Trust But Verify

Color me sceptical about the latest agreement the Europeans have managed to reach with Iran. Given how often the Iranians have lied in the past, why should one believe anything they have to say now?

PARIS, Nov. 14 - The governments of France, Germany and Britain are studying a letter delivered Sunday by Iran in which it pledged to suspend uranium enrichment activities temporarily in exchange for economic and political incentives, European officials said.

The officials said it was unclear whether Iran had agreed to all the conditions set out in marathon talks in Paris last weekend with senior officials from France, Britain, Germany and the European Union or had inserted new conditions that could not be accepted.

[...]

A Western diplomat connected to the [International Atomic Energy Agency] said: "A letter has been received from Iran confirming that it will implement a full suspension of its uranium enrichment program. It's what the Europeans asked Iran to do."

The agency is prepared to include Iran's new pledge in its comprehensive special report on Iran's nuclear activities, expected to be released Monday.

But the three European governments are particularly cautious about a premature embrace of Iran.

The foreign ministers of the three countries brokered a deal, announced with much fanfare in Tehran 13 months ago. In it, Iran agreed to suspend its production of enriched uranium, which can be used in nuclear energy or nuclear weapons programs, and to submit to more intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities.

After Iran violated the agreement, officials from the three countries acknowledged that the deal had been made too hastily and that the language of the final accord was too vague and open to misinterpretation.

I'm doubtful that much will come of this effort in the end. It would be most surprising if the Iranians agreed to verification measures stringent enough to ensure that no loopholes remained open to be exploited. The Iranian leadership is fixated on obtaining nuclear weapons, and any concessions they make that stand in the way of this goal are to be seen as no more than tactical feints to buy their weapons programme more time.

PS: What did I tell you? They're already making clear that this is a deal that is going to be broken.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said Monday its decision to freeze sensitive nuclear work was a voluntary move to dispel concerns it was secretly building atomic arms and would last only for a short time.

[...]

``Accepting the suspension is a politically motivated move. In the agreement it says it is not a legal obligation for Iran and Iran has voluntarily accepted this,'' he said.

Iran, which denies U.S. accusations its atomic energy program is a front for a nuclear weapons bid, has said the suspension will remain in place while it and the European Union discuss a lasting solution to its nuclear case.

The EU -- in talks with Iran led by Britain, Germany and France -- wants the oil-rich country to give up its nuclear fuel cycle activities like uranium enrichment for good.

In return the EU could offer Iran incentives including help with a civilian nuclear program and a possible trade deal. But Iran has said it will never give up enrichment technology.

Talks, and enrichment suspension, would be brief, Asefi said. ``The talks will be for a short period of time ... and in the agreement it has been emphasized that Iran has the right to develop peaceful nuclear technology,'' he said.

There really is only one way to deal with Iran's ambitions, and unfortunately for all the "war is bad" people out there, I'm afraid it isn't a peaceful one; the mix of theocracy and nuclear weapons is simply too dangerous to be tolerated.

Comments

[victor falk]

Have you read James Fallow's article in last december's issue of the Atlantic about a mock wargaming exercise concerning Iran's nuclear weapons program?

Bottom line: with the current situation in Iraq there's is simply no military solution to Iran's nuclear problem, something even the most bushist proponents of the Bush doctrine seem to accept (at least for now).

[Abiola Lapite]

Victor,

Thanks for the article recommendation, but I have to say I'm thoroughly unconvinced by it.

Apart from the fact that Fallows seems to devote perhaps 40% of the entire piece to extraneous material like the various qualifications and previous careers of the people he was interviewing, the use of PowerPoint, and other such picayune details, the reality is that we know what Iran's military capabilities are, and in any conventional struggle it would be a pushover.

Not only did Iran fail to best Iraq during their decade-long war, but the Iranian air-force mostly consists of kit sold to the Shah by the United States, most of which has since fallen into disrepair due to a lack of spare parts. All the talk of Iranian "retaliation" in Fallows' piece is just so much nonsense, to put it bluntly; what exactly would the Iranians "retaliate" with?

It would be one thing if I were advocating a "liberation" of Iran, with the accompanying danger of yet another entanglement, but I hold no such position; I'm sure the Iranians can take care of their own liberation. The military goals with Iran are strictly limited: eradicate every last trace of its nuclear program. If that manages to buy just "a few years", then it is still no bad thing, and much better than the alternative, which is letting an Islamist theocracy arm itself to the teeth with nukes. Fallows seems to forget that the Israeli strike on Osirak only bought "a few years" as well, but with the benefit of hindsight, those precious few years were more than worthwhile.

[praktike]

Er, they would retaliate with a massive uprising in Iraq and terrorist attacks against American interests in the Gulf and beyond?

[Abiola Lapite]

" they would retaliate with a massive uprising in Iraq and terrorist attacks against American interests in the Gulf and beyond?"

1 - You assume that the interests of Iraq's Shiites and those of Iran's leadership are identical.

2 - The Iranian leadership would have to keep in mind that terrorist attacks against American interests in the Gulf would invite a full-scale decapitation, very likely ensuing in their own deaths.

[Kevin Brennan]

As opposed to the wonderful, healthy life the Iranian leadership would have following an American invasion, Abiola?

[Abiola Lapite]

"As opposed to the wonderful, healthy life the Iranian leadership would have following an American invasion, Abiola?"

If I'd actually talked about an invasion you might have had a point ...

[victor falk]

If I'd actually talked about an invasion you might have had a point

so, wha'st your take on the next move against Iran?
Bombing the Pasdaran? The nuclear installations? Fomenting a coup/revolution? Unleashing the kurds? That seems to be Israel's option.
Or maybe something more outside of the box? How about a special op to assasinate all the hard-liners in one stroke?