European foreign policy not working in Iran

[John Uskglass]

Who would have guessed apologism does'nt work?

Testing times

Jun 10th 2004
From The Economist print edition

Time for Europeans to toughen their anti-nuclear message

THE hope in Europe that “soft power”, offering engagement in place of confrontation, would encourage Iran to give up its dangerous nuclear ambitions seems set to collide with hard reality. Buried in the details of a report next week to the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), one of a damning series since Iran's 18-year deception over its nuclear programmes was uncovered last year, are several time-bombs.

The inspectors cannot know whether Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons programme; only secretive Iran knows that. But they do demonstrate that not all traces found of highly enriched uranium (the higher the better for military use) could have come in on imported machinery, as Iran still claims. Its interest in particularly sophisticated centrifuge machines for enrichment, they suspect, goes beyond the small “research” effort it now owns up to. And they are certain Iran bought its enrichment designs and parts from the same supply network as Libya, which now admits (while Iran does not) that with its uranium starter-kit came detailed bomb-building plans.

Iran still insists its nuclear programme is just for making electricity. But few believe that. Last October, Britain, France and Germany thought they had a deal that gave Iran a face-saving exit from the bomb-making business: they would hold off reporting Iran's nuclear transgressions to the UN Security Council, as the IAEA's board is legally obliged to do, if all uranium enrichment activity stopped, and Iran came clean about its nuclear past and co-operated fully with inspectors. And they offered technology trade, with Iran keeping the peaceful benefits of nuclear power, if it abandoned the uranium and plutonium processes that bring it close to nuclear break-out.

But Iran, it seems, was just playing for time. Its work with inspectors has increased, but so have the holes in its nuclear story. It is about to start building a heavy-water reactor that is too small for power generation but ideal for plutonium-making. It is preparing uranium feedstock for its centrifuges and still producing parts for them, despite a promise to stop. And western intelligence agencies suspect Iran is still hiding sites where other nuclear work has been done.

As the going gets tougher
Iran threatens “consequences” if the IAEA's board will not drop the issue: it hints it may restart its uranium enrichment machines, or it could quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as North Korea has done. And what would the Europeans do then? Little but belly-ache, Iran may calculate. If it is to be persuaded differently, and the NPT is to be saved from the shredder, Europe's soft power needs to be given a harder edge.

With 60% of its people under 30, many of them without jobs, Iran needs all the trade (some 40% of its imports come from the European Union) and investment in its oil and gas industries (much of it now coming from European and Japanese companies) that it can get. Sanctions, beyond those imposed for years by the United States, could therefore hurt Iran badly. As a first signal of their intent to get tougher, if Iran won't keep its side of the October bargain, Britain, France and Germany should join America in insisting that Iran's nuclear rule-breaking go directly to the Security Council, where international sanctions could be contemplated.

Iran would be livid if Europe flexed its trade muscle even in this limited way. But it also needs to be told clearly that any nuclear miscalculation it makes will carry a heavy price.

 

[quietfanatic]

Iran may implode if the government pushs its moderates to far in the future.

And they offered technology trade, with Iran keeping the peaceful benefits of nuclear power

ha, ha, ha
It isn't that hard to convert from power to weapons.
Where are they getting the uranium from anyway? I don't think they are in much of a position to bargain. Iran is probably on Bush's hit list of dangerous targets, so further enflaming the situation by secretly maintaining a weapons program is not a good idea. It does ask the question again of "why can't non-western nations develop a nuclear defence capability?" The answer is because they are unpredictable and the US wants to safeguard world security. Any increase in nuclear armament by anyone is wrong because these weapons are too destructive to use. That sort of logic would not be acknowledged by a failing government in a crisis such as being invaded by the US as part of the 'axis of evil' at a far later date.

Do you think people will ever be crazy enough to launch a nuclear weapon in a civil war?

 

[alec]

Do you think people will ever be crazy enough to launch a nuclear weapon in a civil war?

Yes, I'm pretty sure.

 

[quietfanatic]

But then again some argue that all wars are civil wars as they involve humanity destroying itself. Where are those easily defeated aliens when you need them? No, we would probably just go back to fighting over scraps and ideas as we forgot our ultimate brotherhood.

 

[alec]

Where are they getting the uranium from anyway?

Probably Russia or Kazachstan (sp?). I've heard they've got bargin bins full of that stuff over there. Cheap, but efficient.

It does ask the question again of "why can't non-western nations develop a nuclear defence capability?" The answer is because they are unpredictable and the US wants to safeguard world security.

And the US isn't unpredictable? The US is civilized because it's Western? Bwah, I laugh with such statements. And I even think they are xenophobic/racist statements.

On a sidenote: is India getting sanctioned for increasing its nuclear capability? China?

Where are those easily defeated aliens when you need them?

They're in Hollywood. In the studios. Waiting for the right moment... to strike back at us.

 

[quietfanatic]

And the US isn't unpredictable? The US is civilized because it's Western? Bwah, I laugh with such statements. And I even think they are xenophobic/racist statements.

The US is also unpredictable but they have the economic/military/political power etc. to influence smaller states which pose a threat to them. US intelligence can even monitor internet traffic for subversive or antigovernment comments and act on this information if they so choose. That is why they can do as they wish. Although it is not perfect I do think that Western nations such as America are usually more civilised than others. This is because of higher educational standards, socio-economic status and stable government. Civilization is the art of knowing who far to bend the rules and doing it right. America is in grave danger of breaking the rules again with its actions in Iraq and therefore not being civilized.

On a sidenote: is India getting sanctioned for increasing its nuclear capability? China?

India provides competition for Silicon Valley and likewise, China is also a large, growing economy, supported by a large army. They are friends and useful trading partners to America, so even if India is much more likely to nuke Pakistan than Iran is to attack America, they are still given more autonomy. They are also more predicable because the leadership is well aware of playing the game of world politics, while a dictator in a country with a small population might be more eager to act 'rashly'.

 

[EyeMaster7]

India provides competition for Silicon Valley and likewise, China is also a large, growing economy, supported by a large army. They are friends and useful trading partners to America, so even if India is much more likely to nuke Pakistan than Iran is to attack America, they are still given more autonomy. They are also more predicable because the leadership is well aware of playing the game of world politics, while a dictator in a country with a small population might be more eager to act 'rashly'.

So since they are not going to nuke us err.... the US in the near future they can have atomics? They are good trading partners so they can do whenever they want with everyone else? Give me a break. Pakistan is a dictatorship too and a brutal one. They have atomics but they are "America partner" so its ok?

How the UN is going to stop Iran or North Korea from developing atomic bombs if their traditional enemies, Israel and South Korea have an advanced nuclear program????

imfho it's impossible to stop this process which started on august 6, 1945 with Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Check the documents about "the decision". Did anyone here asked yourself why Truman chose this two cities and not the capital Tokio or the greatest military center in Japan (kokura) but the most populated cities since Tokio was evacuated???

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

Maybe the Iran's government scientific staff share the same opinion of Truman's about nuclear energy.

You can search for the full stuff at naira but the first link has the essential.

http://www.archives.gov/