Lets assume that Iran is able to prove that it is well capable, technologically, of making nuclear weapons. And to do so in quick order. With that premise in mind: (1) If Iran shows itself capable of making nuclear weapons, but has not made any thus far, what does that say about Iran's intentions with regard to its non-proliferation undertakings? Conversely, what does that say about the accusations against Iran by the US and Israel, both of which pursue policies that violate the non-proliferation objectives of the NPT. (2) How confident would you be that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, if Iran proved its capability to build nukes within a short time frame, but there was still no evidence that it had actually build any nuclear weapons? Would you be confident enough to start a war against Iran? (3) Do you believe hostile actions against Iran orchestrated by the US and Israel, in the form of economic and political warfare, would increase or decrease if Iran showed itself capable of making nuclear weapons? (4) What if Iran exited the NPT and shortly thereafter tested a nuclear devise? Do you believe that action would lead to a greater effort to find a negotiated settlement of the problems between Iran and the US, or do you think that such an action would increase the hostile actions and threats (be it in the form of economic and political warfare, or military action)? (5) Which side do you think would benefit politically from acknowledging that Iran has the capability to build nuclear weapons? The neocons in and around the Bush administration? The Israelis? The Europeans? The Russians? The Chinese? The IAEA? Regional states such as Saudi Arabia? On the other hand, do you think Iran's leaders would benefit internationally from poving such a capability?
I think there would be a lot of angry words and condemnations coming from many governments, possibly even some form of further boycott by USA and others, possibly an attempt to pass a UN resolution about it, a lot of fearmongering in the medias. In the realms of realpolitik there would be a huge lessening of the tensions. Talking about direct confrontation, while i can see a more vicious underground cold war going on with US/Israel. Iraq situation could worsen, with possibly USA attempting to change strategy with the only goal to try to minimize Iran's influence the most they can, ie siding more or less openly with the sunnis and trying badly to make the presence there permanent. Who would benefit depends on how the various nations will react, I see USA picking an intransigent position. Europe being a lot more cynically utilitaristic in the long term. China should be the ones who benefit more. They would have an open huge autobahn to superpower status. Do you really think that's what Ahmadinejad is going to announce?
I believe that is something that Ahmadinejad, if given a free hand, would have liked to announce. However, on this issue, there are divisions within Iran's political establishment and a lot of pressures for Iran to go the opposite route. In this regard, February 11 and what Iran will try to show by that date is important, as it will give a clue as to which groups are in the ascendancy politically on the nuclear issue. Ahmadinejad was intent on proving Iran's nuclear capability while many others were cautioning that such a move would ensure greater isolation and economic sanctions on Iran. In this regard, the Russians have been counseling that Iran not push ahead with its plans to install and operate 3,000 centrifuges, telling Iran that such a move will leave them little choice but to go along with US efforts to increase pressure on Iran via stiffer sanctions.
I'm no expert on the technology side so I don't think I can say for certain what the relation is between capability and intentions. To the very limited extent of my understanding, though, I think if Iran were capable of making nuclear weapons then it would have to develop technology that is more advanced than that needed for generating energy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need highly enriched uranium (HEU) to make a weapon and isn't the capability to make HEU more than just a matter of "it takes longer" than the lower grade enriched uranium used for energy? If my oversimplified take is correct then it means that Iran will have purposely sought the advanced technology and why devote so many resources to that pursuit if the intentions aren't to develop weapons? (Seems there is much more to the technology issue than enrichment though. Once you have the fissile material you need further technology to weaponize it, yes? And then the ballistics, and then...) Regarding US and Israeli violations of the NPT which article of the treaty are you referring to? I'm opposed to preventive wars on principle so it's not a question of confidence. (But now that the neocons have hoodwinked the public into conflating preemptive and preventive wars I suspect I'm in the minority.) For the Bush administration I imagine it would reduce the probability of attack. Once the capability is proven that introduces an uncertainty into the strategic equation. An uncertainty that Iran may actually possess a nuclear weapon and be able to use it. At that point I think the US would keep all the policies and pressures in place and wait to see how Iran's behavior would change. I don't think the US would either increase or decrease the pressure until they see what changes Iran would make, if any, in its policies towards its neighbors. The US would probably be content with a sort of containment policy, but would be willing to protect its interests militarily if they perceived Iranian encroachment. Depends on when it happens and who is in power in the US. But that variable aside, I suspect the US would refer the issue immediately to the UN Security Council. The US may lack support for a second resolution now, but if Iran did what you describe I suspect the support would largely be there to implement stricter sanctions. I think the US would also try to bring together an economic coalition of the willing to do something like block Iranian oil exports or embargo Iranian imports of gasoline. Most US foreign policy experts I've read think that Iran is a rational actor and can be deterred from ever using any nukes they might possess. I'll have to think about that one and get back to you... All these questions seem to be leading up to something. Just what is Ahmadinejad going to speak about at the end of this 10 day celebration? Makes me curious...
No. As long as you are able to enrich uranium, the degree of enrichment is a function of how many centrifuges spin in a cascade for how long. With 3,000 centrifuges, provided those could operate smoothly in a cascade with no break downs, Iran would be able to build a couple of nukes within a year if it so chose. The tough part is enrichment. Once you have the fissile material, even a smart college student can figure how to weaponize according to experts. A bit more complicated is the ability to make the weapon small enough to fit the warhead of a missile, but Iran already has those designs and its Shahab 3 missiles are designed to be capable of carrying nukes. However, all these issues go to Iran's capabilities, which I asked that for purposes of my questions, you skip over. Maybe far less than he originally intended, but we have to wait and see.
I have a better question... If Iran announced it was in favor of a negotiated two state solution vis a vis Israel/Palestine and concurrently they would stop funding terrorist organizations and other military organizations outside of their borders, how would the world view their development of nuclear weapons ? Chicken or the egg, IM.
I think any anouncement regarding advancements in Iran's nuclear program will help Bush. It will help build U.S. public support for military action against Iran - with air and missle strikes being the only feasible action. Whether any actions are taken will depend on U.S. assessments of (1) Iran's capability and (2) the likelihood that the actions would significantly damage the capability. If the U.S. determines that (1) weapons grade enrichment is proceeding and (2) that airstrikes would stop the enrichment, there is a significant chance of airstrikes. The U.S. would consider Iran's possible responses, but the risks may not outweigh the benefit of preventing a nuclear Iran. One strong deterent would be Iran's ability to influence Shia militia to attack U.S. ground troops; however, the U.S. may feel preventing a nuclear Iran is worth it. A key question is how effective are airstrikes likey to be in eliminating the enrichment ability.
It seems to me that would depend on the nature and degree of 'advancement' in Iran's capabilities. For instance, to the extent Iran is able to produce sufficient quantities of highly enriched uranium to make nukes, the equipment and feedstock necessary to actually make those nukes can be hidden in a host of places the US would never find. And there is no way for the US to know if enough of that equipment and feedstock is not already hidden. Indeed, if I had the means to build nukes, I would certainly not want to give the address for all of the equipment and material to a party threatening to bomb them! Therefore, even leaving aside Iran's retaliatory options, which go far beyond what it can do in Iraq, any military strikes by the US would not be able to deprive Iran of its capabilities, but would merely release Iran of the constraints that prevent it from going the next step, i.e. to weaponization. I should also mention that if Iran can show the capability to both install and operate 3,000 centrifuges in a cascade, running those centrifuges without too many break downs, that would also give rise to questions as to whether Iran is not already testing its centrifuges elsewhere before showing it to the IAEA? Otherwise, the same way most 'experts' were surprised by Iran's ability to even operate the experimental centrifuges it has operational to enrich uranium, figuring it would take Iran longer to actually do the required tests on the machines, they would be really surprised to learn that their estimate that it would take Iran a year or two to have its 3,000 centrifuges fully operational is also wrong. Let me also post this report and as I post it, you might want to consider why Olmert is making the argument he is making? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359796877&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Lets distinguish here between two issues, one of which is negotiable and the other is not. The first issue is whether Iran will have the right to propose its own solution to the Palestinian issue instead of being forced to offer something broadly acceptable to the US? As a sovereign country, that issue is not negotiable. There is no reason for Iran to endorse a faulty, unrealistic, proposal as the one the US favors, or to fit its proposal within the framework of what the US prefers. Iran has every right to come up with own proposal and suggestion on how to resolve the conflict. Any attempt by the US or anyone else to force Iran to support a proposal it finds deficient will rightly be rejected by Iran and Iranians. The second issue, which is negotiable, is the extent to which Iran would involve itself in supporting those groups that are actively working against Israel. And, conversely, the extent to which Iran would be willing to use its influence to urge these groups to accept a ceasefire, forgoing any hostile actions against Israel as a negotiated solution is being explored. On this issue, the hostility of the US and Israel towards Iran will naturally determine the degree of Iran's hostility towards them. If the US/Israel give the necessary indications that they would cease their hostile policies towards Iran, I am confident Iran would reciprocate in kind. Throwing labels such as 'terrorist' around, especially from someone who supports the two countries that are genuinely involved in terrorizing the population of much of the Middle East through their actions, is not going to advance the debate. Indeed, it is a way to make sure the discussion goes no where. On the real issue you address, as I have alluded to already, the degree to which Iran would find its interests met by forging alliances with other states and groups, and the degree to which it would encourage these alliances to take an anti-American or even anti-Israeli stance, is not unrelated to the US/Israeli posture towards Iran. One way to stop the issue from being one where you debate whether it was first the chicken or the egg, is for the parties to agree to sit down and talk. With no preconditions. At the moment, despite calls from many quarters for the US to do precisely that, the Bush administration has refused.
The Americans and the Israelis joined forces to present a false picture regarding Saddam and his WMD capabiliites. They are doing the same again, except ironically, this time their lies are focused partly in the opposite direction while in other aspects identical to what we saw with Iraq. In other words, to engage in propaganda regarding Iran's supposedly malign and dangerous intentions, to try to present the country as being led by deranged maniacs, while denying Iran has the means to effectively respond to hostile actions against it at the moment. Yet, arguing at the same time that the moment when Iran would have those means is not that far off in the horizon, even if such means could be denied to it by 'concerted international pressure and action'. In this regard, the overriding US/Israeli policy towards Iran can be summarized as follows: Both countries like to first strangulate Iran without having to fire a shot, before they eventually move for the kill down the line if the latter move becomes necessary. Israel and the US like to push the 'international community' to adopt stiff sanctions against Iran, to fully isolate the country diplomatically, economically and politically, while working to exacerbate and create differences within Iran. The ultimate goal is to so weaken Iran internally that the country would suffer an implosion. That is the sum total of the US/israeli policy towards Iran, and the rhetoric about everything else (including taking military action) is a lie. While some pimple faced college students in Iran, seeing no farther than their noses, and an assortment of misguided as well as treacherous 'intellecutuals', imagine that such pressures would lead to an Iran that would fit their notions of democracy and progress, the reality is that these actions will lead to Iran experiencing bloodshed, possibly civil war and even perhaps ultimately fragmentation and disintegration That is because the largest group within Iran, even if a minority by themselves, are those who support the regime, while the remainder of the population is either politically inactive or hopelessly divided politically amongst itself. There is no unified opposition and, if the regime is weakened, what you will find is a fight in the center to inherit the spoils while the periphery goes to pieces. In the meantime, all this will happen in the context of a country that ironically, after taking many detours and still lost in some of them, has nonetheless begun moving in the right direction on many of the issues it needs to face down the line. Indeed, if Iran's progress and evolution is not thwarted by these machinations, Iran will undoubtedly regain its historic position as a major power, while being able to better exploit is unbelievable economic potential. A potential that is the product of its vast natural resources, its strategic location, its history, its industrial and technological infrastracture, as well as a young, vibrant, and educated population.