Ever since the United Nations’ nuclear watchdogs fired off a report last year accusing Iran of lying for decades about its secret nuclear program, there’s been a furious debate about what to do. The U.S. has favored a blunt approach: Iran must immediately stop efforts to enrich uranium, good for making bombs, or face UN Security Council sanctions or worse. The Europeans have favored the softer approach, negotiating deals to freeze enrichment activities. Unfortunately–but not surprisingly–Iran has backtracked and violated those deals almost as soon as they were announced.
A week or so ago, news reports suggested that Europe and the U.S. finally were near agreement that Iran must be handed a strict deadline with a so-called trigger mechanism that would automatically send Iran’s case to the Security Council if it continues its enrichment activities.
But after a week of meetings, the resolution that emerged was, disturbingly, more of the same–a weak-kneed effort that does little to stop Iran’s seemingly inexorable march toward nuclear weapons capability. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency demanded that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment activities but also recognized the right of countries to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, a phrase that provides all the wiggle room Tehran needs to defy the world.
On Sunday, Iran rejected even that tepid request, threatening that it will drop out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty if its case is sent to the Security Council. On Monday, Iran’s intelligence minister warned that Iran may resume uranium enrichment “any moment.”
In other words, the soft approach has failed.
Too bad the IAEA board kicked the crisis down the road to its November meeting, theoretically giving Tehran more time to see the light of reason. That is nothing but wishful thinking.
Iran has said repeatedly that it has a right to peaceful nuclear power, and that it would not indefinitely suspend enrichment. It also has sought to reassure the world that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, a contention that not even the more gullible Europeans appear to believe anymore.
The non-proliferation treaty that Iran signed does indeed speak of an “inalienable right” to develop and produce nuclear energy “for peaceful purposes.” But that is only if such development does not conflict with the treaty’s main aim: to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to those states that do not have them.
In Iran’s case, the threat that it is developing weapons clearly outweighs any dubious benefit it might gain in developing nuclear power. Iran, a state rich in oil, still has not explained convincingly to the world why it even needs nuclear power. A state that proudly supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah and has a history of contacts with Al Qaeda cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran’s threat to withdraw from the treaty is undoubtedly real–North Korea did so a couple of years ago with impunity. It is also an outrage. In essence, Iran is saying to the world, either allow us to develop our nuclear capabilities, up to the brink of being able to build devastating weapons, under the treaty–or we’ll do it without the treaty.
Either way the result’s the same: a nuclear-armed Iran, possibly within a year or two.
Iran must hear, soon and in unmistakable terms, that the world will not let it develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Further delay only gives Tehran more opportunity to work its frightful mischief.
It’s time to stop the wishful thinking.
