Chatham House on Iran’ s Nuclear Future

Yesterday I went to an on the record Chatham House meeting on the subject of Iran’s nuclear future. The meeting was based on a Chatham House paper that was written by two former British diplomats, Sir Richard Dalton (former ambassador to Iran) and Peter Jenkins (Former ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)).

Dalton’s and Jenkins’ analysis is based on their assessment and trust that Iran is not intent on acquiring nuclear weapons combined with seemingly much trust in the IAEA’s ability to effectively monitor against violations. This attitude is either naïve or dishonest. Have IAEA never been misled and importantly, can one really assess another country’s intentions? Can one afford to take a view when it comes to intentions to develop nuclear weapons?

Concerning assessment: There is currently a serious argument between Israel’s Internal Secret Service and Israel’s Military Intelligence as to whether Hamas had intended the July war in Gaza to happen or whether things just got out of hand. Evidently, these two organisations with many years of expertise and experience, not to speak of how entrenched they are with sources within the Arab world, are unable to reach a conclusion.

It may be that Chatham House or the British FCO have no issue with Iran holding nuclear weapons. If that is the case, they should openly say so. Otherwise – one can only hope that Dalton and Jenkins do not negotiate on Britain’s behalf.

A totally different question is whether the resultant opening up of Iran to the West, were an agreement reached, would not worry the Iranian regime? Such opening up to the West may be the very thing that Khamenei would want to prevent. In that case, reaching only a partial agreement with sanctions lifted may be Iran’s preferred option. 

Grass II – The Question not Asked

The Dutch coffee shop owner told me that as he has never heard of Gunter it couldn’t be high quality. Whatever the quality, Günter Grass’ anti-Israel stanza has caused much excitement, especially in Germany and in Israel.

Grass may be a fading old writer hankering after publicity. Maybe anti-Semitism has also played a role. Stupidly or maliciously he suggested that in a pre-emptive strike, Israel would annihilate the Iranian population. This is an outrageous accusation. He could have posed a morally tougher question:

The purpose of Israel’s nuclear weapons is for its enemies to believe that under certain circumstances they would be used. If Israel’s existence would be at risk, it would make use of these doomsday weapons.

For that to be an effective deterrent, it must be understood that an attack on Israel could lead to mutual destruction.

I expect that Grass, like many other non-Israelis if asked whether Israel should use its nuclear weapons AFTER it was attacked – would say NO. They would condemn the country that destroyed Israel, they would offer condolences to the bereaved, but they would not accept a counterattack.

Grass’s moral issue should have been the possible use by Israel of U-boats supplied by Germany to accomplish such an eye-for-an-eye.

Günter Grass

In a poem published yesterday, Günter Grass has informed the world that he is worried about Israel’s possible use of German supplied U-boats to fire nuclear missiles at Iran. I hope that the Iranians share his worry, although, I also would not want Israel to initiate an attack on Iran.

At a time, when Iran is being pressurised to give up its nuclear ambition, an important question is whether it is morally right for Israel to possess nuclear weapons. Not one of the (other) eight countries that currently have nuclear weapons has enemies threatening them with extinction. Yet, Israel, from the first day of its existence, has been under the threat of destruction. The world stood by when Arab countries threatened to wipe out the “Zionist entity”, as they used to call Israel, and it stands by with Iran promising that the Jewish state would disappear.

Israel has never conceded to having a bomb and therefore has never threatened anyone with its nuclear power. But, would it not be legitimate for Israel to make it clear that before its existence would be in jeopardy, it would use its nuclear weapons?

Grass speaks of Israel the nuclear power that endangers world peace; of Israel that could in a pre-emptive strike wipe out the Iranian people. He does not define Iran as a country that endangers world peace. Iran, whose existence is not in danger nor has it been threatened, is working towards becoming a nuclear power. Why?

Grass makes much of what he says was his own difficulty in speaking out against Israel. In his own version of “some of my best friends are Jews” Grass assures us that he is committed to the Land of Israel (mind you, he speaks of the land not the state). I have no idea and that is not the issue, but there have been suggestions that anti-Semitism is rearing its head out of the Grass.

He would have been on safer ground had he attacked Israel on its occupation of the West Bank and the settlement of Israelis in the occupied territories. Unlike the Iranian question, this is an issue that has nothing to do with survival or security. It is just morally wrong. But in his poem, Grass dealt with his own angsts rather than with issues of morality.

On Attacking Iran II

Last week’s question brought many comments: nearly all opposing an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites. Many just said no without explaining why. Others gave reasons.

I was somewhat puzzled by the comment that Israel had no moral case as it had “acquired nuclear weapons clandestinely and so lacks the moral authority to act against other nations that do the same.” Unlike Iran, Israel has never threatened any other state with eradication. Is self-defence not good enough moral authority?

In the whirlpool of psychological warfare on the Iranian nuclear programme, it is important to note that senior heads and former heads of Israel’s Mossad and other Israeli security services have spoken out against an Israeli attack.

Interestingly, troublemakers nowadays do not seem to make clear demands. I do not recall any demands made by Al-Qaida, nor has Iran named its demands. I wonder what would have happened if Iran would have announced to the world that were Israel to go back to the 1967 borders it would dismantle its nuclear facilities. It would give Iran a great climb-down with brownie points almost everywhere.

Well, Mr. Ahmadinejad, worth trying? Please note that this is my second piece of retainer-free advice to Ahmadinejad this year (see my blog on 11 January).

Should Israel Attack Iran?

Iran has on many occasions made it clear that the State of Israel should not and will not exist for much longer. They have supplied their proxies on Israel's borders, the Hamas and Hezbollah, with weapons and they now have a nuclear weapons programme that they will not give up.

We are currently in the midst of an increasingly heated psychological warfare campaign and disinformation effort of which it is impossible to make sense. However, it appears that Israel has failed in its attempts to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capability.

Although, the idea of a nuclear Iran makes many very uncomfortable, the only country that is openly and aggressively being threatened by Iran is Israel.

There is some similarity to 1967, when Nasser moved his army into the Sinai, threw out the UN peacekeepers, closed the straits of Tiran and declared that finally Israel would be annihilated.

Should Israel go out on a pre-emptive strike?