Maroc - EURASIAREVIEW.COM - A la une - 19/Feb 00:43

To Bomb Or Not To Bomb Iran – OpEd

By Jonathan Power The talk is talk. Or will it walk? President Donald Trump has raised the stakes once again, repeating the threats against Iran in his first term. It all goes back many years. Mitt Romney, the US Republican candidate for the presidency, said that on his watch Iran would not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon but that on his watch, if elected, the future president, Barack Obama, would let it happen. In an issue of Foreign Affairs, a mouthpiece of the American foreign affairs establishment, Mathew Kroenig penned soon after Obama took office an article, “Time to Attack Iran. The time for talk is over”, he wrote. Foreign policy analysts seem to overlook that it was the US who encouraged the Shah 75 years ago to begin Iran’s nuclear programme. The first discussion I attended on whether Iran was wanting a bomb was at the International Institute for Strategic Studies some 40 years ago. Experts were saying we should expect a bomb within a decade. Time passes but the argument barely change and no bomb has been made. All one knows is that in all this time many opportunities for a sensible negotiation have been ignored. “Enormously difficult” to destroy Iran’s nuclear plant Kroenig wrote that, “If Iran begins enriching its uranium to weapons grade levels of 90% or installs advanced centrifuges at its uranium-enrichment facility in Qom the US must strike immediately.” While admitting that it would be “enormously difficult” to destroy Iran’s nuclear plant, Kroenig argued it could and should be done. New bunker-busting bombs would take care of underground facilities. They can penetrate through 200 feet of reinforced concrete. However, he admitted that the one at Qom would be a challenging target since it is built into the side of a mountain. He tried to knock down those critics who point out that Iran could retaliate, launching missiles at US military installations in the Gulf, closing the Strait of Hormuz, the relatively narrow (but not that narrow) water that tankers pass through at the opening to the Persian Gulf, firing missiles into Israel and activating proxies abroad. The US, he argues, could retaliate with devastating military action. Iran won’t be able to resume progress after its entire nuclear infrastructure is reduced to rubble. He discounts much—that this would strengthen Iran’s hardliners as it did in Germany after the blanket bombing of Dresden. Thankfully, the pro bomb faction has been undermined by many observers including Israeli’s ex-prime minister, Ehud Barak, who has long said that any decision on an Israeli attack on Iran was “very far off”. Many experts believe that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb. Perhaps too one should not overlook statements made by the hierarchy of Iran in this very religious country that it goes against the Koran to build a weapon of mass destruction. Could they justify lying to God? Another Middle Eastern war? Added to that, Koenig underestimates how Iran is building safer and safer hideaways. It can match any bomb by digging deeper. Does the US want to get drawn into another Middle Eastern war which would have serious spill-over effects in further radicalising Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine and big chunks of the population throughout the Middle East? Interestingly, some Israeli policymakers appear to have got the message some time ago. According to a poll conducted by the American Brookings Institution and the Israeli Dahaf Institute only a minority of Israeli Jews support a military strike even though 90% of them think Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. When asked whether it would be better for both Israel and Iran not to have such weapons 65% of the Jews said “yes”. Support for the idea of a nuclear-free zone A remarkable 64% support the idea of a nuclear-free zone. Moreover, a freeze has been supported by such unexpected characters as the former Mossad (intelligence) chief, Tair Pardo, a former Mossad chief, Ephraim Halevy, and a former chief of staff of the military, Dan Halutz. Could Iran refuse the proposition of a nuclear-free zone, if it came from Israel? The Israeli government has always put the cart before the horse. It says a nuclear-free zone cannot be considered until there is peace between Israel and its neighbours. But the answer to that, argues Harvard professor, Nicolas Burns, is there will be no peace as long as Iran and Israel are at loggerheads. Since Israel is the one who possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons it must be the first to take steps towards reconciliation. He quotes the former Israeli spy chief, Meir Dagan, who has argued that Israel’s current stance might accelerate Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons and encourage other Arab states to follow suit. Under President Barack Obama the US accepted that talking with Iran was the best option, and after gruelling negotiations a deal was signed. Iran’s enrichment program was halted and the US lifted sanctions. But then his successor Donald Trump tore up the agreement and for 7 years nothing has been done on the diplomatic front, although sanctions have continued. Trump in his first term and now again has threatened war if Iran shows signs of moving towards 90% enrichment. That truly would be a nose-to-nose confrontation. I think there is a better way for America to do it—stop trying to pull Iran down. But with Trump in office, we must prepare for the worst. Trump might well want to walk the talk.