Main Index of the Weekly Forecast & Review


Ultrapolis Weekly Forecast & Review

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

© Copyright 2010, The Ultrapolis Project – May be used freely with proper attribution.  All other rights reserved.


Iran on Zigzag Path to Atomic Bomb

Latest Declaration One More in Years-Long Series to Unalterable Goal


Presidential Declaration

Last Sunday on Iranian state television, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly directed Iran’s nuclear agency to begin enriching uranium, which acted on his orders on Tuesday.  The repeated efforts of the West, led by the U.S., continue to make no impression on Iran’s leadership.  In the face of this provocative development, the Obama administration, even as it renewed its call for sanctions (which China will not consent to) began to soften its stance, with a State Department Spokesman stating that “ if Iran didn’t trust the proposal we put on the table last fall, … we’re willing to explore those alternatives.”  Perhaps it is all just a simple misunderstanding. 


Succeeding With the Zigzag Method

In a pattern used with the same successfully endangering effect by North Korea’s dictatorship, Iran’s autocracy occasionally makes gestures that appear to suggest a willingness to negotiate a compromise, followed always by renewed open defiance of the United Nations, and more specifically the U.S. and its allies, in regards to its determination to become a nuclear power.  Each time, American negotiators, and their political patrons, assure the American people of the prospect for progress.  And, each time a hostile and volatile dictatorship draws closer to nuclear weaponry; closer to a position that will seriously, dangerously, hamstring any American projection of power, and thus jeopardize our ability to provide for our national security.  In 1994, former President Carter, (acting as President Clinton’s envoy), along with Clinton’s naïve Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, proudly declared the “Agreed Framework” agreement reached with North Korea, whereby they secured North Korea’s promise to freeze its nuclear program, and dismantle its nuclear facilities, in return for an American paid-for light-water reactor, a promise to keep all Korea nuclear-free, and not to invade North Korea.  The agreement relied greatly on North Korea’s good faith.  (Privately, Clinton was furious at Carter for making the announcement with only a few minutes’ notice.) We predicted that same year, in a weekly television program called Head to Head, that the agreement would be violated by North Korea, and the U.S. would find itself having provided more technology and aid to North Korea, in exchange for an illusion.


In 2002, North Korea admitted it still possessed a uranium enrichment program, in violation of the terms of the agreement.  According to Madeleine Albright, in an interview with NPR, “They did cheat. There's no question. But I think that there would have been a way, in an agreement, to get them to explain what they were doing and hope that that would be a way to mitigate the issue, but it's not a reason not to have agreements with them.”  That depends on what you seek to gain from an agreement - obviously, if the desired gain includes compliance, then such agreements are of little value.  During the Bush administration, implementing a do-nothing policy on top of Clinton’s (or rather, Carter’s) naïve one, the United States did nothing when North Korea drove trucks to the site where the fuel rods were stored, then away toward the reprocessing facility, now making it impossible to verify North Korean compliance with possible future agreements, crossing a ‘red line’ that Clinton had warned only eight years earlier would lead to a military strike.   Today, no one can tell for sure where Kim Jong Il is in his quest for nuclear weapons, but arms expert agree that he very well may already have some atomic bombs. 


Iran is a Good Learner, and We…

So, what does this experience tell us about Iran?  That we do not learn.  We continue to approach radical, dictatorial regimes ruled by megalomaniacal leaders, and expect to conduct a fair and logical discussion about our honest differences, and arrive at a civilized gentlemen’s agreement of trust and cooperation.  Madeleine Albright declared that the reason the accord she helped secure did not work was because they ‘lied.’  Really?  You don’t say!  What is this world coming to?  We Americans (especially on the Left, but also many on the Right) still can’t fathom why dictatorial regimes, which stay in power by keeping their people’s focus on an outward threat, don’t honor sensible, fair, good faith agreements that would secure everyone’s peace and harmony.  But, from Munich 1938 to today, they never do.


And so it will be with Iran.  China, a huge investor in Iran, has continuously shown little interest in backing sanctions with any teeth, and is more inclined to tells us when and where our president can meet with the likes of the Dalai Lama (and we actually listen), or to pull out of a mutual military cooperation agreement because of a not unusual sale of defensive weapons to Taiwan.  The Iranians might delay making clear that they have nuclear weapons, or make more temporary reconciliatory gestures, if it gets them more political maneuverability in the short term.  But, the fact is, short of a real uprising that overthrows the government of Iran (no thanks to Obama), there is nothing President Obama is willing or prepared (or possibly even able) to do that will stop Iran’s leadership from pursuing a policy that will get them ever closer to developing, and ultimately deploying, nuclear weapons. 


Reader Comments

Re: Our Brains on Religion: Scientific Data on Its Effects on Us


From Carlos Vega (with his permission):

I couldn't have written that more intelligently and succinctly than you have articulated it. I think your article has spoken volumes in a very clear and unbiased way




Main Index of the Weekly Forecast & Review

© Copyright 2010, The Ultrapolis Project

May be used freely with proper attribution.  All other rights reserved.