The crucial central question concerns the extent to which Iran will be permitted to retain its on-going nuclear weapons programme. How much will it retain of its uranium enrichment capability (and stockpile of enriched material) from which it could make weapons of the sort that fell on Hiroshima? And to what extent will it be allowed to continue with its programme to produce weapons-grade plutonium (the basis of the bomb that fell on Nagasaki)?
The point is not whether Iran needs nuclear power, in view of all the oil
it has (and there are different views on this), nor whether it has a right to
develop civilian nuclear power (within the usual safeguards, it surely has) but
rather whether it is prudent for the
international community (represented by the P5+1 group) to permit them to
continue the development of the basis for a nuclear arsenal.
Iran, of course, already has a large nuclear power reactor at Bushehr (with about the generating capacity of the Huntley station). It also has a tentative agreement with Russia to build perhaps half a dozen more power reactors of a similar type. The critical point about all these developments (as presently agreed between the parties) is that Russia has undertaken not only to build the plants but also to supply fresh nuclear fuel for them. It will also take away spent fuel for disposal or reprocessing. Because of these arrangements, Iran does not need enrichment capability to make its own fuel. Nor does it require reprocessing capability to deal with spent fuel.
The issue, therefore, is not how
many of the 20,000+ enrichment centrifuges they presently have they should be
allowed to keep. Nor is it how much of
the higher enriched material they should be allowed to retain (and in what
form). They should retain none of it. None of it can be justified through a
civilian (‘peaceful’) nuclear power programme. Equally, Iran does not need, for
any civilian purpose, a plutonium-production reactor, such as it is building at
Arak, together with the ancillary heavy-water generation plant. Again, the principal purpose of such a
facility is to acquire plutonium-239, which is the basis of a plutonium bomb of
the kind that fell on Nagasaki.
Weapons-grade plutonium is also the basis of enhanced weapons.
As I noted in a recent blog (‘Holocaust
revisited’, 5 February 2015), this is a matter of some urgency for Israel,
which sees itself at particular peril through the persistent re-iteration of
Iranian anti-Semitism. In the latest
example of this, as reported on MSNBC, the Iranian Supreme Leader ‘tweeted’,
‘This barbaric, wolf-like and infanticidal regime of Israel, which spares no
crime, has no cure but to be annihilated’.
That seems clear enough. And the
Iranian Foreign Minister confirmed the utterance during an interview on the same
channel. It is surely understandable
that the Israeli Prime Minister should express disquiet about the content of a
possible ‘deal’ and not simply because there was an election in the offing.
The continuing nuclear activity of
Iran is also perceived as a significant threat by Iran’s Sunni neighbours, who
increasingly fear a growing Iranian regional hegemony. Any deal that leaves Iran with the core of
its nuclear weapon programme intact increases the likelihood that other
regional states will feel impelled to acquire their own nuclear arsenals. There
are already persistent rumours that Saudi Arabia has a deal with Pakistan to
this end. The Middle East is already a dangerous
enough place without the addition of a nuclear arms race. P5+1 have a task of enormous significance for
international security and the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
There are great temptations to
appeasement here. Some of the European
powers are already seeing commercial advantage in an Iran free of sanctions,
which would be the effect of an agreement.
They would also rather like Iran to deal with the difficult problem of
the ISIS entity, as it has begun to do. Like
President Obama, his European allies have been palpably reluctant to commit themselves,
in a whole-hearted way, to the defeat of that manifestly evil
organisation. But most of all, they want
a diplomatic success. This applies
particularly to President Obama, whose ineffectual foreign policies have come
under increasing attack, including from his own Democratic allies.
It is, of course, possible that the
negotiators for P5+1 and Iran will postpone the day of decision. They have done this three times already. But if they don’t and they announce an
agreement with Iran, other parties will then become involved. Particularly, it looks as if the settlement
will come to the United Nations Security Council, for approval. If I am right about this, New Zealand, as a
recently elected member will need to make up its mind about the issue. It will need to decide for itself whether the
terms of the agreement leave Iran with the possibility of continuing its
programme and whether we believe that Iran can be relied on to keep its
agreements (history on this point is not encouraging).
In a previous blog (‘Fighting
Islamist Extremism’, 18 February), I argued that New Zealand should send troops to Iraq,
notwithstanding that we had limited military resources and some reservations
about the commitment of our allies (as noted also above). It was a gesture towards an important cause (the
defeat of ISIS and a gesture of support towards traditional allies. The Iranian issue is not like this. We really need to do our homework and, if
need be, stand up for principle. Our
traditional allies need to know this.
Once Iran has a nuclear arsenal, there is no going back.
2 comments:
Iran the End Game. Hopefully not an end for us???!!!
Dr Smith has highlighted a possible agreement between Iran and the P5t+1 Group of Nations. Judging by the recent past and President Obama’s commitment to Peace (at any price) it is likely that, as Dr Smith says, this “settlement” will eventually land squarely on the Security Council’s table.
It will be more interesting to see whether our Government has the intestinal fortitude to make a decision one way or the other. The recent rejection by the majority of the people of this country of sending combat troops in the fight against ISIS does not bode well for a support to contain Iran’s nuclear proliferation. Especially so, in view of the Anti Western Bias that marks our International Relations; which has been so obvious over the last few decades. Is this merely a follow up, or an extension of the late Prime Minister Lange’s vision of gaining notoriety for a small populated country deep in the South Pacific?
What is amazing is the continual sympathy and constant aid being thrown at the Middle East Countries by those in New Zealand who, for want of a better phrase; still think, and cherish the idea that the Muslim world is somehow redeemable by a process of appeasement.
No wonder Israel is worried, with President Obama’s commitment to the Muslim world and his flawed idea of a Universal Peace between the Jews and the Arabs “ just around the corner”!!. Still it makes excellent copy, and is a sound basis for future speaking engagements after his Presidential term of Office expires.
When Iran acquires the ability to produce a suitable nuclear device, together with a delivery component, it will be too late for not only Israel, but also for us.
The phrase “Fight your enemy on your terms not on his,” is a sound maxim of war. But with our present attitude of “Defense” as the method to cure all the military ills, it does not bode well at the next Security Council meeting.
Brian
its going to get rough, Israel has spoken. No Nukes for Islam dog
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.