Posted by
mgraves on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:26:22 PM
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the intelligence community, in its recent NIE key judgments, has accurately judged Iran's nuclear program. Several judgments can be made from this.
Firstly, as pointed out by an Iranian spokesman, that if Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it had a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. As has been pointed out countless times, Iran continues to operate its "civilian" nuclear program. Seeings as no one is permitted to see Iran's "civilian" program, Iran can be continuing to produce nuclear material necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. Failing that, Iran could produce a radiological device, with the by-products of its "civilian" program.
Secondly, we've heard this before--can anyone say "Democratic People's Republic of Korea?--and it is virtually meaningless. After years of failing to hold the NorKs to their "deals", what standing do we have to pressure a nation to behave responsibly? If Iran did cease its weapons program in 2003, it seems to have been on the heels of a U.S. led invasion of another regional power--Iraq. If you'll recall, Libya voluntarily (claimed) to give up its previously unknown WMD programs in 2003--actions have consequences and whatnot. That said, causality is difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate, as we do not know the workings of the mullahcracy.
Lastly, a nuclear weapons program can be re-started. (Again, the DPRK, also known as the Kim Family Regime). Iran, apparently, is still on track to produce nuclear weapons by 2015. "In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible."
Of further concern is the concern for the regional standing of Iran: "...along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways". The Islamic Republic ought to be marginalized and ostracized. It is hard to see why the U.S. would be concerned with pursuing the national interests of Iran. How is giving Iran another way to dominate the region reasonably likely to cause Iran to cease its nuclear weapons program?
It is not in the U.S. interest that Iran dominate the region. Iran is not a U.S. ally--by Iran's choice. Iran committed an act of war against the U.S. at the inception of the Islamic Republic, and continues with its war to the present by supplying insurgents in Iraq with weaponry, as well as actions against U.S. regional allies.
Ahmadinejad is not the power behind the reins of power in Iraq, but he is permitted to remain a figurehead. Why is this? Perhaps because by comparison with him, the mullahs seem positively statesmanlike and responsible. Rasfajani and Khatami are no more moderate than Ahmadinejad--they are merely more urbane. Butchers, yes, but at least they'd have the decency to use the proper knife to do the job.