Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

(See here) this article from the British Guardian that discusses Iran's nuclear ambitions.

What intrigued me most about this article is that the intelligence assessment it reports on "draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies". Notice no mention of "tainted" American or Israeli intelligence material. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, but I have been taking American and Israeli intelligence on Iran's intentions with a grain of salt after the "weapons of mass destruction" crap we were fed leading up to the Iraq invasion. Seems American and Israeli intelligence can be bent to match political objectives.

However the Guardian sites intelligence sources that might yet still be considered reliable, including the French who argued that the UN weapons inspections were working prior to the Iraq invasion. Perhaps there is reason to be concerned and it is not just another case of the boy who cried wolf.

I am concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. I think that if Iran (along with North Korea) is allowed to possess nuclear weapons it means the beginning of the end of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would result in the world becoming an altogether more dangerous place.


Blogger Michael said...

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (to which I'm pretty sure that Iran is not a signatory) is already dead.

Though dying in forms with the US, Britain, France, China, and the former USSR having never committed to disarmament, and the US passing nuclear secrets to Israel to develop it's own nuclear weapons, it did score some victories.

The NNPT stopped the majority of nations across the globe from feeling that nukes were part of a "modern" military. South Africa would not have unilaterally disarmed if not for the NNPT.

However, the nails was truly in the NNPT coffin when the US announced, publically, that it was going to research into new nuclear weapons (including smaller tactical nukes as well as the bunker busting nukes). This, BTW, was expressly illegal in the NNPT.

Michael Tam

1/05/2006 05:17:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

Iran is a signatory to the NNPT.

The US actually opposed Israel's development of nuclear weapons. David Ben Gurion, while not actually lieing to his face, did deceive John F Kennedy when the two discussed the issue.

It would be wrong for the US to demand Israel disarm while Pakistan possesses the "Islamic bomb". It would be wrong to demand Pakistan disarm while India is armed. None of these three signed the NNPT. North Korea did, and so did Iran.

1/09/2006 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

The problems is that it would be hypocritical for the US to demand anyone to disarm when it is not doing so itself.

I looked it up and yes, North Korea was a signatory to the NNPT - but it withdrew from on January 10, 2003. Iran is also a signatory, which is why it is now under investigation by the IAEA.

Although the mechanisms are in place, it still doesn't change the fact that as it stands, the NPTT is moribund. There was an obligation for the existing nuclear powers to not further any nuclear weapons research and development and to also assist other nations to develop domestic nuclear power generation.

The problem of Iran? It seems relatively simple to fix. They want nuclear power generation. I propose that US and Russian engineers should build it for them, using the modern nuclear technologies which are not only much safer, but also difficult to produce weapons grade plutonium. For this "gift", Iran must let the plant but monitored in an unrestricted fashion by the IAEA.

Michael Tam

1/09/2006 07:26:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home