Iran and the Abyss

The Islamic Republic of Iran has left few in doubt of the fact that it intends to develop nuclear weapons in direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed in 1968. For several years now, European powers like France, Britain, and Germany have tried to negotiate with this regime, while on this side of the Atlantic, the United States—its hands tied in Iraq—has stood by, a complicit “bad cop.” The attempts at dialogue have proved futile, and because of this, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) last week voted to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. Tehran’s ambiguity and unending flip-flops on Russia’s proposal to enrich uranium outside Iranian territory, as well as its destruction of the United Nations protective seals on enrichment facilities in sites like Natanz, have rightly put the world on alert.

The Guardian Council that runs Iran does not represent the interests or desires of the Iranian people, and its ever-escalating rhetoric presents an unacceptable threat to global stability. Recently “elected” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a self-proclaimed religious fundamentalist who publicly denies the Holocaust and has publicly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” The regime’s bravado has only increased with its belief that it can hold the world hostage through its influence over the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

We must, at all costs, ensure that Iran is kept from accessing the fissile material necessary to build atomic weapons—no greater threat currently exists to global security. While hope for reconciliation and an eventual “grand bargain” with Tehran are well-intended, they must be balanced with the disturbing reality that Iran has reneged on offers of this nature time and again.

Following up on the general agreement in the IAEA meeting, the U.S. should seek the support of the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran with an eye to reigning the current regime in, or more hopefully, encouraging grassroots democracy movements to reassert themselves. Undoubtedly, the U.S. will face resistance from China and Russia, who benefit from favorable oil contracts with Tehran today. To the extent possible—while respecting the autonomy of the Iranian people—the U.S. should assuage Chinese and Russian fears that a new Iranian administration would spell an end to these favorable deals at the profit of U.S. oil interests.

Failing support from Beijing or Moscow, the current state of affairs requires the U.S. to undermine the Tehran regime on its own. The ties between the elites in Iran and fundamentalist terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda are undeniable, and in contrast with the Iraqi case, their pursuit of nuclear technology for military purposes becomes clearer every day. Having witnessed Tehran’s ambiguity and deceptive response to IAEA demands, it is clear that naïve hope for regime change cannot guide U.S. foreign policy any longer.