Score one for the atomic ayatollahs vs. Europe
PARIS — “Iran Chooses Confrontation,” shouted the headline in the French daily Le Figaro over the realization that the Islamic Republic had ended its freeze on nuclear weapons programs. Though the French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy warned the Teheran regime had provoked a “grave crisis” with the Europeans by restarting its proscribed reprocessing of uranium at its Isfahan facility, the reality quite plainly is what will the West do in response?
It’s a case of the EU’s perpetual wishful thinking over the intent and actions of rogue states. France, Germany and the United Kingdom the EU-3 — with the bite your tongue acquiescence of the USA — had patiently played their diplomatic cards to end Iran’s embryonic nuclear program. The Islamic Republic was offered closer commercial and political relations in exchange for stopping its nuclear research and development.
Iran’s abrupt change in course has caused an egg in the face to the EU-3 and a quiet self-satisfied “We told you so” in Washington. Though the EU was correct to pursue active engagement as a means to resolving the crisis, the Iranians saw the diplomatic path as a method to gain time and distance in their race to create an Islamic nuclear power.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was notably stunned by Teheran’s volte face and warned of “disastrous consequences” should Iran gain a nuclear weapon. Germany’s Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, himself facing a tough re-election fight, warned that he was “worried over the path of confrontation that Iran seems to have chosen.”
There are many reason the Islamic Republic of Iran “suspended” its programs back in November; Teheran was not certain how the second Bush Administration would react; Iran was embroiled in a percolating domestic political situation which saw the election of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President, and the U.S. still faces a political imbroglio in neighboring Iraq where Iranian agents can control events in southern parts of the country. Besides stoking the nationalistic pride of the Atomic Ayatollahs to acquire the bomb, such moves serve to solidify the new leadership which faces steep internal socio/ economic decline.
A front page cartoon in Le Monde showed two smiling mullahs saying “The prophet says that it is better to have more plutonium.”
Though the crisis could go to the United Nations Security Council for an initial slap on the wrist set of sanctions, the tea leaves in Teheran predict that Russia — the key supplier in the whole nuclear enterprise — would probably vote nyet to veto any really tough resolution. In the meantime the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the UN’s nuclear watchdog group met in urgent session to voice "serious concern" and demand that Iran hold to its nuclear suspension. Still the IAEA did not even formally threaten the Security Council course.
Nonetheless the agency advised that Iran’s moves while provocative, were the first steps in a multi-phase process which could ultimately lead to a nuclear bomb.
Though the Iranians claim the nuclear program is for peaceful electric purposes, why would one of the world’s leading petroleum producers need nuclear power in the first place? Moreover with fifteen nuclear sites across the county besides the Russian built power plant at Boucher point to a comprehensive program aimed not only at uranium reprocessing at Isfahan but a wide network of activities which have nothing to do with civilian electric power.
An editorial in Le Figaro advised, “There only thing left to do for the West is to remain united in their determination. There is no more legitimate cause than to thwart a regime proclaiming its will to destroy Israel and support terrorist movements to have access to nuclear arms.”
The atomic Ayatollahs have provoked yet another confrontation with the West. It’s now our move in this high stakes geopolitical chess game.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense
issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.  |
