On Iran

Today, the new hardline Prime Minister of Iran just delivered a pretty serious speech to the United Nations. In sum, he said it was the right of Iran to develope a nuclear power program, free from any outside interference besides inspections. Why do they want nuclear power? I find it interesting that they make this assertion, especially when we consider the fact Iran has the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, after Saudi Arabia. What do they need nuclear power for when they have so much oil to blow? The crux of this problem lies in nuclear power itself. Basically what Iran is demanding is the right to produce and refine its own plutonium and or uranium, the basic building block for the fuel rods used to creat nuclear power. The problem is that these elements refined into commerical grade material are also made naturally into weapons-grade material. That is, once the Iranians have the ability to create their own nuclear material for energy, they will also have the ability to create nuclear weapons, a possibility that, given Iran's record with terrorism, cannot be countenanced. It is simple as that.
The history? Since the Islamic Revolution swept over Iran in 1979, Iran has been a known sponsor of Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah, the latter organizations explicitly stated goal being the destruction of the State of Israel. A veritable litany list of terror attacks carried out with help from, or even ordered by Tehran, from the Beirut bombings in 1983 (that killed 241 Marines) to the 26 people killed by a suicide attack in Tel Aviv, March 1996. Can we afford to allow a country like this to attain the capability to produce nuclear grade weapons material? Even if they don't carry out a nuclear assault on Israel, who can say they might not, in a clandestine and underhanded operation export their weapons to these terror groups within Israel? That is one of the biggest points, and one of the best looking solutions. The real loser in this whole deal of Iranian nuclear power plants will be Israel. Iran has known connections with terrorism against Israel in particular. It is not to say that they pose no threat to us, but they pose an even more immediate threat to Israel. The Iranians know we in America cannot muster the public support to carry an invasion into their country from either of the two pro-states we have set up on her borders (Afghanistan and Iraq). And they also know the naive Europeans have a desire to stick to institutions and international law and just as they balked at going to the United Nations Security Council with Iraq back in 03' they will balk if we try to use the U.N to impose sanctions. In essence they know they can push ahead with their program because we in America are unable to attack and the Europeans are unwilling. But what about Israel? That's the real wild card; should Iran carry her nuclear program too far it will be in the best interests of Israel to act. It is her very national existance that is at stake. But what can they do? They are both a possible problem and a possible solution.
If they were to attack Iran by a massive air attack, like the attack on Osirak (Iraq's nuclear research facility) in 1981, then I think something might be accomplished. The problem however with this course of action is the fact the Iranians have learned from what happened to the Iraqis 24 years ago. Instead of concentrating their nuclear program in one place it is spread over a large distance so that only a comprehensive set of strikes can destroy their program and even this is not a sure route to successfully counteracting the threat. What else does that leave us; Israel will surely not employ nuclear weapons, which they almost certainly have, but what else can they do? Airstrikes are not sure enough; Israel could buy us time, by attacking Iran, but I am at my wits end in thinking of long term solutions.
Maybe we ought to take an easier stance on Russia and her human rights record? If we could enlist the Russians in this, we might make some progress. They're the ones who are selling the nuclear rods to Iran right now. I wonder if our constant bickering on human rights in Chechnya hasn't got anything to do with this? I also wonder if the Russians know something we don't, and that is how you deal with terrorists; you brutalize them and the people around them. They've shown that consistently in Chechnya you can never completely subdue another people, but you can smash them into semi-obeisance. Aside from Israel, there is no other country in the world with a greater stake in the war on Terror than Russia. Geez, you'd think Beslan would have them firmly in our camp. Maybe I'm a bit uninformed, maybe there's something I don't know about what Russia is doing, but after a horrific event like that you'd think we'd be in bed together. I think the reason we aren't is in no small part attributable to the human rights freaks in this country. I don't disagree with injecting morality into politics, but morality should be the end not the means by which we change the world. Anything different is either a sin (aka total 'realism') or naive (humanitarianism). And in the case of Russia I don't know if we've completely left the Cold War era adversarial relationship with them. All I'm saying is maybe we ought to make overtures, a sort of new coalition to bring the Russians into our camp. They would be a powerful ally to have north of the Middle East.
More later. Maybe. If the muse so desires.