|
Whenever an Iranian scientist is killed or a mysterious explosion takes
place inside a sensitive facility, the veil is briefly lifted on an
intense covert effort to derail Tehran's nuclear ambitions. By David Blair 8:25PM GMT 11 Jan 2012
The Telegraph UK This campaign appears to be having a real impact: Iran's nuclear
programme is not progressing as quickly as Pakistan's for example.
Sabotage has already imposed significant delays, certainly measured in
months and possibly in years.
Buying time is a perfectly respectable goal of policy, particularly when
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will step down as president next year, while
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is 72 and in poor health. Yet in the end, covert action can achieve nothing more than delay. If
Iran's current leaders or their successors are implacably determined to
acquire the means to build nuclear weapons, then they will succeed
eventually, even if the West were to launch a war to destroy their key
installations. Eventually, the world may have to live with a nuclear-armed Iran - or at
least a nuclear-capable adversary permanently on the threshold of
building the ultimate weapon. "There's little in practical or military
terms that you can do to stop it," said Paul Cornish, professor of
international security at Bath University. "You can never destroy the
Iranian capability: all you can do is hold it up." While no western government, let alone Israel or the Arab monarchies of
the Gulf, is prepared to say that it could live with a nuclear-armed
Iran, their actions suggest they are preparing for this contingency. America's plan for missile defence in Europe is explicitly designed to
guard against a future threat from Iran. The central purpose of this
shield would be to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from blackmailing
America's Nato allies. Meanwhile, the Gulf states, who live in the shadow of Iran's
nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, are also investing in
theatre missile defences. The only rationale for these schemes is to
minimise the risks posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Even in Israel, experts talk sotto voce about how the country would
adapt its security policy if Iran were to cross the vital threshold. The
first move would probably be for America to provide an explicit
guarantee of Israel's security, akin to the pledge in Article Five of
Nato's founding treaty. However a nuclear-armed Iran might become far more belligerent. Iranian
influence in the Middle East could expand as it funnels more weapons and
support to extremist allies, particularly Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas
in Gaza. In extremis, Iran could provide some nuclear security guarantees of its
own. Suppose Hizbollah were to bombard Israel with its Iranian-supplied
arsenal of missiles. When Israel prepares to retaliate, Iran issues a
pointed reminder that it now has nuclear weapons. What would have been a
local crisis then becomes a regional confrontation with the possibility
of nuclear escalation. Meanwhile, the oil price rises through the stratosphere. Living with a nuclear-armed Iran might mean enduring just such a scenario.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites  |
