Is Iran Such A Big Deal?

"Perspective"

07/06/2008

Paul Munnis


Even as the Bush Administration is in a tizzy over Iran getting a nuclear capability I am wondering what the problem really is?

As one General put it “We lived with Russia having the nuclear bomb for over 60 years and we managed it just fine.” He’s right and my recollection is that it really goosed the American economy in very positive ways too but it had many hairy moments.

Indeed many nations have the A-Bomb and let’s count them. There are the U.S., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel and we’ll also add North Korea for the time being to this list.

So far, the only nation to ever use the A-Bomb against human beings is the U.S.

These countries each have allies whom the A-bombs nations have extended nuclear protection to. So nations like France, Britain, Germany, etc. have U.S. protections and Russia has is own set of allies, China has its own alllies too. The other nations lack a weapons delivery capability. Some assert that the A-Bomb nations can sell the technology to the have-not nations but that would be pretty stupid since that capability could be turned right back onto the supplier nations.

To be a primary threat to the US Iran needs three things: an A-bomb, a command and control system to launch and direct an ICBM that includes complex target homing capabilities, and the ICBM to actually deliver the bomb with. These are expensive and they also take time to develop and deploy. So far Iran has little more than centrifuges capable of further refining atomic materials. We have seen no command and control system capable of directing ICBM’s to targets and we have seen no ICBM’s. They do have a medium range missile capability but that is of little threat to the U.S. Then if they ever did launch an A-Bomb at the US then they would have to be prepared to be annihilated by nuclear rebuttal. Not a good prospect for Iran and enough to make them pause and think.

What we have seen is the UN and the world imposing sanctions on Iraq that will destroy their economy and isolate them in the world. As that happens the resources for deployment of an A-Bomb are going to have to come from the public sector and the Iranians might object to this and riot.

According to the CIA Fact Book Iran's economy is marked by an inefficient state sector, reliance on the oil sector (which provides 85% of government revenues), and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Statist policies favor central control over individuals and the economy. Those two policies choices are not wise choices for Iran with it’s young population seeking modernity.

Private sector activity is typically small-scale workshops, farming, and services.

President Mahmud AHMADINEJAD failed to make any notable progress in fulfilling the goals of the nation's latest five-year plan. A combination of price controls and subsidies, particularly on food and energy, continue to weigh down the economy, and administrative controls, widespread corruption, and other rigidities undermine the potential for private-sector-led growth.

As a result of these inefficiencies, significant informal market activity flourishes and shortages are common. High oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass nearly $70 billion in foreign exchange reserves. Yet this increased revenue has not eased economic hardships, which include double-digit unemployment and inflation.

The economy has seen only moderate growth. Iran's educated population, economic inefficiency and insufficient investment - both foreign and domestic - have prompted an increasing number of Iranians to seek employment overseas, resulting in significant "brain drain."

Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its activities in Lebanon and elsewhere in the world and remains subject to US and UN economic sanctions and export controls because of its continued involvement in terrorism and conventional weapons proliferation.

Following the election of reformer Hojjat ol-Eslam Mohammad KHATAMI as president in 1997 and similarly a reformer Majles (parliament) in 2000, a campaign to foster political reform in response to popular dissatisfaction was initiated. The movement floundered as conservative politicians, through the control of unelected institutions, prevented reform measures from being enacted and increased repressive measures.

Starting with nationwide municipal elections in 2003 and continuing through Majles elections in 2004, conservatives reestablished control over Iran's elected government institutions, which culminated with the August 2005 inauguration of hardliner Mahmud AHMADINEJAD as president. In December 2006 and March 2007, the international community passed resolutions 1737 and 1747 respectively after Iran failed to comply with UN demands to halt the enrichment of uranium or to agree to full IAEA oversight of its nuclear program. In October 2007, Iranian entities were also subject to US sanctions under EO 13382 designations for proliferation activities and EO 13224 designations for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.

In 1979, at the time of the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis, the United States imposed broad economic sanctions against Iran. Since then, Washington has imposed various additional sanctions against Tehran, accusing the Iranian government of developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring or funding terrorism abroad. The sanctions block US-based oil companies from operating in Iran, giving the US a strong incentive to generalize the sanctions and block US firms' foreign competitors from operating there as well.

In February 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program at Natanz, claiming it was using the technology for peaceful purposes and inviting the UN nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to visit. The US, however, alleged that the program is part of a drive to develop nuclear weapons and sought to refer the Iranian case to the Security Council. However in November 2004, Tehran signed a temporary agreement with Germany, France and Britain to cease uranium enrichment and the IAEA issued Iran a clean bill of health, effectively avoiding Security Council intervention. Nevertheless, the IAEA said it could not confirm that Iran is not pursuing undeclared nuclear activities and referred the case to the UN Security Council.

In May 2006, the Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the P5 and Germany offer of diplomatic and economic incentives and demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment programs by August 31. In December 2006, after Tehran’s failure to comply, the Council imposed sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology. Following the IAEA’S offer to Tehran of a 60 day grace period where halting of the country’s uranium enrichment would be exchanged for suspension of UN sanctions which Iran did not take up, the Security Council passed Resolution 1747 in March 2007, intensifying the previous sanctions package. Iran has vowed to continue with its nuclear energy program, but informal talks continue.

In March of 2008 the U.N. Security Council approved a third round of sanctions against Iran with near unanimous support, sending a strong signal to Tehran that its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment is unacceptable and becoming increasingly costly.

The vote was 14-0 with one abstention from Indonesia.

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazee told the council just before the vote that the government would not comply with the "unlawful action" against its "peaceful nuclear program."

"Iran cannot and will not accept a requirement which is legally defective and politically coercive," Khazee said. "History tells us that no amount of pressure, intimidation and threat will be able to coerce our nation to give up its basic and legal rights."

For the first time with regard to Iran's nuclear program, the Security Council sanctions have teeth, reported CBS News.

The resolution bans trade with Iran in goods that have both civilian and military uses. It also authorizes inspections of shipments to and from Iran by sea and air that are suspected of carrying banned items. This may not seem a big deal until you realize that Iran has no refinery for oil and must import its gasoline which is surely a product with dual civilian and military uses.

The resolution introduces financial monitoring of two banks with suspected links to proliferation activities, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. It calls on all countries "to exercise vigilance" in entering into new trade commitments with Iran, including granting export credits, guarantees or insurance. This may not seem a big deal until you realize that the World Bank can sweat these banks plenty and even close them down if need be.

The resolution also orders countries to freeze the assets of 12 additional companies and 13 individuals with links to Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile programs - and require countries to "exercise vigilance" and report the travel or transit of those Iranians. It imposes a travel ban on five individuals linked to Iran's nuclear effort.

We know that the US has suspended all supply of Fighter Jet parts thus grounding the Iranian Air Force. We have seen the Iranian Navy and it mainly consists of small boats. Their Army is landlocked except that they border Iraq and that border needs to be made tight and secure.

All signs are that Iran is biting off more than it can chew with its focus on nuclear weapons and that the sanctions, over time, will squeeze them until they start to look like North Korea. Like North Korea the nuclear weapons serve to get attention to the country but it’s not the kind of attention that you would want if you were trying to run a country.

Yes, Iran talks the talk – but can they keep on walking the walk? That is the nub of it and thus there is no case for going to war with Iran at this time nor in the near future. Bush is saber rattling once more and as usual he can’t be trusted to be telling the truth.

I’m not loosing sleep over Iran as long as the UN is monitoring weapons development and keeping the pressure on.

The Bush Administration has one thing right – a determination to extend development of an intercept capability for incoming nuclear weapons to the U.S. via ICBM. By keeping that technology growing then we are developing a way to negate Iran.

As for Obama, I think he has exactly the right strategy for Iran. Keep the communications channels open to the diplomatic corps because one day Iran is going to have to change their policy. We have time to figure out what our demands will be and we will be able to negotiate from a position of strength. Time is on our side. There is no need for war.