Politics of Middle East

Stavros Kalenteridis

Is Iran’s current nuclear program status a cause for a U.S. military attack?
I will examine two articles on Iran’s nuclear program and the possible need for a U.S. response on the current events on the issue. The article by Richard Holbrooke (henceforth mentioned as “the first article”), is based on the power approach in international relations. This is obvious throughout the article where the author mentions the importance of balance of power in the Middle East, the Iranian-Israeli current situation, and most importantly America’s national security (Iran is linked with terrorist organizations), and energy autonomy (further described below).
There are some questionable issues and some obvious mistakes...in the first argument. First of all, the authors mention that Iran's persistent rejection of offers from outside energy suppliers or private bidders to supply it with nuclear fuel suggests that it has a motive other than energy in developing its nuclear program. On the contrary, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, stated that Iran’s nuclear power plant in Bushehr was supposed to become operational since 2005. He said that the process has been delayed up to now because certain parties were unwilling to fulfill their legal commitments and promises, but no country or organization is prepared to compensate for the losses incurred in Iran due to the delay. That’s the reason why Iran was forced to initiate a program to produce its own nuclear fuel, so there won’t be additional delays or losses. Despite these considerations, he added that Iran plans to produce 20,000 megawatts of nuclear power and has invited every country to make bids for the projects (1). Obviously, the author’s argument is seriously weakened by these statements.
Later on, the author mentions that a nuclear-armed Iran would likely destabilize an already dangerous region (Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan) by building nuclear weapons. The author’s here lack to mention that Turkey too is already on its way for building three nuclear power plants, under a Turkish-Russian agreement. I found quite controversial the fact that Turkey’s nuclear program doesn’t seem ominous for destabilizing the region, and makes me skeptical if this is only because Turkey is a U.S. NATO-ally, something that would imply double standard logic on the first article’s argument. More importantly, Turkey’s energy minister stated that there will be a natural gas agreement between Turkey and Iran, something that makes questionable the fact that Turkey, who openly cooperates with Iran and already is on the way for a nuclear program, will be forced to nuclear weapons by the Iranian situation(2). As a result I find the destabilization of the area a subjective issue and more importantly, I believe the authors’ above mentioned statement to be an exaggeration.
In addition to those facts, being unclear as they are, I found some faults in some points of the authors’ logic. They suggest that Iran shouldn’t become a nuclear power, because then it would be able to exercise power over the energy supply chain in the Strait of Hormuz. In other words, the authors deny Iran’s right to exercise power over a location strategically next to it, although this is a common strategy, accepted and employed by all the sovereign nations of the world. Furthermore they claim that they are against the war, but they are not stating that they are in favor of peaceful negotiations either. What they do state, is that they are in favor of a strong U.S. policy to alter the Iranian regime's current course. This argument is quite controversial because, such a course of action could easily lead to a war between the two countries. In addition I find the logic behind this argument weak and misguiding towards the common people, since it is addressed as an open call for the American public.
In William Beeman’s article (henceforth mentioned as “the second article”), it is stated that Iran’s nuclear program is at an early stage and it will be quite a while until it will be capable of producing nuclear weapons. This is in contrast with the first article, which mentions that “even the most conservative estimates tell us that they (Iran) could have nuclear weapons soon”. The first article also claims that the fact that Tehran could build nuclear plants only for energy “exceeds the boundaries of credibility and science”, which is an exaggeration, lack of information, or even misinformation, since scientists and scholars are the ones who disagree with this opinion on the second article. Another different point of the second article is that it is suggested that Iran is engaged in peaceful nuclear research and not nuclear weapons production. To justify this view, the author’s of the second article cite the National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007. On the other hand, in the first article the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons program is supported throughout the text, in addition to the claim that this threat is grave and imminent.
There are some inconsistencies in the second article about the facts that the authors use as arguments, such as Iran’s missile and aircraft capabilities, and the sources of this kind of information. Nevertheless, at the same time the same arguments are backed up with widely accepted examples from real experience in the international politics.
The second article is underlined by a modest form of realism, understanding the power differences between the two countries and the American fears for a growing enemy, but also suggesting that the current status of Iran’s nuclear program isn’t enough for a war between U.S. and Iran. It supports this idea with logical and scientific arguments. I will have to conclude that the authors here have made the stronger argument for many reasons. The need of not only low enriched uranium, but also of enough and of good quality high enriched uranium as well as tuned working machineries in order to build nuclear weapons, seems plausible and logical. This is the main reason according to the authors why Iran isn’t capable at the time to produce nuclear weapons. Also the point that nuclear weapons need testing, and the comparison between the Iranian and the North Korea case, makes this argument even more reasonable. Finally, in my opinion the issue of Iran’s current nuclear program status is something that should be mainly examined by experts on the subject. The fact that the authors of the second article are scientists and scholars dedicated in relevant fields with the issue, makes them more trustworthy sources for understanding the problem, and further supports the credibility of their arguments concerning Iran’s nuclear program status.

(1) Tehran Times, “Iran will not allow IAEA to target its national security: envoy” (September 30, 2008).
(2) Tehran Times, “Turkey reiterates its commitment on gas deals with Iran” (October 9, 2008).