Iran's nuclear train has left the station

Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and a commentator on religion and politics for National Public Radio.

The reliably bizarre and bellicose rhetoric of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must have some BBC editors reaching for their medication.

Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran has ignored a UN Security Council deadline to suspend its enrichment of uranium. In fact, IAEA head Mohamed El Baradei said that Iran was accelerating its enrichment program, from research-scale to industrial-scale. That means, despite official denials, that the Islamist government in Tehran is inching closer to possessing a nuclear weapon. Key members of the Security Council met Monday in London to consider a new UN resolution against Iran.

It looks like one will be needed: “Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel,” declared the Iranian leader, “and Iran’s move is like a train…which has no brake and no reverse gear.”

How is a modern news organization—committed to rational discourse, conventional diplomacy, and a secular view of the universe—to approach all of this? For now, it seems, by downplaying the most unseemly and unsavory elements of the regime in Tehran. Better to focus on US Vice President Dick Cheney—a figure who seems to frighten European elites as much any Iranian mullah—and alleged American war plans. Better, it seems, to shy away from the hard questions and (to quote Oscar winner Al Gore) the “inconvenient truths” about Iran.

Here are a few that come to mind, which rarely seem to surface in the BBC’s coverage:

• Iran sits atop the world’s second-largest oil reserves, yet the country is rationing gasoline. Why is Tehran so desperate to develop nuclear energy to overcome its manmade energy crisis?
• Three leaders of the European Union—France, Britain, and German—have spent over two years in negotiations with Iran to gently persuade the government to halt uranium enrichment, all to no effect. Why?
• Why has Iran refused Russia’s offer to help build a nuclear facility to ease its energy problems?
• Iran is the only member state of the United Nations in recent memory to call for the destruction of another member state—Israel. Why are there no consequences for violating the clear mandate of the UN Charter? (Article Two: “All nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity…of any state.”)
• Iran proudly maintains an official “death to America” day. Why should America trust Iran with a nuclear weapon?
• Iran ranks as the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism,” providing funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to terrorist groups in the Middle East. What exactly is the “international community” doing about that?
• Human rights organizations put Iran on their short-lists of the world’s most repressive governments. Why don’t we hear more from Iranian dissidents or exiles about life under the regime?
• US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she is “prepared to meet my counterpart or the Iranian representative at any time, if Iran will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities.” Iran refuses, yet the United States is often portrayed as the undiplomatic spoiler in this crisis. Why?
• The Iranian president, a radical Shia Muslim, says he has a “divine mission” to hasten the apocalypse with the appearance of the Shia messiah, the “hidden imam.” How might possession of a nuclear weapon aid Iran in this mission?

The BBC, it should be noted, did not shrink back from covering last weekend’s anti-war rally in London. At least 10,000 people marched to Trafalgar Square to protest the American-led war in Iraq and to call for the complete withdrawal of British troops. Once again, the political left (Stop the War Coalition) marched in lock step with Islamic militants and their sympathizers (the British Muslim Initiative, etc.). Placards of George W. Bush as “the world’s number one terrorist” and Tony Blair as “war criminal still at large” littered the landscape. Leftist MP George Galloway—expelled from the Labour Party for his extremist views—received unencumbered air time for his usual noxious bile against the United States and Great Britain.

Indeed, one has to wonder who writes the slogans for the anti-war crowd. “They [Western democracies] are concerned about the collapse of their hegemony and hollow power.” Those were the words, in fact, of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, uttered the same weekend.

No one seemed to notice, but back in Tehran—at almost the exact moment that London protestors were trashing America and Britain for their international “aggression”—the Iranian military had launched a long-range rocket. It apparently was intended to show off Iran’s ability to build intercontinental ballistic missiles—technology happily supplied by Russia, China, and North Korea. Yet the London demonstrators carried on, unfazed and unhinged from the reality of Islamic extremists devoted to acquiring nuclear weapons.

One could almost hear the ghost of Chamberlain moaning in the midwinter assembly. Even in our post-9/11 era, it’s difficult for many Europeans—especially secular Europeans—to conceive of a nation-state driven by radical religious visions and hatreds. It’s more comforting to interpret Iranian belligerence in purely political or economic terms. It’s somehow more satisfying to place the burden of blame on the shoulders of the West.

The West has its contradictions, deep injustices, and cynical politics. America and Europe have enabled the animosities that now threaten the foundations of civilized life. And, yes, there is a self-fulfilling danger in viewing every Iranian action as part of a vast religious plot: There are Muslim voices for democratic reform in Tehran. There is real dissent and there are deep political and cultural divisions—dissent and divisions that leaders in the West should be keen to exploit.

Let’s try to exploit them, with all the diplomatic skill and nerve we have, but let’s do it with our eyes open. Let’s keep the untidy facts and troubling questions on the table. And let’s remember that time is not on our side.

Comments

[Eugene A]

What really blew me out of the water is that arab states have given Israel permission for a fly-over to bomb Iran.

Iranians think they are very clever and that nobody sees that all they are doing is stalling for time hoping that they can create a nuke. Here's my message to them: we know exactly what you are doing and you are not fooling anyone. We will not hesitate to bomb you when the time comes and I hope people of Iran realize that too.

[Mike]

Just stumbled on this blog, and I like it. As a patriotic American who is more pro-British than many of the Brits I've lived and worked with in the past, I'll watch this page with interest.

The American people, IMO, have had it with the tedious and thankless nation-building version of warfighting we've seen in Iraq, and I wouldn't expect a repeat of that model in any possible war with Iran. Besides, unlike Iraq, Iran is too big to take on as a project. The Iranian people really, really need to understand that. In the last century, plenty of good people who happened to be born German or Japanese suffered because of their governments' policies. Iranians may soon find themselves in the same position.

God Bless America / Hail Britannia

[d00d]

Off topic, but since the BBC was mentioned:
I watched a recent BBC report on the new Oil Law passed in Iraq.

The only thing mentioned in the report were:
A) critics claims that Iraq is a war for oil
B) that much of the law was written in English, by American subcontracters
C) Gives American companies access to Iraqi oil field development projects.

ie: The war's all about oil & here's some proof of it.

It didn't mention AT ALL anything about the distribution of Iraqi oil wealth that is the purpose of the law, which you'd think is significant. Fuck you BBC! Thanks!

[Kevin Sampson]

"Even in our post-9/11 era, it’s difficult for many Europeans—especially secular Europeans—to conceive of a nation-state driven by radical religious visions and hatreds"

I don't know why, the US is routinely portray as exactly that.

[zzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Teddy Bear]

d00d - What's even worse about the BBC presenting the war in Iraq as being about oil, is that they do it as if it was, then that's a wrong thing to do.
As far as I know our world runs on the stuff and if anybody is threatening its supply, then its impact on our society would be the same as if they had dropped a massive nuclear bomb on us. Of course the liberals don't have the capacity to think things through, so just saying "it's about oil", gets them tut-tutting.

[Sachin]

Iran is the only country in the world who can dare to challenge the hegemony of US & Israel.
Israel can develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons but Iran cant.
If Iran is to be called sponsor of terrorism then US is way above iran.It helped the Mujaheedins in afghanistan.It helped the Saddam in the past.It helped so many terrorist groups in Latin America.
Then my all the good friends who call Iran sponsors of terrorism tell me who is the real sponsor of terrorism.
My dear friend Eugene who says that
"We will not hesitate to bomb you when the time comes and I hope people of Iran realize that too."
Yes you can do that.What else can you coward people do?No one here is afraid of death.Everyone has to die some time.
I dont think Mr Eugene is going to be immoratal.