The clock is ticking on Iran
Peter Hoskin 9:06am
When I visited Israel last year, various sources there were convinced – adamant, even – that Iran was within a year or two of creating an atomic bomb. That may or may not have been the case, but it's still ominous that that hypothetical timeline is nearly up. We can all too easily forget that, in the background to all the column inches and comment pieces expended on Iran, there are genuine and pressing concerns that the country is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power.
Which is why the two latest news stories from the country are particularly worrying: the capture of a racing yacht by the Iranian navy and Tehran's plan to massively expand its uranium enrichment programme. They encapsulate the country's clenched fist response to the West's hand of friendship - and there's something particularly provocative and shameless about the actions coming, as they do, after the discovery of a secret nuclear plant only a couple of months ago. All in all, it's bound to infuriate those who think Iran needs dealing with more firmly, and perhaps even encourage a few more to join that particular cause. Iran seems to be wishing a military solution upon itself.
Whatever happens, it's another reminder that the next government will inherit international challenges which are at least as great as the fiscal problems we face domestically. Of course, government is never easy. But there aren't too many governments in our political history which have faced such a difficult task.



Previous






Vulture
December 1st, 2009 9:41am Report this commentI think the Mullahs are doing exactly what you say Pete: ie. deliberately provoking an Israeli military strike in the hope of uniting the country behind their increasingly unpopular and illicit regime. Their calculation is probably correct: even if Israel hits them, their nuclear programme is so advanced and so diffused that acquisition of a bomb may be delayed but not destroyed.
Its interesting that Iran is now increasingly isolated : even China and Russia seem to support harsher sanctions and the not-so-secret hatred and fear of the Arab world for their age-old Persian enemies is a given.(Forget Muslim solidarity: many Sunnis hate Shi'ites worse than we infidels, and vice versa).
Teheran sees it like Millwall fans: Nobody loves them, but they don't care. Try as I might I share your pessimism - I see no good outcomes. That Mayan calendar that runs out in 2012 may have it abt right.
Nicholas
December 1st, 2009 9:51am Report this commentYawn.
wrinkled weasel
December 1st, 2009 11:20am Report this commentIt seems to be part of the psyche in the region to inflame both domestic and international opinion. A lot of of is rhetoric, designed to keep the locals focused and angry in the right direction; if they stopped for a moment, that anger might turn to their own leadership, as it almost did in June.
The defining characteristic of Middle Eastern foreign policy is like the barking of a mad dog. The dog has teeth and it can potentially kill, but it can also be muzzled effectively. At heart, the leadership of Iran is cowardly. It can only at present, commit grandstanding acts of intimidation such as the capture of foreign nationals at sea.
Of course, you have to ask, what is the final scenario? Nuclear confrontation? War? There has been, what is by any stretch of imagination, a sea change of internation opinion on Iraq. It may be that this has been "sexed up" in order to soften us up for another war, but the facts about the uranium enrichment programme are hardly on a par with the myth of WMD in Iraq.
Before too long, there will be a confrontation and as you say, it is as if the Iranian leadership are standing there saying, "come outside if you think you're hard enough", and like the drunken rant it is, it is inviting summary justice.
Ian Walker
December 1st, 2009 11:51am Report this commentAgree with Vulture - Ahmedinajad is very weak politically within the country, thanks to the "dodgy" elections. A fight with the West will unite the country behind him.
Personally, I think a pre-emptive stand-off strike on naval facilities would be the correct response; we should have done that when they captured our Navy sailors, then this cowardly act wouldn't have happened.
Watt Tyler
December 1st, 2009 12:40pm Report this commentJust because Iran may be wishing a military response upon itself (and the people of Iran might be wanting one for different reasons than the government - don't assume that there will be unified defiance) it is no reason not to give it one.
All acts of beligerent force should be met with force, or else the aggressor will become emboldened. Thus it is ever the way of the world.
JJS
December 1st, 2009 1:39pm Report this commentPete -- please remove the apostrophe from "expand it's uranium enrichment...."
Alex
December 1st, 2009 1:57pm Report this commentAhmedinajad and Co. simply enjoy winding up the West.
Ahmedinajad knows that whatever he does (other than military action) or says , the West will do nothing at all
Dennis Churchill
December 1st, 2009 2:48pm Report this commentIs “our” policy that only Israel, in the Middle East, be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?
David Lindsay
December 1st, 2009 2:57pm Report this commentThere are only still American troops in Iraq in order to shoot down any Israeli mission against Iran. America still owes Israel for the USS Liberty.
The current President has come up through not one but both of the Chicago machine and the Civil Rights movement. No Zionist he...
Yes, the candidate who promised her Saudi, Kuwaiti and Emirati backers that she would nuke Iran if they instructed her to do so may now be Secretary of State. But she is not President. And she never will be.
Pete Hoskin
December 1st, 2009 3:18pm Report this commentJJS: thanks for the spot - fixed now.
Derek
December 1st, 2009 3:35pm Report this commentDennis Churchill I think that would make a lot of sense, yes. Who else would you want to have them?
Dennis Churchill
December 1st, 2009 4:29pm Report this commentDerek
I just don’t think it is a sustainable policy.
Demographics mean the Middle East will become more influential in European politics and the US will be concerned with South America.
It is inevitable that a number of Middle East States will develop nuclear weapons.
Snowman
December 1st, 2009 6:29pm Report this commentObama screwed up big way, one cannot appease Ahmedinajad any more than one could have turned Adolf. Inviting an Israeli attack may backfire, the urban population doesn’t side with the mullahs, and that’s where the risk of defeat for the clerics lies.
Primus Secundus Tertius
December 1st, 2009 9:57pm Report this commentIt's time for some no-nonsense action. Make a desert and call it peace.
Back to top