Saturday, September 23rd | 3 Tishri 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
December 17, 2013 4:24 pm

With Geneva, Military Force Only Remaining Option to Stop Iranian Nukes

avatar by Morton A. Klein and Daniel Mandel

Email a copy of "With Geneva, Military Force Only Remaining Option to Stop Iranian Nukes" to a friend

Satellite imagery revealing potential nuclear cover-up activity in Iran. Photo: ISIS.

The interim nuclear agreement between the P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States as well as Germany) and Iran is a disaster. President Obama has said that this deal dramatically reduces the likelihood of war. Ironically, it increases it. It certainly dramatically increases the likelihood that Iran will develop nuclear weapons.

The Geneva interim agreement permits Iran to retain intact all the essential elements of its nuclear weapons program:

  • Continued construction of its Arak plutonium plant;
  • Continued uranium enrichment to 5% (which, with 18,000 centrifuges, can enable swift enrichment to weapons-grade level, allowing Iran to become a break-out nuclear state in a matter of months);
  • Its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) programs (which, according to U.S. intelligence, will enable Iran to strike the U.S. itself by 2015);
  • Its enriched uranium stocks (Iran being simply required to reduce them to an oxide which can be restored in weeks to weapons-grade uranium).

The interim agreement also grants Iran substantial sanctions relief totaling some $20 billion; not the $6-7 billion originally forecast by the Administration.

Thus, the P5+1 opted for an interim agreement which lets Iran off the sanctions hook. If we could not obtain a final agreement with Iran that terminates its nuclear weapons program when international sanctions are at their height, how likely are we to obtain a final agreement that accomplishes that, now that sanctions have been relaxed?

Related coverage

September 20, 2017 4:35 pm
0

Does the President Have the Right to Expect Loyalty From his Attorney General?

This article was first published by Gatestone Institute. Recent news reports describe the president chastising his Attorney General Jeff Sessions for disloyalty. According...

This is a regime whose leadership has stated frequently that it intends to destroy Israel. (The notion that this is a fallacy stemming from repeated mistranslations has been debunked by an authoritative study by the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs). Indeed, during the Geneva negotiations, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking before a mass rally in which militiamen were chanting ‘Death to America,’obscenely declared that “Zionist officials cannot be called humans …The Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation.”

Worse, Tehran probably cannot be deterred from using nuclear weapons, because, as the doyen of scholars of Islam, Emeritus Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton Bernard Lewis, noted years ago, “MAD, mutual assured destruction … will not work with a religious fanatic. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement.” Indeed, the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, did declare, “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah … I say, let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.” Destroying Israel is central to its vision of Islamic triumph.

What could have been done? Continuing and increasing sanctions alone might have induced Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. Intent on obtaining nuclear weapons and becoming a regional superpower, Tehran might have yielded nonetheless on the nuclear issue if the preservation of the regime — and thus its ability to advance the radical Shia Islamist cause that animates it –was endangered. We cannot be certain, but Tehran’s yielding, rather than risking a run to the bomb, was a possibility.

However, now that sanctions have been relaxed, Tehran will refuse to sign them away. When that happens, contrary to President Obama contention that the deal leaves us ‘no worse off,’ we will find that the tough sanctions that we abandoned in Geneva cannot be reinstated, let alone strengthened.

Indeed, this is the end of the sanctions regime. But even assuming that the sanctions regime does not break down, it takes time for new contracts to be halted. Even if, with hard work and good luck, certain sanctions are reinstated, it would take many months for this to occur and many more months for them to take their toll on Tehran.

In other words, at best, we have lost a year — if not two or three — to bring the regime around to the hard choice of abandoning its nuclear weapons program. Given Iran’s ability to become a ‘break-out’ nuclear power in a matter of mere months, we no longer have a year to spare.

Perhaps a credible threat of U.S. military action even now might suffice: the only time Iran halted its nuclear program was during 2003-5, when the U.S.-led coalition dismantled Saddam Hussein’s regime. (Recall this was also the time that Libya voluntarily relinquished its nuclear program). Clearly demonstrated U.S. willingness to use force produced results.

It will be extremely hard now for President Obama to credibly threaten military action: if he failed to honor his red line and take military action when Syria actually murdered thousands with chemical weapons, Iran is unlikely to take seriously any red line he might lay down now on building nuclear weapons. Yet he should do so without delay. But even if he does, there is now probably no way Iran can be prevented from going nuclear, except through military action.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Dr. Daniel Mandel is Director of ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy and Fellow in History at Melbourne University.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Leif

    Israel must learn to talk to its enemies, not with its friends in Washington D.C.

    • Tashina

      Sounds like bible prophecy is unfolding…unfortunately we cannot fight against gods word, no matter how hard we try

    • Raymond in DC

      And exactly who’s refusing to talk? When the idea of Israel participating in subsequent nuclear talks alongside the P5+1 was raised, Iran made clear if that happens the talks would be over, as they will not talk to Israel. What comes of those discussions is very much a matter of concern to Israel, so it should have a place at the table. But Iran won’t accept that. So go tell *them* to talk to its enemies (including Israel).

  • Yale

    Maybe we should consider that the Geneva Capitulation was the result of Obama’s total lack of credibility: Nothing this man says can be taken at face value.

  • Emanuel

    Resolution of the Iranian threat now rests squarely on Israel and Saudi Arabia who must work together and exercise perfect judgment; but it is possible, at this point both have superior intelligence and tact. The incompetence, sabotage and deception of the US administration have no place in foreign policy let alone dealing with the threat of nuclear war. Now even Kissinger agrees that the Obama policy is off and I believe that fairly settles it. I hope there are enough non-partisan Americans out there who can do the math and see through the deception and back a joint Israeli-Saudi solution because Obama, although charming, is not capable of doing the right thing and the Iranians are right about him he isn’t trustworthy.

    • Michael Garfinkel

      Obama is charming? The man is a veritable font of arrogance, duplicity, and incompetence.

      • Emanuel

        Good point, I was referring to that quality about him that makes other people want to help him, he is very good at faking sincerity and garnering support. He is also smug, dismissive and manipulative but with a very warm smile.

Algemeiner.com