Hans Blix weighs in on Iran .. "Inspections are Pointless"..uh oh, we agree
Should we be worried? The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that the
Iranians' uranium enrichment programme is proceeding, though perhaps at a slower pace. Iran is not answering questions raised by western intelligence. The IAEA cannot exclude the possibility that the Iranian programme has military aspects. So, yes, there should be concern, but there is even more reason to be distressed that this has been going on for years in full view, yet has not been met with effective diplomacy.
The demands that Iran should accept ever more inspection are meaningless. They are not made to help Iran show its lack of weapons intentions but in the hope that convincing incriminating evidence will be found. However, if such evidence is not found it will - rightly - be said that even if there were no intention today to move to bomb-making, Iran could change its mind next year. The key point at issue is not Iran's intentions but its development of an industrial-scale capability to enrich uranium. Once such capability exists - whether in Iran, Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia - the country would be a shorter time away from a bomb if it wanted to make one. The further countries in sensitive regions are from that capability the better.
This is scary. He is making sense.
In the 1980s when Saddam Hussein was moving Iraq towards nuclear weapons (and Israel bombed the Osirak research reactor) Iran clearly could have claimed a strong incentive to develop a nuclear programme with a weapons option. However, after the defeat of Iraq in 1991 and 2003 Iran can no longer see the nation as a nuclear threat. Nor can it fear a nuclear attack from any neighbour, or even Israel. In these circumstances it might have been counterproductive for the Bush administration to threaten Iran by talking about all options being on the table and by dispatching aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf. The Obama team might do better by adopting the line taken by the US in the talks with North Korea, and offer as part of a nuclear agreement guarantees against attacks from the outside and subversive activities inside Iran.
And there we have the entire failure of the UN. The UN stands for status quo. As envisaged by FDR and the formers in 1945 the UN would end aggression of one nation state against another. But here they cannot distinguish between those who seek to be free from a govt like the mullahs have, and some CIA-MI6 Mossadegh repeat mission (the likelihood of which is ZERO). We can guarantee as we did with Cuba that we will not invade, but how can we abandon those who look to us as the beacon of individual liberties?
Since Blix himself admits inspections are of no utility, even if we HAD some agreement how could it then be verified?
Blix also makes the assumption that Iran is a state whose ultimate policy is not OTHER. I'd like to believe that as well. Do we bet the ranch on that?
The only way we can be relatively comfortable is if the mullahs are GONE. Israel has had nukes probably since the 60's. Nobody is worried about it.
Wouldn't a representative democracy in Iran worried about secular education, jobs, roads, and other endeavors remove the onus from their U-235 enrichment efforts?
Read Blix here