Nuclear Middle East
BY Herschel Smith
17 years ago
In an odd occurrence today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued that diplomatic efforts to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran are working and should be given a chance to succeed. This pronouncement comes on the heels of an announcement by General Peter Pace that Iran is supplying weapons and other support to insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran is shipping arms and explosives to Afghanistan, in addition to providing deadly armor-piercing bombs covertly to Iraqi insurgents, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday.
“It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran,” Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace told reporters at a breakfast meeting …
A U.S. official with access to intelligence data confirmed that there are new signs of Iranian arms shipments to the Taliban in recent months. “We are concerned about Quds Force links to the Taliban, and there is reason to believe that shipments of rockets, mortars, small arms and other weapons are making their way from Iran to Afghanistan,” the official said …
“We know that there are munitions that were made in Iran that are in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” Gen. Pace said. He noted that members of the Quds Force are part of the IRGC, which is under the direction of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei …
There are also reports Iran is stepping up support for Iraqi insurgents. Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, told reporters Friday there are new signs that Iran is “not only providing support to Shia groups, but also Sunni insurgent groups.”
Just why Gates feels that whatever bargains are struck with Iran can be relied upon when Iran has denied a thousand times that they are involved in Iraq is not manifestly obvious. But a far better indicator of the danger that lies ahead may be found the in reaction of Iran’s neighbors. There appears to be a mad rush throughout the Middle East to go nuclear.
Two years ago, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told international atomic regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors.
So, too, Turkey is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East.
“The rules have changed,
On June 14, 2007 at 5:10 pm, leon said:
You need to check out the accuracy of the May 15th Prophecy in regards to what is happing in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and the return of the Hidden Imam
lastdaywatchers.blogspot.com
On June 14, 2007 at 5:20 pm, Herschel Smith said:
You hold to a version or brand of eschatology that I do not. You might want to go find a forum that more closely suits your interests. This one is about war, counterinsurgency, terrorism, Soldiers, Marines, etc.
On June 18, 2007 at 6:06 pm, Dominique R. Poirier said:
Countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others in the greater Middle-East express little interest for Jihadist considerations (as yet, I agree). Their likely future need or will to acquire nuclear energy is at least understandable and justifiable, in my own opinion. For some of those countries are probably nurturing some concerns and may seriously envisage alternative energy solutions at some point so as to save their own oil as we do, when they have some. It doesn’t mater how considerable is their proven reserves. They are just not inexhaustible and this point may easily sustain their possible claims in the future.
We have to walk in their shoes today if we want to understand them tomorrow.
It is none of my intention to play the doomsayer, but it is much likely that we will have to seriously face this reality someday. There is a dilemma that seems obvious to me and it unfolds as follow:
Either we consistently manage to deny them access to nuclear energy –yes, I insist on energy, however— and they will inescapably protest and manage to make us passing as an authoritarian and uncompromising leading power that wants to impose its will upon the whole world sor selfish reasons.
If they don’t do that themselves, some other countries having a vested interest in influencing them toward that way will do it for them, doubtless.
Or we find a consensus allowing them access to nuclear energy and, thenceforth, we expose ourselves to the risk of seeing eventually the coming of a political/religious upheaval somewhere in this region that will make place for a reckless Islamic fundamentalist regime equipped with nuclear technology. We play dices, in short.
Nonetheless, it remains that if the case of Iran is particular and justifies everyone’s concerns for obvious reasons, then we can hardly justiy a denial of access to progress to those others Arabic countries, even though we cannot know what will be their political future. As seen from a today’s viewpoint, it is a tricky problem, of course, but we may surmise, at least, that the future will bring its share of new and unexpected events; disappointing and good ones either.
In such a context I consider that acting may either consist in doing something or be temporarily passive. It happens sometimes that a moderate decision or a concession requires far greater political courage than confrontation. This is particularly true when relations with a political adversary are involved; but there is no such adversity as yet, fortunately. I hope this last sentence will not be misunderstood; for it has nothing to do with cowardice.