Iran marches toward the bomb

Here is my latest op-ed on Iran.

The Geneva meeting with Iran, which was eagerly described as “constructive” by Washington, left the most important question unanswered: What Middle East would these talks “construct”?

The answer depends much on what we draw from the talks between Iran and the international community, and as things stand at the moment, Iran is marching towards developing its own nuclear bomb.

Uranium enrichment is no longer a red line for Iran and discussion have gently shifted to the level of uranium purity Iran is allowed to process for domestic use and what will be done with the surplus. Hence, Tehran can comfortably announce plans to install a “new generation of centrifuges” at the country’s newly-revealed nuclear facility near the Shi’ite holy city of Qom, and at other sites, yet to be revealed. This was the hope as outlined by Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, during a CNN/George Washington University forum which was hosted by him and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In the meantime, a report prepared by IAEA experts and made public by ISIS said that Iran has successfully tested Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is working to develop a nuclear payload that can be delivered by them. The report concludes that Tehran already has the technical knowledge to build a nuclear bomb.

Israeli media is already addressing the possibility of living with a nuclear Iran, while Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “conceded” that an Iranian nuclear bomb does not pose an existential threat to Israel.

This possibility is sending shivers down some spines in several Arab capitals.

In the last week, the UAE has adopted a civilian nuclear energy law that will pave the way for huge nuclear power program worth $41 billion. Although civilian in nature, the program hints at the region’s preparedness to start a nuclear arms race should Iran get there. UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al-Nayah openly expressed his country’s (and the GCC’s) concerns to Clinton in Sharm Il-Sheikh in March that the U.S. would reach an agreement with Iran on key strategic issues without Washington consulting its Arab allies.

Saudi Arabia is close to spending billions to buy a Russian S-400 advanced missile defense system, to protect against a potentially nuclear Iran, Gulf analysts and diplomats told AFP recently.

Elsewhere, Washington is sabre-rattling against Tehran with a semi-official, plan B focused around assurances, bribes and containment, and which involves the U.S. nuclear umbrella over America’s Middle East allies, if Iran develops its bomb. It is an option that dovetails with the line of thinking of many officials around the Obama administration, and some of which was expressed openly their boss took office.

Take Ashton B. Carter, who wrote, before being assigned the job of Defense Undersecretary, that “containment and punishment” is the post-diplomacy-failure policy. Meanwhile, Gary Samore, head of non-proliferation at the National Security Council, preached of a responsible nuclear Iran, a country, he suggests, “would probably act like other nuclear-armed states and was not likely to give terrorists the bomb.”

Then consider the mounting opposition coming from some hawks in the “bomb Iraq camp.” Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (whose book The Threatening Storm influenced many liberals to back the Iraq war) agreed during a joint panel prepared by AEI and Brookings the same day of Geneva talks, that containment, not military action, is the best policy on Iran.

Feeling that assurances and containment could fail to convince Israel, the Obama administration is considering bribery. The Washington Times quoted unnamed US officials as saying that President Obama will not pressure Israel to publicly disclose its suspected nuclear weapons program, nor will he pressure the Jewish state to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. It is the same president who, days earlier, was lecturing the world at the UN General Assembly on nuclear nonproliferation and who was the driving force behind the UN resolution which aims at ridding the planet of nuclear weapons.

So, on preventing a nuclear Iran, we are invited to shift gears from “yes we can” to “what can we do?”, before we gamble on there being a regional balance of nuclear power while at the same time striving for a long term goal of a nuclear-weapons-free planet.

In the meantime, those who disagree ought to, according to Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, “shut up”.