- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
We should reject the Guardian’s advice on Iran
Western leaders would do well to completely ignore the Guardian's advice. Simply accepting Iranian nuclear weapons is the one option which we should take off the table
Last week's Guardian editorial on Iran's nuclear programme was disgraceful even by Guardian standards.
Rather than urging - as one might expect - a peaceful solution to solve the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, the Guardian instead argues that "It really is time to drop the pretence that Iran can be deflected from its nuclear path".
That’s right; the Guardian's solution is not military action, not sanctions, not peaceful pressure, and not diplomacy. It’s outright surrender.
Bizarrely, the Guardian prefaces this recommendation by casting doubt on the evidence for Iran's nuclear weapons programme, implying that the IAEA report is just the latest example of “a flurry of leaks about Iran's nuclear programme, always tending to suggest, without being able to absolutely prove, that Tehran is working to acquire nuclear weapons capacity".
What the Guardian fails to recognise is that this report from the IAEA is, or at least should be, a ‘game changer’.
The IAEA, as opposed to only Western powers, finally comes off the fence and effectively rules out peaceful purposes for Iran’s nuclear programme. It says that Iran has carried out "work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components," and says of Iranian research that "the application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency.”
Faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, it might seem wise not to rule out any options, including military ones. But not for the Guardian: "An attack on Iran would of course be madness... It really is time for the United States to recognise that there is no military solution."
Really? What is the evidence for this claim? If it came to it, military action may only perpetually delay rather than permanently stop the Iranian nuclear programme. But given the alternative, that may turn out to be the least bad option.
So averse is the Guardian to the prospect of Western military action that it would rather accept an Iranian nuclear bomb and a future forever in its shadow than countenance such a policy.
The Guardian blithely argues that we should "be focusing not on the lost cause of what can be done to impede Iran's nuclear efforts" but on how to "live with" Iranian nuclear weapons.
This advice seems to rest on the assumption that the Iranian regime is rational, stable and predictable, and that it thinks like us. It isn’t and it doesn’t. Those who advocate living with an Iranian nuclear bomb are not just putting their faith in the current regime but in any future leader who may come to power in Iran.
Even if the Islamic Republic does not ‘use’ the weapons by launching them against Israel or anyone else, it will ‘use’ them to influence and threaten – explicitly or implicitly – its neighbours and the wider world, with the threat of nuclear Armageddon in the Middle East.
Iran - a country which already sponsors and directs terrorism, wages a proxy war against Israel (the country its president says should be “wiped off the map”), has been waging a proxy war against the UK and the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan and has repeatedly targeted British military personnel for hostage-taking – would be infinitely emboldened, knowing that it can act with impunity.
The Guardian argues that Iranian nuclear weapons might somehow put other states off going nuclear: “If neighbouring states were to conclude that pursuing the bomb had brought Iran no marked advantage, they might be cautious about emulating Tehran.” This is just wishful thinking.
Regardless of the ‘marked advantage’ for Iran – and it is hard to see how such a victory in defiance of the rest of the world could do anything other than boost Iran’s standing – other countries in the region are likely to respond by seeking nuclear weapons of their own; not because they want to emulate Tehran, but because they fear it.
A nuclear Iran is therefore most likely to trigger a nuclear arms race. And those regimes which do want to emulate Iran – such as that of Syria – will be inspired by Iran’s example. If we cannot or will not stop Iran, then how would we be expected to stop any of these other countries?
The Guardian says: "it really is time for both America and Israel to put aside the idea that they can stop history with high explosives, cyber-attacks, sanctions and assassinations."
History? Is that how they regard Iran going nuclear? It rather makes a mockery of their claim to support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
This is Western defeatism at its worst, coupled with a complete lack of appreciation for the differences between our values and those of the Islamic Republic.
Western leaders would do well to completely ignore the Guardian's advice. Simply accepting Iranian nuclear weapons is the one option which we should take off the table.
Peter Cannon is a Research Associate at the Henry Jackson Society
Print
"This is Western defeatism at its worst, coupled with a complete lack of appreciation for the differences between our values and those of the Islamic Republic." Absolutely. The 1930s equivalents of today's Guardian sympathisers argued the same thing visavi the Nazis: appeasement. Thankfully Churchill put a stop to that. Islamofascism should be met with the same intransigence. My only worry is that we have no Churchill...virtually all of our 'mainstream' leaders are Chamberlains.
As i understand it, Iran is not signed up to the NPT (I could be wrong), also its abit rich of Isreal to complain about another country having nukes.
I agree thier is a case for regime change in Iran for other reasons, but lets not forget what the USA/UK and allies done to thier nieghbour Iraq, I doubt it will come to war because the current oppressive regime want to keep power.
I can't help but wondering if you - and other commentators - want a war to stop them getting nuclear weapons or if you want an excuse because you want a war. The people arguing for a war - or an 'intervention' as they often refer to it - in Iran are the same that argued we must go to war with Iraq because of their non-existent WMDs and vocally support war in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any number of other countries.
To apply some intelligent thought to the matter: I ask the question what would be the effect of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon? The answer is either nothing whatsoever, or that, just like Trident does for the UK, it will deter aggressive nations who might otherwise seek to invade Iran and its interests. Iran would not use this weapon, the only nations they have real grievances with are all nuclear-powers themselves and so the retaliatory strikes would destroy Iran it wishes to have it for the same reason that the majority of nuclear powers have it - to put off other powers from initiating acts of war against it, which is not something it can be reasonably critisized for.
If you want regime change in Iran, then argue for that - do not come out with this sort of argument that is either deliberately false or has not been well thought through.
Given that the Guardian is a major promoter of all things Islam, this is of course, no surprise.
@BillyBowden: You are mistaken. Iran did sign up to the NPT (by doing so, a country voluntarily commits to not pursuing military nuclear technology in exchange for civilian nuclear technology) and illegally reneged on their promises. Israel never signed up to the NPT, and have thus ever lied on a national scale like Iran. And just in case you've been living in a cave over the last decade: Iran's leader promised to 'wipe Israel off the map' (which really should be considered a declaration of war), whilst Israel has never initiated aggression against its neighbours.
Christian, it is not that the Bowdens of this world have been living in caves, they fully understand that Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel. It is just they choose to believe it is a bluff. They quote the WMD debacle in Iraq as a reason NOT to go to war with Iran, but forget the Hitler debacle 60 years ago, when the appeasers chose to ignore Hitler until it was too late, and the horrendous consequences of those wasted years, when even the German army offered British and French leaders help in bringing down Hitler and was ignored. Selective history can be a terrible thing.
To the commenters here, don't spend too much time on historical precedents. Treat the potential threat on its own merits. The key questions are whether 1) the Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons, 2) its foreign policy is malign and 3) whether they are rational players for whom nuclear deterrence applies. In my view the answers are 1) yes, 2) yes and 3) open to considerable doubt. On this basis I support military action, covert action, whatever it takes to prevent them getting nukes. These will not provoke a regional war as the appeasers fear.
The Guardian - taxpayer subsidised sedition & treason. Multi millionaire landed gentry toff Polly Toynbee should bankroll the Guardian.
Between the guardian and the numerous other commentators, who truely is asking for peace in the universe? If our experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya is anthing to-go-by, I think a word is enough for the wise.
WTF should we attack Iran??? The place has absolutely nothing to do with us!
It's precisely because WE are the threat to that region that people there want to defend themselves. Israel isn't our problem either, what have they ever done for us?
What have the Israelis ever done for us?
Apart from keeping the Islamist extremists at bay, and being our most dependable Middle East ally you mean - ultimately protecting our oil supplies in the Arabian Gulf? Then there's their scientific, technological, medical and artistic achievements.
No, I guess not much, really, compared to what Iran has given us..
Hysteria versus fact: name one country Iran has INVADED over the past 50-60 years?
Ditto for Britain, USA and Israel.
Answer your question?
@Paul Viner: It's BECAUSE of Israel and it's catalogue of wrongdoings that we are pointlessly at odds with a Billion Muslims and their numerous countries with oil. Israel isn't a viable state if it needs hundreds of billions of charity arms aid. It's simply not worth it. Aside from that, most Jews don't even want to live there!
@Usually Correct - Ever heard of a Caliphate? Or Sharia Law? Or Anjem Choudary? Don't be so naive to think that if the West were to drop Israel as an ally, Islamism would cease and we'd all go back to happy families
@Libertad
Well it would sure be a good first step (and would save a hell of a lot of money)! BTW. Ever heard of the Talmud?
@Usually Correct - I suppose you're right; it would be a good first step. I mean, what better way to deal with extremists than to cave in to their demands. That'll certainly encourage them to stop, won't it? And then we could look forward to the other international basket cases threatening our allies until we drop them. Venezuela with Colombia; North Korea with the South... And of course, at home, we could look forward to the Occupy crowd petrol bombing financial offices so that we give them what they want. And fascists attacking gays and ethnic minorities until we decide to outlaw homosexuality and chuck everyone who's not white as the driven snow out of the country. No? Oh, OK.
@Libertad Hang on a sec there, who are you calling "terrorist"? It's Israel that's occupying territory. Territory that WE gave away against the wishes of the indigenous population, to Zionist terrorists who killed brits. It's not a question of "Should we bomb Iran?" (It's not threatening the west), the real question is "Why should we keep defending Israel and killing Muslims?"
Oh...dear...I literally didn't even mention the word "terrorist". How embarrassing for you! Answer me one question. If Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon and was then successful in wiping Israel off the map; what then? Do you think it would be happy with its lot?
@Libertad OK, "Extremist" then, you imply the same. What Iran and Israel do to each other is nothing to do with us. You imply that what happens (or doesn't) with Israel is somehow our problem when it isn't. Given a choice it's Iran and it's Gas and Oil we need to keep friendly with. Same with Gaza and the Palestinian's gas reserves that Israel wants to steal. I get the impression that a lot of people here are more concerned with Israel's security than GB's. I suggest if they love Israel so much they should go live there instead of trying to involve brits with their incessant hatemongering.
Sign up to receive updates from
The Commentator website!
-
No nukes for Iran: We must tell Tehran to comply or be bombed
-
Iran’s dangerous concoction of nuclear ambitions and Shiite Messianism
By Tom Wilson
-
Iran looks on as the West wrestles with contradictions over Libya intervention
-
After Gaddafi: Now we must take down Assad and Ahmadinejad
-
A nuclear armed Iran could be the price of the Libya campaign
stop bitchin the us and isreal ahave the bomb and both have threatened to bomb iran for decades.