Chirac Iran blunder provides glimpse into N-ME
Saturday, February 03, 2007 - ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, February 3 (IranMania) - He may have taken back what he said
but Jacques Chirac this week nevertheless became the first western head of
state to break a taboo by recognising that Iran may become a nuclear-armed
power, AFP reported.
By sketching out a scenario of Iran armed with a nuclear bomb and
staring down Israel, the French president gave the world a glimpse of the
new balance of power in the Middle East that western governments may be
contemplating.
While such musings are commonplace in think tanks and conferences,
they have a different resonance coming from the president of France, which
has joined the United States and Europe in asserting that Iran will not be
allowed to develop a bomb.
"Jacques Chirac said what many experts are saying in the world, even
in the United States, that a country that has the bomb doesn't use it and
applies the rationale of deterrence," former foreign minister Hubert
Vedrine commented.
Foreign policy expert Pascal Boniface agreed that Chirac "spoke as
an expert and not as a head of state" at a time when the United Nations is
seeking to put more pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear activities.
"In the official diplomatic discourse, these are things that are
just not said," added Boniface of the Institute of International and
Strategic Studies in Paris.
In an interview this week to three publications, Chirac minimised
the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, saying that Tehran would have to
take into the account the fact that it would be "razed to the ground" if
it launched a strike on Israel.
"Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well that's not
very dangerous," Chirac said in the interview to the New York Times, the
Paris-based International Herald Tribune and the French weekly Nouvel
Observateur.
"Where would Iran drop this bomb? On Israel?" he asked. "It would
not have gone off 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be
razed to the ground," Chirac was quoted as saying by the three
publications.
The president retracted his comments, admitting that he had erred,
and the Elysee issued a formal statement asserting that France's position
was unchanged and that it considered a nuclear-armed Iran unacceptable.
Le Monde newspaper nevertheless said Chirac's comments signalled a
"radical shift" from France's previous stance. "When the international
community meets in New York and again threatens Iran, one has to wonder
what credibility France will have," it said.
The blunder had an impact in foreign capitals, with the Russian
Nezavissimaya Gazeta newspaper declaring that Chirac was "the first
western leader to admit that the world cannot stop the Iranian nuclear
programme".
For Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow on non-proliferation at
London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, the remarks should
not be taken as a sign that the West is coming to terms with the idea that
Iran will acquire a bomb.
"Governments will certainly be doing contingency planning on Iran if
all efforts fail," he said.
"But they are doing their very best to dissuade Iran from reaching
that step and they believe that there is time left to do that."
France joined Britain and Germany in 2005 on a high-powered
diplomatic effort to convince Tehran to halt its programme of uranium
enrichment. Iran says it needed enriched uranium for fuel for civilian
nuclear reactors but the West fears it will develop the ingredients
necessary to build a bomb.
The European drive failed and experts now see the United States as
the leading player in the effort to persuade Iran to give up its suspected
nuclear ambitions.
Iran expert Georges Le Guelte dismissed Chirac's comments as
"totally incoherent", saying that "he gives the impression of someone who
just doesn't know what to do" about Iran.
"If Chirac is saying 'let's allow Iran to acquire the bomb' it's a
catastrophic and disastrous solution," said Le Guelte.
Meanwhile, diplomats this week revealed that Iran had begun
construction of 3,000 centrifuges at its main nuclear facility in the
central town of Natanz in what would mark an escalation in its drive for
nuclear capabilities.
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=49399&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
Chirac isn't losing his mind. He did a diplomatic faux pas -- told the
truth behind the scenes. Iran would commit national suicide if it used an
A-bomb on anyone. One could speculate that their leadership so hates the
Jews and the US that they'd go ahead and meet Muhammed in the heavens, and
feel great they'd all died for a divine cause. But, realistically, Iran is
building a sphere of tremendous geopolitical/economic power and influence
in the Middle Asia region, and it would be folly to work so hard for so
much--only to destroy it all later. The nukes would be used as a
deterrent, and partly to deter Israel and the US from any aggression as
the US carried out in Iraq.
The war I envision with Iran is more a war of economics, with oil as the
centerpiece, and if there is any military confrontation between the
US/Israel and Iran, it is more likely to be for propagandistic purposes.
Ostensibly, it would be to save some rich elitist's investments or garner
more of them, or to prop up an unpopular administration and/or its failing
policies. It would be an attempt to regain and galvanize public support,
and reassure investors that it intends to 'protect' their vested interests
(as well as their own in the administration).
So, I see the risk of limited Persian Gulf war to be unacceptably high at
this point because primarily Bush/Cheney are at the bottom, in desperate
straights (and their Party, too), after being raised to the heights and
having their way for several years (and that includes their corporate
investor-friends). And Ahmadinejad's support has been eroding in the brief
meteoric rise he's enjoyed (up to now), with the ultraconservative clerics
and with the public. He hasn't delivered on promises. Ohmert's popularity
has waned considerably after what his nation's people saw as a poorly
planned invastion into Lebanon, and a poor defensive stand against
Hezbollah missiles. Not mentioned much in this forum, but talked about
elsewhere, is the cooperation between the Saudi kingdom, Iran, and Syria
lately, as well as Iraq's cooperative efforts with Syria and Iran.
Additionally, Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistan have made increasingly friendly
overtures toward Iran, and vice versa. For example, Saudi Arabia announced
that Iran and their government would hold talks to try to ease tensions in
Lebanon and Palestine.
On the outside, India has had increasingly favorable relations with Iran,
and has announced large joint commercial projects (as has Pakistan).
It would seem that talk about war has come mainly from the US and one or
two of its major allies -- not from Iran. Lately, the leader of Iraq,
Maliki, warned both Iran and the US that it would not stand by and see
them use his nation as a battleground for their increased tensions,
whether by guerilla warfare or otherwise.
Taking all this into account, it seems clear Bush/Cheney are pushing for
militaristic confrontation while Blair recently announced he could not
support the increase in US troop strength. Bush/Cheney have repeatedly
told the Congress and American people they will go ahead with the troop
'surge' and continue essentially with what they think is right, and the
rest of us be damned. Bush acts like Iran just recently 'invaded' Iraq
with a small force of crack troops, but military analysts have thought
Iran has had a small force inside Iraq for months, carrying out special
operations in support of the Shia minority. It should be no surprise. The
country has been left in a state of chaos and vulnerability because of the
US's invasion and occupation.
Iraq is in the throes of a civil war by most analyses, and the US has no
real hope of resolving the complexity and intensity of sectarian violence
that is rising. Furthermore, the US cannot hope to militarily control
Iran's growing Persian Gulf influence without incurring tremendous
repercussions economically and otherwise. Attacking Iraq was a horrible
blunder, and a host of damnable lies and cover-ups afterward. We don't use
our military forces for ideological 'feel good' missions and kill many
thousands so that we can feel righteous about our philosophy. We use
military force to defend against a direct threat or an actual attack on
our security or vital national interests. The Crusades ended centuries ago
and were an abject failure. Colonialism followed and ended in complete
withdrawal.
The only viable solution is to withdraw our military forces from Iraq and
remove Bush/Cheney from power. If we accomplish the former, while not the
latter, we will leave ourselves open to further high risks and abuses of
power in the executive branch. Both must be accomplished as soon as
possible. There is nothing more for Congress to debate, but to consider
articles of impeachment, criminal court actions, and the fastest, safest
way to get our young military men and women back to their families.
Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon (as Chirac suggested)
for deterrence, without threats or military attack. The repercussions from
attacking its nuke plants is way too high for the West and that region's
stability. It just wouldn't be worth it. Pakistan was severely sanctioned
for years by the US and its allies in an attempt to punish it for moving
toward development of a nuclear weapon. When, in 1998, it attained the
A-bomb, it has since used it as a deterrent against its long-time foe,
India. Analysts credit Pakistans nuke deterrence in preventing India from
invading it in an all-out war. It has, strangely, kept the peace between
India and Pakistan, albeit an uneasy one at times.
Ahmadinejad can talk about having Israel disband as a nation and move to
other parts of the world, as the Ayatollah Khomeini also said, but the
talk of removing Israel is more meant for domestic consumption than has
the ring of reality to it. Basically, Mahmoud can shoot his mouth off, and
talk's cheap, but should he make the colossal blunder of physically
attacking Israel (conventionally or not), Mahmoud's empire will be meeting
Muhammed in the clouds rather quickly. He should know that. If he does
not, then he is truly dangerous. But, are we sure he doesn't understand
it? Talk about the coming Mahdi sounds scary, but don't Christians and
their leaders talk about the return of Jesus, and that Jesus will be the
spiritual leader of the entire world after the West defeats the
antichrist's forces--made up, partly, of key Arab nations?? It must make
Muslims feel threatened, too.
We need high-level talks between Iran and the US very soon, as the Iraq
Study Group recommended. Tensions need to be eased immediately. Already,
top ex military commanders are sounding an alarm that negotiations must
begin quickly, and that no war action be taken by Bush against Iran. I
think these top military men see the danger building...
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
