Meir Javedanfar offers these observations on the talks scheduled next week over Iran’s nuclear program - which, given the recent provocations on the Korean peninsula by the Pyongyang regime, will be of heightened interest and sensitivity.
Both the P5+1 and Iran are attending these talks because they are an essential part of their dual track policies toward each other. Without such an approach, their respective strategies would collapse.
Iran’s dual track approach involves a diplomatic channel that allows it access to direct negotiations with the P5+1, while also supporting foes of the West-especially those of the United States-in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Iran hopes this twin approach will gradually coerce the West into accepting its terms.
But the West also pursues a dual strategy. Despite the talks being widely seen as dead before they’ve even started, it still needs to keep the talks going as it provides Iran a channel through which come to the negotiating table. The second track consists of the sanctions that it hopes will coerce Iran into complying with demands over its nuclear programme.
With both sides pursuing dual but competing approaches, it’s going to be all about who has the most stamina.
One of the few merits of the Wikileaks project is that it puts the obvious and already well-known on the front pages. Take Iran and its nuclear program, for example. Everybody who takes an interest in such matters and is not blinded by hatred of Jews running their own affairs knows that most Arab states are far more worried about the nuclear ambitions of the ayatollahs than they are about Israel and would be quietly pleased if the US and/or Israel put an end to them using whatever means necessary.
This article by Dan Yurman is reposted with permission from the ANS Nuclear Café, where it was originally published on October 20, 2010.
In July 2010 a software worm, which is malevolent computer code, appeared on the radar screen of cyber security firms when it was found to be targeting computers in Iran and several other countries running industrial control systems.
1. If and when Iran acquires nuclear weapons the avoidance of nuclear war between it and Israel, the country it seeks to destroy, will depend on Israel having a second strike capability. That means that it must have the capacity to suffer a nuclear attack and still be able to inflict a terrible retaliatory blow. If it has this capacity then it has less motivation either to mount a conventional attack on Iran designed to prevent or delay its acquisition of nuclear weapons or, once these weapons have been acquired, launch a preemptive nuclear attack designed to prevent them being used and permanently end Iran’s capacity to threaten its security.
Noam Sheizaf and Larry Derfner are worried about the possibility that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. No surprise there. What sensible person could contemplate such an idea with equanimity? However, both of them fall into the trap of assuming that all the risks are stacked on the side of attacking and none on the side of not taking military action.
Many readers will have already come across Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece in The Atlantic about the possibility of Israel resorting to force against Iran. Though it’s received a lot of attention, I don’t think it’s that interesting; it’s long on personal anecdote (by the way, for a seriously unflattering view of the Netanyahu family you ought to read Chapter 12 of this book) and the views of unnamed sources and short on analysis. People seriously interested in this matter still need to read Tira.
I have no special skills when it comes to predicting the future but I thought I might as well title this post as I have when it occurred to me that many, cough, anti-Zionists, would see three posts in four days about Iran as being a sure sign that something is up. After all, this blog is sponsored by the AJC and hey, come on, we all know what that means….
If you want to read some really good analysis of the prospects for an Israeli attack on Iran - much better than the paper I critiqued here - then read this paper by Ron Tira. It’s a model of clear reasoning and strategic understanding and is by far the best thing I’ve read on the matter.
If you take a look here you’ll find a report by the Oxford Research Group about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report opposes any such action on Israel’s part but I, like you, knew that before reading it. It’s well worth a read though, in spite of its adherence to the bien pensant received wisdom on the matter in question. There are, however, a couple of questions about it that I’d like to bring up:
Perhaps it’s a perverse way of marking the upcoming first anniversary of the stolen election - Iran’s Bank Melli has opened a “women-only” branch in Mashhad.
While promoting “virtue” at home, Bank Melli has attracted more critical scrutiny abroad. In 2007, the bank was designated by the US government for its involvement in Tehran’s nuclear program and for providing banking services to the Revolutionary Guard and the Qods Force. Here’s more detail:
Next week, I’ll be at AJC’s annual meeting in Washington, DC. Among my myriad tasks there will be the production of two webcasts, which I encourage readers to register for. On Thursday April 29 at 2.15 PM ET, Paul Berman and Christopher Caldwell will feature on a panel which I will be moderating, examining the future of Islam in Europe. Then, on Friday April 30 at 10.30 AM, Bret Stephens and Roger Cohen go head-to-head in a debate on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. You’ll be able to submit questions online via the webcast player - and I hope you will.
This is a guest post by Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat, a blog covering nuclear energy and non-proliferation issues.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed in a speech marking the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that it has the capacity to make “weapons grade”uranium which could lead to the fabrication of an operational nuclear bomb. Iran has also been developing a 1,200 mile range ballistic missile which could be used to deliver one. The question for Western powers, and especially Israel ,which Iran has repeatedly vowed to destroy, is how credible are these claims?
Ariel Ilan Roth maintains that Israel’s objection to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not based on a fear that those weapons would be used against it as he believes that the certainty of a devastating Israeli response is likely to deter the ayatollahs.
Here’s my latest piece for AJC’s Reality Check on Iran’s nuclear program, in the light of the regime’s announcement that it will be enriching uranium to 20 per cent. Included is an extended interview with French UN Ambassador Gérard Araud, who just assumed the Presidency of the UN Security Council.
On February 1st, France assumes the Presidency of the UN Security Council with Iran likely to be the dominant issue. This morning, I interviewed Gérard Araud, France’s Ambassador to the United Nations, for AJC’s new internet TV show, Reality Check. He was refreshingly candid. Watch the video below for the key points he made.
Subscribe to the Z Word blog via RSS - click on the orange button below. For more information on using RSS, please read this helpful guide.
