to resume certain nuclear activities that have been suspended since the Paris Agreement was reached last fall. The EU-3 has been holding out the carrot of membership in the WTO and civil aviation parts in exchange for agreement to give up the pursuit of uranium enrichment. The US has been standing over the shoulder of the EU-3, demanding complete and permanent cessation of Iran's uranium enrichment programs, or else.
Three successive US administrations' obsession with Iraq, while neglecting the development of any real policy toward Iran (or North Korea, for that matter), has left the U.S. with very few levers to pull to try to roll back Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. China and Russia, and possibly European countries as well, are seen as an obstacle to the U.S. bringing the issue of the Iranian nuclear program to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Combined with pressure from Israel, the nearly inescapable conclusion is that the Bush Administration will likely feel it has only one real option a military attack to employ to try to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, this option appears equally untenable. Many of the nuclear facilities are in dense population centers, including Natanz, Esfahan, and Arak.
An attack on Iran could severely disrupt the global economy. Iran's supposedly hidebound, backward mullahs have very skillfully used their most valuable resources, oil and natural gas, to build strategic economic alliances with key countries in Europe and Asia. This is all the more impressive against the background of U.S. policy, which has attempted to isolate Iran since 1979. In 2004, Iran signed a $100 billion dollar deal over liquid natural gas with the Chinese energy company Sinopec. Iran is also a major supplier to India and Japan, and there have been talks of building a pipeline from Iran through Pakistan and India. Europe is Iran's largest trading partner. Russia is also an economic and political ally of Iran in its nuclear power aspirations. There are hundreds of Russians currently working at Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran's potential for retaliation is real. It could shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's oil exports pass each day. A US attack would put 140,000 troops currently serving in Iraq at risk of Iranian strikes. A US attack could also lead to Iran's immediate withdrawal from the NPT, and it could shut down IAEA inspections. US threats strengthen the most fundamentalist forces operating in the country and quash the democratic forces trying to get a foothold.
The best hope we have for curbing proliferation in Iran involves both a foreign policy and attitudinal shift. We must keep in sight perspectives and values other than our own, and press for communication and multifaceted understanding, not demonization. The Iranian people love and welcome Americans to their country. I recommend you visit — only 500 Americans currently make the trip each year. The cities of Yazd and Esfahan are among the most beautiful and welcoming places I have ever traveled, and the people are extraordinary. It is impossible to fear and to hate when you have made connections with a people and a place.
Anne Miller, director of New Hampshire Peace Action, visited Iran with a Global Exchange-Code Pink "Building Friendships" delegation in April.
Back to Peace Talk Index, Summer 2005
