Andy Obermann
Iran on the verge
By Andy Obermann
There appears to be another battleground in the War on Terror. A looming nuclear crisis seems to be developing in the Islamic extremist country of Iran.
Months ago, Iranian leadership, under pressure from the world community, agreed to allow United Nations inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to evaluate their nuclear capabilities amid reports of Iranian efforts to develop such weapons. The inspectors were given free reign to inspect suspect locations within the country and the ability to launch surprise investigations of facilities in the country.
From the outside it seemed that Iran was falling in line with the wishes of the UN and complying with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons), of which it is a member state.
Recent events, however, demonstrate Iran's true unwillingness to comply with such regulations.
Apparently, the Iranians have relocated many of their nuclear testing facilities to avoid detection by UN inspectors. Many locations, found on satellite imagery, seem to disappear when UN inspectors arrive. Not only that, but a trace amount of weapons grade plutonium was found at a site the inspectors were able to locate.
The Iranians claim the plutonium was there by mistake, however, since the location was a military instillation, their intentions seem quite suspect.
Furthermore, reports from the IAEA indicate Iran is purchasing centrifuge technology and scientific expertise from the communist Chinese in exchange for oil — needed for their growing economy.
The threat posed by a nuclear Iran is immense — and will have a profound impact on the War on Terror. After all, it is well known that Iran is a major supporter of terrorism — and has been for nearly 30 years. In fact, just last week, Tehran (the Iranian capital) hosted an international summit of terrorist leaders. At this summit, supposedly unbeknownst to Iranian leadership, it was decided that suicide bombers would be used against United States forces providing security for the new Iraqi government. Even more threatening are reports that Iran has amassed four army battalions on the Iraqi border; ready to invade for "security purposes" when the United States finally withdraws troops from Iraq.
With the evident threat, one would think the Bush Administration would consider it prudent to explore the possibility of enlisting the UN in actions against Iran, but, surprisingly, they have not.
Despite harsh lip service by Secretary of State Colin Powell and other Administration leaders, the president has done little in the way of offering serious consequences for continued Iranian non-compliance. Apparently, President Bush is too concerned with election year politics to address the Iran problem. Let me explain.
Even though the IAEA has confirmed Iran should be brought before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, the council has reneged opting instead to revisit the issue in September. This charge was led by US diplomats claiming Iran should be allowed more time to comply with IAEA demands.
On the surface, it appears to be a gracious gesture of faith, but considering President Bush's stance on terror sponsoring states, it seems unlikely he would extend such faith — especially to a country as militant as Iran. No, more realistically, the president realizes that should sanctions be imposed on Iran — those hindering oil exports from the country — domestic gas prices would surge.
This would provide fuel to the Kerry Campaign, dampening the robust economy produced by the Bush tax cuts, and perhaps costing him the White House come November.
By delaying action to September, the president knows any sanctions would not take hold until after the election, having already been safely re-elected and in position to deal with gas prices.
If this is truly the case, the president is taking a deadly gamble with national security. Some analysts claim Iran is nearly three years from having the bomb, but because no one can be sure, the sooner action is taken the better.
Now, Iran does fit into the War on Terror, but not in the same way as Iraq. Iran is not a candidate for invasion because there is no stable element to return power to after the fall of the current government. Moreover, the alternative to Iran's current leadership is even more extreme. Any element of liberal reform in the country would be crushed by the predominance of extremist Islamic militants — creating an even greater threat than that already present.
An economic war should be waged on Iran — one conducted in conjunction with UN sanctions and pressure from the international community. Pressure should also be exerted upon supporters of Iran, namely the Chinese and Russians.
Like Iraq, however, the world community will not act unless President Bush takes the lead — and the time to start is now.
© Andy Obermann
There appears to be another battleground in the War on Terror. A looming nuclear crisis seems to be developing in the Islamic extremist country of Iran.
Months ago, Iranian leadership, under pressure from the world community, agreed to allow United Nations inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to evaluate their nuclear capabilities amid reports of Iranian efforts to develop such weapons. The inspectors were given free reign to inspect suspect locations within the country and the ability to launch surprise investigations of facilities in the country.
From the outside it seemed that Iran was falling in line with the wishes of the UN and complying with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons), of which it is a member state.
Recent events, however, demonstrate Iran's true unwillingness to comply with such regulations.
Apparently, the Iranians have relocated many of their nuclear testing facilities to avoid detection by UN inspectors. Many locations, found on satellite imagery, seem to disappear when UN inspectors arrive. Not only that, but a trace amount of weapons grade plutonium was found at a site the inspectors were able to locate.
The Iranians claim the plutonium was there by mistake, however, since the location was a military instillation, their intentions seem quite suspect.
Furthermore, reports from the IAEA indicate Iran is purchasing centrifuge technology and scientific expertise from the communist Chinese in exchange for oil — needed for their growing economy.
The threat posed by a nuclear Iran is immense — and will have a profound impact on the War on Terror. After all, it is well known that Iran is a major supporter of terrorism — and has been for nearly 30 years. In fact, just last week, Tehran (the Iranian capital) hosted an international summit of terrorist leaders. At this summit, supposedly unbeknownst to Iranian leadership, it was decided that suicide bombers would be used against United States forces providing security for the new Iraqi government. Even more threatening are reports that Iran has amassed four army battalions on the Iraqi border; ready to invade for "security purposes" when the United States finally withdraws troops from Iraq.
With the evident threat, one would think the Bush Administration would consider it prudent to explore the possibility of enlisting the UN in actions against Iran, but, surprisingly, they have not.
Despite harsh lip service by Secretary of State Colin Powell and other Administration leaders, the president has done little in the way of offering serious consequences for continued Iranian non-compliance. Apparently, President Bush is too concerned with election year politics to address the Iran problem. Let me explain.
Even though the IAEA has confirmed Iran should be brought before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, the council has reneged opting instead to revisit the issue in September. This charge was led by US diplomats claiming Iran should be allowed more time to comply with IAEA demands.
On the surface, it appears to be a gracious gesture of faith, but considering President Bush's stance on terror sponsoring states, it seems unlikely he would extend such faith — especially to a country as militant as Iran. No, more realistically, the president realizes that should sanctions be imposed on Iran — those hindering oil exports from the country — domestic gas prices would surge.
This would provide fuel to the Kerry Campaign, dampening the robust economy produced by the Bush tax cuts, and perhaps costing him the White House come November.
By delaying action to September, the president knows any sanctions would not take hold until after the election, having already been safely re-elected and in position to deal with gas prices.
If this is truly the case, the president is taking a deadly gamble with national security. Some analysts claim Iran is nearly three years from having the bomb, but because no one can be sure, the sooner action is taken the better.
Now, Iran does fit into the War on Terror, but not in the same way as Iraq. Iran is not a candidate for invasion because there is no stable element to return power to after the fall of the current government. Moreover, the alternative to Iran's current leadership is even more extreme. Any element of liberal reform in the country would be crushed by the predominance of extremist Islamic militants — creating an even greater threat than that already present.
An economic war should be waged on Iran — one conducted in conjunction with UN sanctions and pressure from the international community. Pressure should also be exerted upon supporters of Iran, namely the Chinese and Russians.
Like Iraq, however, the world community will not act unless President Bush takes the lead — and the time to start is now.
© Andy Obermann
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
