Ayatollas with Bombs

In an alarming development, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared on Iranian television that "At this historic moment, with the blessings of God Almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday." Assuming this statement and its timing to be accurate, Iran has essentially mastered the rudimentary research and development capability required to enrich uranium to the 3% required for nuclear fuel. This percentage refers to the concentration of the fissionable uranium isotope U-235 within the fuel. The secondary stage of weapon-grade development involves further enrichment of the uranium to 90%. This is a complex task that involves an experimental analysis of the fuel cycle and the construction of additional gas-centrifuges. Depending upon a variety of factors, including Iran's empirical results and its access to nuclear technologies, the nation could have access to the destructive technology within 6-48 months.

Why Iran?
It is a perverse misconception that the USA, Israel and its allies are averse to Iran possessing civilian nuclear power generators. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Iran may pursue peaceful nuclear power subject to international approval and transparency. However, Iranian authorities have been anything but transparent. According to Mohamed Elbaradei, the chief of the IAEA, Iran lacks a legitimate reason for nuclear power, "There's a lot of concern why Iran is developing an enrichment program, why do they need nuclear energy? They have a lot of gas, they have a lot of oil? There's a lot of skepticism there." Moreover, Iran has failed to disclose the location of numerous clandestine nuclear facilities and the illegal supply trail of their technologies, "These equipments have been imported from outside of Iran. They were not domestically manufactured." On Iran's mandated co-operation with the IAEA, Elbaradei observed, "..We had a very difficult relationship with Iran, cooperation was no good, information was slow, in many cases contradictory, and I have reported all that and I said that you are not helping us to build confidence. Verification is after all to try to build confidence, and we need transparency." Yet, the strongest evidence to support Iran's illegitimate nuclear ambitions was the nation's rejection of the Russian Proposal to enrich uranium on Russian soil. The statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that "The Russian proposal is not on our agenda anymore," was intentionally vague. Nevertheless, there may be no mistake of Iran's intentions.

Options
The world faces two options. The first is to retain an open dialogue with Iran and seek a diplomatic solution. Proponents of this option suggest possible economic sanctions and political isolation should talks fail. A detraction of this policy is that it's slow. Libya defied UN economic and political sanctions for two decades before finally capitulating. A second drawback is that in the medium-term Iran wields leverage in the form of crude oil. The alternate policy, one to which I subscribe, is to insist on immediate Iranian compliance with its obligations under the NPT. Through transparent inspections, Iran should abate global fears about its nuclear ambitions. Should this fail, the UN must respond with tactical strikes against known and suspected nuclear sites.

Appeasement- but at what cost?
Should the West elect to appease Iran and provide it with ample time to develop its nuclear arsenal, the world will begin living on borrowed time. Iran may elect to attack Israel, a move that would instigate a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran could extort its Muslim neighbours, threatening them with nuclear war. Iran could supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. The disastrous possibilities are limitless. Radical oppressive regimes and nuclear weapons don't mix.