Iran Plays The Stalling Game

The New York Times has a piece up today regarding the latest chapter and verse in the growing Iranian problem. Let's see if this rings anyone's warning bells, shall we?

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said here on Wednesday that he welcomed a Russian proposal to defuse the confrontation between Iran and the West over its nuclear programs by establishing a joint venture to enrich uranium in Russia. But he indicated that no agreement had been reached and that significant details remained to be negotiated.

"Our attitude to the proposal is positive," Mr. Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, said after meeting with his Russian counterpart, Igor S. Ivanov, Russian news agencies reported. "We tried to bring the positions of the two sides closer."

At the same time, he warned that Iran would begin enriching uranium on an industrial scale if its nuclear program was referred to the United Nations Security Council. His remarks came a day after Mr. Larijani and Mr. Ivanov said the confrontation should be resolved at the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose governors are scheduled to meet next week.

Although the Russian proposal has been seen as a possible compromise, Mr. Larijani's remarks made it clear that further discussions of it would not take place until later in February, after the meeting at the atomic energy agency's headquarters in Vienna.

Russia has publicized few details of the proposal. It has not addressed, for example, whether Iran's involvement in a joint venture would simply be financial or whether it would be scientific as well. Russia had previously offered to produce uranium for a nuclear power plant it is building in Iran on condition that the spent fuel be returned to Russia for reprocessing.

"The big issue for the Russians will be how much the Iranians demand technical access to the processes," said Rose Gottemoeller, director of the Moscow Carnegie Center and a former nonproliferation official during the Clinton administration.

Wow. Doesn't this sound familiar? I can recall a similar game played by another dictator back in the 1990s. Yes, Im referring to Saddam Hussein. This game was the one played by Saddam with the IAEA and the UN for twelve years. See, Iran just found a new, "positive" outlook on the burdgeoning crisis, so everyone will back off. The Russians are going to "negotiate" with them, giving them more time to continue their enrichment process.

I also don't like the veiled threat that was made above--the one I bolded and italicized--that should this be referred to the Security Council, they will go fast forward on their enrichment process. No, no. We don't play this game. Not at this time, not at this point in world history. We know what's going to go on while these negotiations are underway. They're still going to move forward.

--In 2002, the US accused Iran of working on the construction of nuclear weapons.

--June, 2003: The IAEA announces that Iran has not come clean with it's nuclear programs.

--October, 2003: Iran and the IAEA negotiate a new, stringent set of rules maintaining their compliance.

--October, 2003: By the end of the month, the IAEA announces that Iran has complied with the new rules, and in
November, 2003, the IAEA declares that Iran isn't constructing weapons. The US calls the report "impossible to
believe."

--June, 2004: The IAEA claims that Iran has been less than forthcoming with it's nuclear program, and demands their
compliance.

--July, 2004: Iran breaks the seals on it's facilities, and begins enriching uranium.

--September, 2004: The IAEA declares that Iran has not maintained it's end of their orginally negotiated bargain in
October, 2003. It calls for Iran to suspend all nuclear activities. Iran, in short, tells them to pound sand.

--October, 2004: Iran relents, and begins negotiating with the EU-3 (Germany, France, and the UK).

--November, 2004: After the negotiations with the EU-3, Iran agrees to suspend its enrichment programs. The UN
receives a report--later leaked to the press--that there is no evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons. The
report also warns that it is not definitive; they don't know this for sure. They voluntarily suspend their program, then
two days later ask the EU-3 if they can still work with 24 centrifuges.

--August, 2005: Iran begins the conversion process at the Isfahan facility. The IAEA orders Mohammed ElBaradei is
ordered to put together a new report on Iran's program. Pres. Ahmadinejad is elected, and nuclear ambitions are at
the top of his priority list.

--September, 2005: Addressing the UN General Assembly, Ahmadinejad states that Iran will work on it's nuclear
program, and that they have a right to pursue whatever goals they set.

--November, 2005: The IAEA report shows that Iran has refused to comply with them, and has forbidden them access
to military sites involved with their nuclear program.

--The US-backed Foundation for Democracy in Iran stated that Iran is planning a nuclear test before March of 2006.

Do we see the pattern? Every time that Iran is scolded or told to comply, they bend over, comply for a short time, and within 6-8 months, they're in the doghouse again. This was the same tactic that Saddam used. Ahmadinejad paid close attention as to how Saddam was able to twist and turn the international community. It's pathetic that those same people are falling for it all over again. The idea that Iran is different from Iraq is a foolish notion. Iran is just like Iraq, it's just fifty times more dangerous.

The sand is running out in the hourglass. Iran needs to be referred to the security Council. This way we end the Left's carping that we're rattling our saber as much as Iran is. Fine, you want to play the diplomacy game. then we'll play one round. If Iran doesn't stop it's proliferation, then it's time to move on them. I suggest a stealth fighter/bomber strike on each of their nuclear facilities that we're aware of. Speak with the Israelis. They seem to know where they are; it's questionable whether or not they can be successful. The Israelis claim that they could be successful, but that they may not be able to take out the reinforced bunkers. We can.

A military option could be potentially explosive, and pardon the pun, but it's an option that can't be removed from the table. To do so only seals the fate of our nation, and the region. We can't make this mistake with Iran. The stalling game needs to end, we give them one, last chance to come clean, or Iran will find itself very alone in the world.

Publius II