On September 18, according to the New York Times' Craig Smith, the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency demanded of Iran that it halt all its uranium enrichment programs. And this because, according to the IAEA, Iran had not sufficiently demonstrated that its intentions with its nuclear program are peaceful. The United States has called for UN sanctions against Iran if it does not immediately suspend all these activities.
Iran, for its part, has insisted that it will not comply with anyone's diktat. It declares openly that it will defy the UN if the matter is brought to the Security Council and go ahead with its nuclear development. It already claims it has achieved the full nuclear fuel cycle. And many experts thus believe Iran is very close to having nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has been firmer that it has been in the past in its warning to Iran. Russia, Germany Italy and Great Britain have lined up against Iran and are with the United States, urging that Iran put a stop to its nuclear enrichment program.
However, according to the Tehran Times, one key player in this matter, China, has defended Iran's right to enrich uranium for "peaceful purposes". With China's veto, Iran can ward off any possible UN sanctions. So it is far too early to think that the tougher IAEA attitude will bring about results.
The IAEA announced November 25 as its compliance date and by that time, the United States will have passed its election and it will be clear whether President George Bush is still in office. While no one can know for sure, the Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry has, in the Carter-Clinton tradition, advocated an approach of "dialogue and discussion" with Iran, which will, of course, provide Iran with a green light to go ahead without fear of any real consequences. So those hoping for real US action to stop Iran are more tending to support the Bush candidacy, though it is by no means proven that he is ready to meet the Iranian challenge.
As for Israel, it for now seems to be on the sidelines and waiting. It certainly will not take any military action before the November election. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's claim that it is "strategically coordinated" with the United States, if in fact accurate, suggests that what Iran might be facing after November is a joint US-Israel operation, something it is doubtful that Iran would have much capacity to truly counter. The truth is that the US is in the position and has the weaponry to devastate Iran to whatever degree it would like. It might, however, be reluctant to do so, perhaps because Iran might set the Persian Gulf oil fields alight.
For Israel, an operation to neutralize Iran's nuclear weapons program would be much more complicated, as it would involve flying over potentially hostile airspace in Jordan or Turkey, or needing the permission of the US if it should approach Iran through Iraq. Israel, too, has far less diplomatic and political strength, strength that would be needed in the face of the worldwide condemnation of any strike against Iran.
Waiting on the sidelines is for Israel in a sense giving the 'peaceful persuasion option' a chance to be fully tried and rejected. An Iran pushing for nuclear weapons in defiance of the entire world is a much more attractive target than one that can claim it has been acting in accordance with the world community's wishes.
Alan Yuter has written that if there were a universal ban against nuclear testing this might stop Iran and North Korea. He has suggested that the mechanism which might lead to Iranian compliance with such a ban is a US threat to devastate Tehran upon the first sign of an Iranian nuclear missile in the air. Yuter also claims that without real testing above the ground, Iran could not know about the reliability of its nuclear weapon.
The Israeli Air Force chief Eliezer Shkedi has hinted strongly that Israel does have a military plan and option against Iran. But the details of this have not been published. The Israeli public is more and more aware of and concerned with the Iranian threat, as are a whole variety of nations throughout the world. The Iranian story is now high on the world's agenda, and there seems no question now of Iran quietly attaining the nuclear weapons while the world's attention is turned elsewhere, as in the Pakistani precedent.
Israel has been designated by Iran as its number one enemy and target. So the watching and waiting, the sitting on the sidelines, for Israel anyway, should not be allowed to go on too long.
While it seems a pipe dream to hope that Iran will peacefully comply to give up its nuclear programs, there is some slight possibility that US threats along the line suggested by Yuter might have some effect. But should they not, and should Iran be on the verge of weapons that could possibly reach Gush Dan in Israel might well be forced to act alone.
Thus, a central question now for Israel is whether the US would lead an operation against the central element of the "axis of evil". By so doing, the US would be certain that the number one terror state in the world does not gain the capacity to kill, not in the tens and in the hundreds, but in the tens and hundreds of thousands, and even the millions.
Post-script: On September 21, Iran openly defied the IAEA , the UN and the world as a whole when it announced in Vienna that it had resumed its enrichment of uranium. Reuters reported that using the 'yellowcake' it now has at its disposal, Iran may soon have enough fissile material for five nuclear weapons. Whether this act will set off the red lights in Washington or Jerusalem remains to be seen. But it is clearer today than ever before that the only way Iran can possibly be stopped from attaining nuclear weapons is by military means.
Iran, for its part, has insisted that it will not comply with anyone's diktat. It declares openly that it will defy the UN if the matter is brought to the Security Council and go ahead with its nuclear development. It already claims it has achieved the full nuclear fuel cycle. And many experts thus believe Iran is very close to having nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has been firmer that it has been in the past in its warning to Iran. Russia, Germany Italy and Great Britain have lined up against Iran and are with the United States, urging that Iran put a stop to its nuclear enrichment program.
However, according to the Tehran Times, one key player in this matter, China, has defended Iran's right to enrich uranium for "peaceful purposes". With China's veto, Iran can ward off any possible UN sanctions. So it is far too early to think that the tougher IAEA attitude will bring about results.
The IAEA announced November 25 as its compliance date and by that time, the United States will have passed its election and it will be clear whether President George Bush is still in office. While no one can know for sure, the Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry has, in the Carter-Clinton tradition, advocated an approach of "dialogue and discussion" with Iran, which will, of course, provide Iran with a green light to go ahead without fear of any real consequences. So those hoping for real US action to stop Iran are more tending to support the Bush candidacy, though it is by no means proven that he is ready to meet the Iranian challenge.
As for Israel, it for now seems to be on the sidelines and waiting. It certainly will not take any military action before the November election. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's claim that it is "strategically coordinated" with the United States, if in fact accurate, suggests that what Iran might be facing after November is a joint US-Israel operation, something it is doubtful that Iran would have much capacity to truly counter. The truth is that the US is in the position and has the weaponry to devastate Iran to whatever degree it would like. It might, however, be reluctant to do so, perhaps because Iran might set the Persian Gulf oil fields alight.
For Israel, an operation to neutralize Iran's nuclear weapons program would be much more complicated, as it would involve flying over potentially hostile airspace in Jordan or Turkey, or needing the permission of the US if it should approach Iran through Iraq. Israel, too, has far less diplomatic and political strength, strength that would be needed in the face of the worldwide condemnation of any strike against Iran.
Waiting on the sidelines is for Israel in a sense giving the 'peaceful persuasion option' a chance to be fully tried and rejected. An Iran pushing for nuclear weapons in defiance of the entire world is a much more attractive target than one that can claim it has been acting in accordance with the world community's wishes.
Alan Yuter has written that if there were a universal ban against nuclear testing this might stop Iran and North Korea. He has suggested that the mechanism which might lead to Iranian compliance with such a ban is a US threat to devastate Tehran upon the first sign of an Iranian nuclear missile in the air. Yuter also claims that without real testing above the ground, Iran could not know about the reliability of its nuclear weapon.
The Israeli Air Force chief Eliezer Shkedi has hinted strongly that Israel does have a military plan and option against Iran. But the details of this have not been published. The Israeli public is more and more aware of and concerned with the Iranian threat, as are a whole variety of nations throughout the world. The Iranian story is now high on the world's agenda, and there seems no question now of Iran quietly attaining the nuclear weapons while the world's attention is turned elsewhere, as in the Pakistani precedent.
Israel has been designated by Iran as its number one enemy and target. So the watching and waiting, the sitting on the sidelines, for Israel anyway, should not be allowed to go on too long.
While it seems a pipe dream to hope that Iran will peacefully comply to give up its nuclear programs, there is some slight possibility that US threats along the line suggested by Yuter might have some effect. But should they not, and should Iran be on the verge of weapons that could possibly reach Gush Dan in Israel might well be forced to act alone.
Thus, a central question now for Israel is whether the US would lead an operation against the central element of the "axis of evil". By so doing, the US would be certain that the number one terror state in the world does not gain the capacity to kill, not in the tens and in the hundreds, but in the tens and hundreds of thousands, and even the millions.
Post-script: On September 21, Iran openly defied the IAEA , the UN and the world as a whole when it announced in Vienna that it had resumed its enrichment of uranium. Reuters reported that using the 'yellowcake' it now has at its disposal, Iran may soon have enough fissile material for five nuclear weapons. Whether this act will set off the red lights in Washington or Jerusalem remains to be seen. But it is clearer today than ever before that the only way Iran can possibly be stopped from attaining nuclear weapons is by military means.