Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Conrad Black

GET UPDATES FROM Conrad Black
 

Get Nukes Out of Iranian Hands NOW

Posted: 11/30/11 11:58 AM ET

The assault on the British embassy in Tehran, following the Iranian sponsored-attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., and the grand Ayatollah's (Khamenei) arrest of President Ahmadinejad's entire official staff, must surely complete the satisfaction of everyone that Iran is governed by lunatics that must not be allowed nuclear toys to play with.

Even the countries that have happily played footsie with the Iranians as they have progressed toward nuclear capability, Pakistan, Russia and China, must now have realized that the joke is not humorous and must end here.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has steadily documented the Iranian violations of their undertakings not to develop a nuclear military capacity. Even the former director of the IAEA, Mohamed Elbaradei, who has now metamorphosed into an acceptable Islamist for the purposes of the Egyptian protesters, and who gave the Iranians a gentle ride for years, ended by criticizing them quite unambiguously.

Consecutive IAEA reports demonstrate that the Stuxnet computer virus had only a marginal impact on the program; that enough low-enriched uranium for four bombs has been developed; that advanced centrifuges are being deployed, permitting faster enrichment than was possible under the first phase of the program, which was based on what had been acquired from the notorious Pakistani supplier, Dr. Khan. This development demonstrates again, as so often before, the porosity of sanctions. The latest IAEA report states that Iran has conducted advanced research on a miniaturized warhead that could be fitted in intermediate range missiles. Russia, loyal to its commercial contacts with Iran and its pathological ambition to irritate America, has been dismissive of the IAEA report, but it is not so relaxed about attacks on embassies in terrorism-supporting Islamic states.

The IAEA believes that Iran will be able to triple production at its underground facility near Qum, a city best known up to now for fine carpets and fundamentalist Islamic theology. The Obama administration entered office aiming for a grand bargain of reconciliation with Iran, and in furtherance of it, effectively ignored the false Iranian election and the brutalization of the public that followed in weeks of general disorder and the crudest intimidation of the masses by the bully boys of the regime, which did not dare test the loyalty of the army on the issue of crushing the people.

Sanctions have never worked and smack still of the impotent loquacity and empty gesturing of the League of Nations, (which only actually imposed them briefly on Japan and then, in 1939, on the USSR over the invasion of Finland, and after the world was already at war). They were almost ineffective against South Africa and even the tiny white minority in Rhodesia. They failed completely against Milosevic's Serbia, were almost useless against Saddam Hussein, and there are always plenty of venal and hypocritical countries (such as France and the United Nations itself in the case of Iraq), who are happy to ignore sanctions, even if they have officially signed on to them, in the interests of enhanced profit to themselves.

The United States planned a comprehensive missile-defence system, which the Russians, for their own purposes and in keeping with their imperishable ambition to try to exercise an influence to which their shrunken and ramshackle post-Soviet state does not now entitle them, have chosen to regard as directed against them. This is a defensive system and the Russians have no business insisting on possession of a defence-proof first-strike nuclear capability against the West. But as part of the "reset" process with that country, the U.S., in another unrequited gesture, has shifted the system largely to sea deployment and to the Middle Eastern sites emphasizing that Iran is the principal subject of the deployment.

We are paying for America's extreme derogation from the normal Great Power practice of dealing directly and forcefully with such provocations and outlawry as Iran's. This goes back to President Carter's shameful mistreatment of the Shah, a reliable ally and relatively progressive leader; to his helpless response to the embassy hostage-taking; and to President Reagan's mad indulgence in the Iran-Contra blackmail.

Regime change can be left to the Iranians when their elites, disintegrated though they have been by oppression and dispersal abroad, tire of this nostalgic theocratic misadventure into Middle Ages Islam. But the nuclear capability has to be destroyed soon. Iran has highlighted the hypocrisy of the official arms control system, which requires the nuclear powers to try to disarm, which of course they have not done since the Soviet rejection of President Eisenhower's visionary "Atoms for Peace" plan in 1955. In practice, new powers have attained a nuclear capacity (France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and for a time, South Africa) that the first nuclear powers, the United States, USSR, and U.K., trusted not to be irresponsible. That judgement has been correct, though there have been concerns about Pakistan. But Iran is completely unacceptable, routinely threatens the destruction of Israel, which has made it clear it would not go quietly to extermination this time; and it is inconceivable that such an Iranian capability would not also provoke comparable steps by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. And no one could seriously blame them. Turning the Middle East into such a nuclear-armed camp would be unimaginably dangerous.

The customary arguments against acting are the usual pusillanimous excuses for appeasement: more extreme Iranian conduct in fomenting fomenting disorder via Hamas and Hezbollah, problems in the Straits of Hormuz, meddling in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of those are more likely to be encouraged by continued weakness, especially if couched in the administration's now familiar aerated hyperbole, such as Secretary Clinton's promise of "crippling sanctions."

The Qum site is represented as impregnable to aerial attack, which is unlikely but irrelevant, as Iranian airspace can be revisited as frequently and comprehensively as necessary until there is an Iranian government capable of coming to its senses.

The United States has turned cheeks until all four have been made vivid. Iran has inflicted its outrages on many countries and on the whole international community. The world cannot leave it to the Jews to do its dirty work again. The world must act and the United States must lead.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 129
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
11:33 AM on 12/02/2011
Nobody pays attention to Conrad Black and there's no reason why they should,
.
08:26 AM on 12/02/2011
All the world has to do to have regime change in Iran is boycott Iranian oil. As long as the world buys Iranian oil, there will be no regime change, and the current regime will be well funded. The world does have a choice. Until the world decides to stop buying Iranian oil, the world's options are limited. If a war occurs with Iran, the world will not be able to buy Iranian oil. It makes more sense to stop buying Iranian oil before their is a war with Iran. If there is a war with Iran, it will be difficult to buy oil from Iran during the war. This is almost a no-brainer, but our world us is addicted to oil to the point of forgetting common sense.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:39 AM on 12/02/2011
The countries that developed nukes are criminal countries, because they developed criminal weapons (weapons that kill innocents necessarily when used) . The good thing about this story is that when a global conflict starts, these countries will start by throwing their nukes on each other (they will not waste their criminal power on non nuke countries).....
07:11 AM on 12/02/2011
Why is it up to the US to clean up this kind of crap ? Europe did a pretty good job in Libya, let the French handle it.

We Americans have earned our lesson. We don't do wars of intervention any more, even in support of causes that may be perceived as good. We have become, well, like the rest of the world. Good luck.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:33 AM on 12/02/2011
Nuke is immoral in any hand. It necessarily kills innocents.
All countries who have it are potential innocent’s killers.
In my next comment I shall explain the good thing about Nuke.
06:07 AM on 12/02/2011
How about this: If Israel feels so threatened, they should go ahead and drop the bombs they need to drop -- and then live with the consequences themselves, like a real nation. Or find some other bully to bear their burden.

Personally, I would like to see the American military sit one out for a change.
03:50 AM on 12/02/2011
The policy of MADD has worked for the past 60 years and it will work in the future: If you (Iran) nuke us (Israel), either directly or through a proxy, you will within 45 minutes be converted into the world's largest ashtray. Bombing Iran will only steel their resolve to develop nukes, and very possibly to use them. Actually the policy of mutually assured destruction has worked from WW I with the ban on chemical weapons, which Iran surely has access to but has not dare used. On the other hand, attacking Iran and almost certainly launching WW III will result in massive global depopulation and unimaginable human suffering.
photo
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
04:36 AM on 12/02/2011
You can't even keep the acronyms straight! 'MADD' is "Mothers Against Drunk Driving". MAD is "mutually assured destruction.

But even more important:no you do NOT understand the fundamentals of the strategy MAD will ONLY work when the number of nuclear powers is small. Even then, it nearly failed several times during the Cold War.

You do not have to take my word for it: you can take the word of "Cold Warriors" Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, either of whom know far more about nuclear strategy than any HuffPost commenters.

You can hear them and several other experts by looking in YouTube for "Nuclear Literacy Background", their documentary on Nuclear Proliferation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
analyse this
Everything is temporary anyway
11:22 PM on 12/01/2011
So you say Iran can't be trusted because it has done things in the past that negate their credibility? So why should anyone believe you, a convicted fraudster, about anything?

Or are you exempt from your own maxim? That ,sir, is known as... blatant, arrogance-drenched god-smacking hypocrisy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheHandyman
Death...the last new experience you will ever have
11:18 PM on 12/01/2011
All this sanctimonious saber rattling from a convicted felon? Iran has never attacked anyone...ever. Israel has how many illegal nuclear weapons and the world turns a blind eye? Israel has without provocation attacked how many countries? You can call yourself whatever you like but you are a fraud, a cheat, and a convicted criminal and nothing you say is worth ever reading again!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
doriath22
Born-again Jacobin. Robespierre had the right idea
11:01 PM on 12/01/2011
It's kind of like William F Buckley..................if he'd fallen off his horse and hit his head
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
knotsofast
How much did our nation's debt increase today?
10:42 PM on 12/01/2011
Judgement day for Iran coming soon.
10:20 PM on 12/01/2011
Mr. Black no one is asking the Jews to do the world's dirty work, so how dare you ask the USA to lead the world into yet another war? Especially one that can go nuclear at that. Don't warmongers like you realize that after 10+ years of the "War on Terrorism" that many AMERICANS ARE JUST TIRE OF WAR and its costs both human and economic.

Yes the USA should lead but with diplomacy which is the only sane way to approach this issue over Iranian nuclear capabilities. Israel, the USA, the UK and Iran must sit down perhaps with China and Russia mediating the talks and reach a peaceful solution to this situation. That is what rational human being would do.

Meir Dagan, former Director of the Mossad said it best:"attacking Iran is the stupidest thing I ever heard". So people who advocate for military strikes on Iran must be stupid according to Dagan.

“Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike. Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”
– John F. Kennedy
07:21 AM on 12/02/2011
Again, why should America lead, what does than mean, why US ? What you're real saying is we have the biggest weapons so you want to push us to the front to deal with this problem.

This is Israel's problem and she must plan for a total war because this is Iran's goal and objective; has been for 30 years. Lebanon and Iran are in great danger of becoming victims of their own hatred.
12:51 PM on 12/03/2011
We should lead not because we got the biggest "CAJONES" or weapons but because presently we and the rest of the world have the most to lose. Not only can an Israeli war with Iran destroy the world's oil-based economy and create a depression even worst then our present financial crisis, but it ultimately can lead to a nuclear holocaust for all of mankind.
08:17 PM on 12/01/2011
While I agree with the conclusion that Iran's nuclear program must be dismantled with American bombs, does the author of this article seriously believe that President Obama would do such a thing, given the President's incompetence on the world stage?
08:10 PM on 12/01/2011
Dear Jeanrenoir. Just read yor article which I think sums up the situation perfectly. My printer is not working, so I wrote it out to send to some friends. If the financial crisis is anything to go by, this comming war to reduce populations and increase the profits of banks such as Barclays,J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs; one has to wonder from where do they plan to carry out this operation?
photo
RuralRoute1
Kennedy Democrat, George Carlin Catholic
07:53 PM on 12/01/2011
What a shame to be given the privilege of such a loud voice from prison, and then use it to spew discredited neocon talking points. What an irrelevant waste of an opportunity, unless one is angling for Rupert Murdoch & Roger Ailes to give you a gig to help with the legal bills.