It's hard to escape the conclusion the world is sleepwalking toward a dangerous crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. No great leap of imagination is needed to envision waking up one morning to headlines reporting that Iran tested a nuclear weapon or Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. Only a determined, united international front can prevent such calamities, but where is the evidence of that kind of commitment?
Over the weekend, Iran responded evasively to the latest round of incentives from the six-nation group leading negotiations with Tehran. And those incentives represented a backing off from previous demands Iran end its nuclear program -- calling only that it freeze development of its atomic project at its current stage.
The equivocating mullahs probably weren't surprised, or discouraged, by the reaction from the P5+1 group -- the five permanent U.N. Security Council members: the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia plus Germany. Washington, London and Paris threatened another round -- it would be the fourth -- of economic sanctions. But Russia said Tehran should be given more time. China hasn't said anything, but no one expects Beijing to take a strong stand against Tehran. It's not surprising Iran believes time is on its side.
A nuclear-armed Iran ruled by Islamist fanatics unfazed by the notion of mutually assured destruction poses an existential threat to Israel. The Jewish state is locked in a leadership struggle now that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has announced he's stepping down, and Iran is a leading, if not the leading, issue. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz are contending in a Kadima party primary next month to succeed him. Should the winner fail to organize a governing coalition, a general election would be called.
Mofaz was blamed for helping send oil prices soaring to record highs in June when he said an Israeli attack is unavoidable if Iran continues its nuclear program. In remarks last week, he said he wanted peace, but Israel "will not let the second Holocaust happen to the Jewish people once again." Livni, the favorite in the contest, puts the Iran issue starkly as a "choice between bad options."
Iran says it would respond to any attack by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a choke-point in the world's oil supply line. Fearing what that would do to gas prices and the economy, Washington is said to be pressing Israel not to attack. Such concerns are why there's little credibility given to protests from President Bush and his would-be successors Barack Obama and John McCain that the military option is on the table if Iran remains recalcitrant. Obama favors unconditional talks with Tehran, while McCain backs tougher sanctions.
As formidable as the political objections to an Israeli strike are, the military challenges are great also. Two countries -- Jordan and Iraq -- separate Israel from its distant targets. And targets is the right word, since Iran has dispersed the work over several locations. And this project is also thought to be going on in heavily protected bunkers difficult to damage with conventional bombs.
The prominent Israeli historian Benny Morris recently raised, in a New York Times op-ed, the possibility that Israel might use a nuclear bomb to penetrate such defenses. Morris offered his nightmarish vision as an argument for tougher sanctions on the part of P5+1 group and a hope, albeit a faint one, that Iran will realize the potential catastrophic result of its nuclear ambitions.
Iran insists it is engaged in a peaceful project for electrical generation, but virtually no one believes that. Iran amasses ever more of the cylinders and high-tech equipment required to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Israeli intelligence estimates Iran could have an operational bomb next year. Time is running out for the world to wake up.
Comment at suntimes.com.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий