As has been standard operating procedure with the mullahs and their men, the latest push has been covered in realms of rhetoric ranging from the dire need of "our patients" for radioisotopes from the aging US manufactured reactor to ever-so-sincere declarations that there is no incompatibility between enriching to twenty percent and the continuation of diplomatic conversations or negotiations or whatever.
Fer sure, dudes. Like you can't buy the isotopes elsewhere? Like the only place they are made is in your creaky old reactor? Get real!
And, there is no contradiction? Just what sort of hicks from the sticks do you blokes think we in the West are? You really believe that countries with the technological base and diplomatic experience the US/EU states possess don't see the fundamental contradiction?
There are several salient matters to be considered here.
The first is the Iranians do not have the capacity to actually fabricate the fuel rods for the reactor. The French do. Even the Argentinians can do the job. Not the Iranians.
Secondly, the hardest part of enriching to the ninety percent level necessary for a nuclear bomb comes at the beginning of the process. After hitting twenty percent it is, in a real way, all down hill. As few as 500 centrifuges of the type used by the Iranians could give the necessary highly enriched uranium in a matter of a couple or three months given twenty percent feedstock.
Outside of Iran is the looming reality that China will not support any new sanction regime. While the Russians are now making ugly noises over the Iranian lack of "sincerity," Vladimir Putin still gets much domestic mileage from opposing the US. The continued invocation of the US missile defense system as a roadblock to a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty is indication of this. The implication is that while China might not openly block a move at the Security Council backed by Russia, there is no certainty that Russia is in agreement with any new pressure plan.
Then, of course, it is more than a bit uncertain that any sanctions whatsoever, no matter how resolutely and completely enforced would have a positive outcome from the US/EU perspective. The Iranian government and military have shown themselves both resilient and dedicated to say nothing of creative in dealing with the past sanction regime(s).
Inside Iran the forces of government and opposition are focusing on the upcoming 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. It is possible that the "smashing blow" mentioned by the Supreme Leader will be directed against the opposition (Note: Pressure consolidates long before it fractures, particularly if the pressure is violently applied.) If so, that would be to the longer term advantage of the West.
But, before anyone gets too breathless with excited anticipation, it should be noted that the conditions inside Iran today do not run in parallel with the situation back in 1979. The opposition leadership is part of the Revolutionary generation, for example. Another consideration is that the working class has not joined the opposition. Thirty-one years ago it was the mass strikes rather than the street protests and bloodshed that cracked the regime wide open. (Admittedly it was the violence which caused President Carter to lose his tenuous grip on realpolitik regarding Iran.)
The Obama administration hopes for a new round of Security Council sponsored sanctions "within a few weeks." That is nice. However, it may be scarcely relevant.
If the Iranians can go ahead enriching to twenty percent without any meaningful as opposed to rhetorical consequences, the cone of options available to the US and the West will become severely limited. There will be essentially two left open: accept and accommodate a nuclear capable Iran or go to war.
It will be rather like July 1914 with one difference, one very critical difference to be sure. This time around one side most assuredly does not want to resort to war.
One can only hope that the mullahs of today and tomorrow and the days after are not in a great hurry to usher in the return of the Mahdi by pushing the new, Big Button in Tehran. Given the very strong eschatological (end of days or time beyond secular time or end days) thinking so rampant in Shia theological circles, it would not be prudent to bet the ranch on restraint being the primary Iranian governmental virtue.
Oh, well, as the ancient Chinese toast/curse has it, "May you live in interesting times."
We sure will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment