For a fact-filled discussion of America’s role in promoting the Iranian Bomb I highly recommend the JPost blog by Stephen Hughes, The Iranian nuclear dilemma, enrichment to military dimensions, and the overlooked answer. It provides an excellent compilation of Iranian intentions and progress in weapons development since 2013. And while I wholeheartedly endorse your criticism of Obama as naive or stupid or both regarding the failed negotiation with the Islamic Republic (IR is not far from IS (ISIL)!) one point you failed to mention is that the "Obama Policy" is actually America's Policy as it spans at least two US administrations. Those failed 2003 "agreements" were conducted early in the Bush Administration, with that president already up to his ears fighting Iran-armed, trained and financed surrogates in Iraq. Since US generals commanding that military disaster were speaking publicly of the Iranian involvement (recall that Chalabi, an Iranian double, encouraged Rumsfeld in planning the Iraqi debacle: Iran used Bush to rid Iran of its only obstacle to a land bridge to the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant (Syria, Israel))... has engaged Obama to provide time to emerge as "threshold state" through endless "negotiations," legitimacy until Iran decides to break out!

Unless we are willing to begin a discussion of the Iranian bomb with an appreciation that what is under discussion is a US policy and not just the present incumbent of the White House; that it is actually a bi-partisan policy that will continue as before; that once presidential politics evaporates that we will still be stuck with Iran as US policy we will just remain stuck on stupid regarding that policy. And the outcome of that policy: a nuclear arms race already in planning in Saudia and Egypt and, believe it or not, Jordan; that the regional instability American policy has wrought as a result of that policy: that the bottom-line of America's regional and global policy is an abandonment of its superpower role and retreat into isolationism we will have failed also accept responsibility for the results of this cowardly policy: a regional nuclear arms race; increased global terrorism far better armed and more sophisticated than ever: That US policy will not just have promoted Iranian "hegemony" to buttress US withdrawal but the aims of Iranian = IS goal of a showdown with the Crusaders. And if the West so easily compromises on an Iranian Bomb, where will it draw the line on the expanding war against the West? Where did it draw the line in 1938?

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

I will not reprint the blog in its entirety as it is long and limit myself to the first paragraphs. For anyone who has followed my writings since the Bush era the narrative will sound familiar. It is the facts with hyperlinks that make this an outstanding addition to the anti-treaty discussion.


The Iranian nuclear dilemma, enrichment to military dimensions, and the overlooked answer

by Stephen Hughes

In October 2003, Iran concluded a voluntary agreement with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom collectively known as the “E3,” to suspend its enrichment activities, sign and implement an Additional Protocol to its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)  safeguards agreement, and comply fully with the IAEA’s investigation. As a result, the agency’s board decided to refrain from referring the matter to the U.N. Security Council.

On 18th December 2003 Iran signed the Additional Protocols to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The understanding is the IAEA would therefore be able to carry out “anywhere anytime” inspections in Iran. Tehran signed this Additional Protocol in December 2003, but has never ratified it.

UN Security Council adopted six resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that called on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and its activities for the eventual production of plutonium. Chapter VII resolutions are binding international law. But what if the West now says that the suspension is no longer necessary? What does that mean for the binding nature of Chapter VII resolutions? NOTHING …

Tehran is previously in breach of a number of Security Council resolutions requiring it cease all uranium enrichment and heavy water activity a process used to create weapons-grade plutonium. Furthermore, none of this activity is even remotely necessary if Iran, as it claims, only wants a peaceful nuclear program.

So why is Iran conducting Nuclear Enrichment?  Time and time again we hear the Islamic Republic needs to be given a grand bargain to bring it to the nuclear table. In fact there was a grand bargain given, “uranium enrichment”.

While running for president, Barack Obama promised to meet the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran “without preconditions.” In order to jump-start diplomacy upon taking office, Obama recognized the country’s right to enrich uranium. Rather than enable diplomacy, this concession poisoned it. With a single statement, Obama unilaterally stripped of authority three hard-fought Security Council Resolutions forbidding enrichment. Iranian authorities responded by ramping up enrichment and flatly rejecting to negotiate suspension… 

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share