Israel in Focus: Has Israel done the dirty work once again?

This week I took an overview of the international proliferation issues being discussed throughout the blogosphere. I found two blogs which were debating the most recent actions of Israel in its alleged raid and bombing of a site within the sovereign state of Syria. The first post entitled “Syria, in the news,” is written by professor Engram at a “research university.” I commented on this blog because it has a sound argument in regards to Syria and also the important ramifications this issue encompasses regarding Iran, Israel, the United States, and Iraq. The second blog I chose is called “Captains Quarters Blog”; it discussed the upcoming peace talks, which Syria is still invited to attend. I commented on this blog because it had a different take on the issues surrounding the bombing of Syria and the upcoming peace negotiations. In both cases I have chosen to comment on different aspects of the current Syrian situation in the Middle East because I believe that although there has not been a great deal of publicity relevant to this incident, the outcome of it will have a tremendous effect on the stability of the region and the security of the world as a whole. (A visual statement of Israeli-American friendship in the image on the left)

It would seem that Syria has acted on a perception of the international community which was in no way a realistic view. It is possible that in its current situation, Syria believed that the only way to remain a sovereign power in the region was to continue its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and thus has been acting in a similar fashion to Iran. In Syria’s perception, building a nuclear weapons program may appear to be the most readily available way of preserving their existence and security. “Given that Syria is suicidally pursuing WMDs” this would seem like folly, but it has been observed in the recent past that rogue states which attempt to develop nuclear weapons ultimately profit, either through economic incentives, or from operating under the cover of fear in the international community that they may use such a device if antagonized, or the possibility of them passing such materials or devices on to non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda.

With the new developments linking Iran, North Korea, and Syria in efforts to establish programs to create nuclear weapons, it seems even less likely that the peace conference of the Middle East States will make any headway, assuming that with current tensions within the region such a conference can still take place. “It seems odd to include Syria in this conference, given current circumstances. The US just green-lighted an attack on a rogue nuclear facility in Syria.” However, it is interesting that the advantage of intelligence information and preemptive action has tilted further back towards Israel and the United States. But, there is another possibility which must not be overlooked. With the Western powers united against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, the increased pressure on the Middle East as a whole may force the parties to come to better terms. It is unlikely that this will come to pass in the near future because support from Western powers will be based on proof provided by Israel and/or the United States that Syria and North Korea were cooperating to create a nuclear Syria. (A more sinister relationship in the image on the right)

Fission or Fusion: Will the Western Powers Come Together to End Iran's Nuclear Ambitions?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (seen in the image to the left) seems to have taken on an aggressive and possibly overly confident posture towards the international community. Despite sanctions from the United Nations Security Council, Iran has resisted calls for the halting of its uranium enrichment program, the critical element of its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has downplayed Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel, stating its belief that Iran is currently only running around 2,000 centrifuges and that expansion of the program has slowed in the last few months. However, President Ahmadinejad contradicted this most recent report by declaring that "The West thought the Iranian nation would give in after just a resolution, but now we have taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines, installing a new cascade every week.” It would seem that either Ahmadinejad is attempting to place Iran in line for a war with concerned Western states, or he and his government have faith that international diplomacy will favor Iran.

Despite Iran’s best efforts to put forth the view that its nuclear research is benign, the vast majority of the international community remains suspicious of Iran’s intentions and is in agreement that a nuclear Iran would be a security threat that would serve to destabilize the Middle East. Some states, such as the United States and France view an Iran that is developing weapons grade nuclear material and possibly a nuclear device as a ticking time bomb. These differences in perspective among the Western powers are resulting in a dramatic shift in alliance positions. The coalition of the willing will be the phrase that defines the war in Iraq; however, as war appears to become an ever-increasing possibility against Iran, the ranks of the willing are adding some new and surprising faces. Perhaps the most unlikely or unforeseen of these is France.

In the last month French government officials, namely President Nicolas Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Berndard Kouchner, have sided with the United States by asserting that the international community must increase sanctions and other measures to ensure Iran does not acquire enough nuclear material to create an atomic bomb. Sarkozy said in a speech on the 27th of August, that without greater effort by the world powers to halt the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy, there will only be the choice of “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” This statement was strengthened and reiterated by the French Foreign Minister on September 16th when Kouchner said that France must be prepared for war against Iran. In reaction to the French saber rattling Iranian parliament member Alaeddin Boroujerdi announced: "Parliament will take stronger actions if the French government continues its illogical positions towards the Islamic Republic of Iran." Boroujerdi further implied that if France continues in this direction that "there is no reason to have billions of Euros of economic ties with France." Austria also condemned France's statement.

The United States and France are not alone in their insistence on a speedier resolution to the Iranian situation. On September 21st the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany are set to meet in Washington to discuss further sanctions to put pressure on Iran to comply. Germany has been included because of its vital role within the European Union and also its status as a world power. If this meeting is successful in bringing all six nations together in agreeing upon additional sanctions for Iran, then diplomacy may yet have a chance. Thus, the meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany may very well determine the future of diplomacy towards Iran.

It would appear that General Director of the IAEA, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei (seen in the image on the right) has already damaged the credibility of the UN sanctions by opining “that it is pointless trying to end all enrichment work in Iran.” If this is true, then perhaps Dr. ElBaradei is sending a message with only one conclusion; the UN cannot function on a level required to hold Iran to the requests of the Security Council. The deal which the IAEA made with Iran at the end of August, to bring Iranian research and work into the open, has already sparked controversy throughout the world. The United States and France, as well as other states, conclude that this will yield few answers and will in turn afford Iran valuable time. Both the IAEA and Iran have issued warnings to the Western powers to allow the opportunity for current diplomacy agreements to blossom. Iran has threatened that “If the Security Council tightens sanctions against Iran, then in the future our cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency will come to a halt."

With the United States and France both advancing a policy that an Iran with nuclear weapons is “unacceptable,” it appears that time for diplomacy is rapidly running out as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability every day. In this case, it seems clear that if the UN is unwilling or unable to act with firm resolve against Iran, then the United States, France, and other states with similar positions may well calculate that time is against them in this matter and could move toward open conflict to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons or weapons grade material. If Iran is willing to cooperate with the UN and honor the resolutions from the Security Council, then diplomacy could prevail. However, if Iran will not honor the resolutions set forth, then it is likely that the Security Council will be split and action will not be possible because of the veto power each permanent member retains. It is quite possible that without decisive action from the UN it will be necessary for a new collation of the willing to permanently end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This time, unlike the coalition building leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is likely that both Europe and the United States will stand together.