Wednesday, January 11, 2006

History repeating

Jack Straw claims there is no good reason for Iran to restart its research if it truly only wants a nuclear program for peaceful means.

Well, that's what they call blowback, Jack.

While it is true that the Iranians have been trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability at least since the Iran-Iraq war, they have certainly displayed renewed determination post-Iraq.

Critics of the Administration say Bush's hard public line against the so-called "Axis of Evil," combined with the threatened war with Iraq, have acted as a spur to both Iran and North Korea to accelerate their nuclear programs.

Said Time back in 2003.

"If those countries didn't have much incentive or motivation before, they certainly did after the Axis of Evil statement," says one western diplomat familiar with the Iranian and North Korean programs.

So far, so what?

The accession of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Iranian presidency, that's what.

The new Iranian president might well be "very niave politically but out of his depth", "sabre rattling", "playing to the home crowd" with his talk of wiping out Israel, sharing nuclear technology with other Muslim states etc etc, as most commentators and politicians say. But what if he is not?

It is the habit of rational people (and even politicians) to presume the people they are dealing with are also rational. But history suggests otherwise. Recent history has had a habit of producing brilliant nutters, from Hitler to Mugabe, via Pol Pot. And each of these leaders have at one point or another been treated as rational men, who can be negotiated with, will seek a reasonable solution and if not, will be deposed in a palace coup by forces of reason. Certainly the epithets attached to Ahmadinejad, would have accompanied Hitler through the early 30s. But time and again he proved his critics wrong.

Indeed, the path Ahmadinejad is treading all too rapidly is certainly one that would come as no surprise to Adolf himself, from his anti-semitic outbursts to the current breaking of the UN seals on the nuclear research facilities - a kind of symbolic remilitarisation of the Rhineland if you like.

I opposed the Iraq war, not because I'm some pinko pacifist. I just considered it folly. But unless the UN acts quickly and decisively I would support military action against Iran, with all its horrendous consequences. I don't believe Ahmadinejad is a reasonable man. I strongly suspect he will not only develop nuclear weapons but he will be prepared to use them, or at least pass them to agencies that will do so. It is not as if Iran has blanched from using terrorism against Western interests before.

For all the likely blowback - and I suspect it would make Iraq look like a tea party - we have to act now. Better this than have our grandchildren survey the ashes of our great cities and think of Bush and Blair not as 21st Century Churchills, but half-baked Chamberlains.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Calm down! Not all solutions need be military...

And not all military actions need to be invasions!!

Questrist said...

Oh, did I say invasion? Elimating their nuclear sites would do the job for me - either way, it would have hideous consequences!

Dan said...

>> It is the habit of rational people (and even politicians) to presume the people they are dealing with are also rational.

Me and Robert McNamara disagree with you on that point. Or at least, where rationality is assumed, it is invariably the same type of rationality (and the same type of rationale) as that of the person doing the assuming.

Anonymous said...

AS Matthew Parris recently pointed out we have provided ample rerasons for the Iranians to want a nuclear deterrent and furthermore have provided them with a prima facie illustratio of the dangers of becoming a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty - after all India and Pakistan never signed this amd now have the security of deterrence - just like dear old North Korea

ChrisB said...

Its also worth noting that the Iranians haven't actually broken ANY of the Non-Proliferation Treaty rules - just the EXTRA measures they agreed to in order to 'reassure the international community' when this last came up before their Presidential elections.

Ironically enough it was this percieved external bullying of Iran which partially led to the current President's election on a tide of anti-Western feeling already fuelled by our adventures in TWO of Iran's neighbouring states IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

Its also worth noting that their spiritual leader has committed the state at a 'fatwa-level' to not acquiring nuclear weapons.

However the logic we have created in the region tends to suggest that he should revoke this EXCEPT for the fact that in reality it would take them FAR TOO LONG to get nukes.

Which is why the current 'fantasy stand-off' is just that. If we do end up symbolically bombing Iranian facilities all we will be doing is offering a blueprint for future global proliferation and inspiring another generation of anti-western feeling.