10/06/2009
Obama Under Pressure to Get Tough on Iran
By SPIEGEL Staff
American mistrust of Iran is growing, despite the cautious rapprochement at last week's talks in Geneva. US President Barack Obama is coming under increasing pressure to take a hard line since the revelation that Iran has a second, previously undisclosed facility for uranium enrichment.
The president sat in front of her, casually dressed in an open-necked shirt. There was no one else in the room. It was the moment German Chancellor Angela Merkel had been waiting for.
And then she asked the question that only he, the leader of the Western world and commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, could answer: Was the United States truly determined to bomb Iran because of its nuclear program, if all threats came to nothing and all ultimatums had expired?
The president didn't hesitate before replying: "You can't bomb knowledge." Merkel was relieved, so much so that she would later pass on the sentence to her supporters like a trophy.
The scene unfolded in November 2007, at George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Ironically, Bush, the man who had allowed his military to march into Iraq without any plausible reasons, appeared to have lost his taste for waging war.
Different Signals
His successor in the White House is now sending different signals. US President Barack Obama began his career as an opponent of the Iraq war, but now, after moving to the White House, he too is making use of the superpower's military might. Obama is increasing US troop numbers in Afghanistan while, in neighboring Pakistan, his administration is attacking the Taliban with remote-controlled drones.
But the president's main adversary is the regime in Tehran. Obama has threatened Iran with "serious consequences" unless the country limits its nuclear program to civilian use. He is not ruling out a military strike against nuclear facilities in the mullah-controlled state. When asked what Washington will do if nothing else works, Obama replies: "All options are on the table."
The recent news that Iran has a second, previously secret uranium enrichment facility caused an uproar in the United States. A nuclear bomb in the hands of the mullahs would destroy the already fragile security architecture in the Middle East and trigger a regional arms race. Iranian mid-range missiles, which could possibly be equipped with nuclear warheads in the future, are a threat to Israel and could also reach southern Europe (see graphic).
Until now, the only known uranium enrichment facility was in Natanz, where the Iranian government has already installed about 8,000 centrifuges. Iran has been claiming for years that it is only interested in the civilian use of nuclear energy. And indeed, between February 2007 and November 2008, the engineers at Natanz only produced uranium with an enrichment level of up to 5 percent. A level of about 90 percent is needed if the material is to be used in a nuclear bomb.
The existing data is so precise because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors the Natanz plant. Since March 2007, inspectors from the Vienna-based agency have paid 29 unannounced visits to Natanz. It is not entirely impossible to produce material for a bomb in such a highly scrutinized facility, but it isn't easy. For that reason, there have been speculations for years that Iran was operating other facilities concealed from the eyes of the world.
Underground Facility
Now those fears have a name: Qom. A second enrichment plant, located about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southwest of the capital Tehran, is currently being built near the Shiite holy city of Qom, hidden in an underground tunnel on a military base.
Western intelligence agencies heard the first rumors about the secret project in the second half of 2008. Since then, they have been searching for credible evidence to present to the global public. The CIA's claims that it found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- claims that were later refuted -- have not been forgotten. No one wants to see the same debacle repeated.
At the beginning of the year, several intelligence agencies hit pay dirt at the same time. The Israeli Mossad has a network of agents in Iran that focuses primarily on the country's nuclear program. Eyewitness reports supplied the desired details on the status of construction work. The CIA had obtained its own information, with French and British intelligence contributing their knowledge.
In the spring, the Western allies briefed German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and from then on, Chancellor Angela Merkel was also kept in the loop. When the IAEA received a letter from Tehran two weeks ago, Iran's leadership revealed information that was already an open secret among Western leaders. "Our patience has a limit," the normally measured IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said.
ADVERTISEMENT
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2009
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
DER SPIEGEL
Graphic: The road to the bomb
DER SPIEGEL
Graphic: Range of Iranian missiles
RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS
'They Want the Bomb'
Obama Under Pressure to Get Tough on Iran
By SPIEGEL Staff
Part 2: A World with an Iranian Nuclear Bomb
The talks last Thursday in Geneva, which included the Americans, French, British, Russians, Chinese, Germans and representatives of Iran, did nothing to dispel the anxiety. Tehran did agree to grant the IAEA access to the Qom enrichment plant in the next few weeks. The West, for its part, agreed to provide Iran with fuel for a research reactor, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had previously demanded as a trust-building measure.
"But we're not interested in talking for the sake of talking," Obama said after his negotiator, William Burns, had delivered his report from Geneva. Despite the relaxed mood at the conference table, the West's suspicions have remained. Its negotiators speculate that Iran is building or even operating other secret nuclear facilities, and they are already thinking about new, tougher sanctions. The White House has mentioned a "two-track policy" of talking while simultaneously increasing pressure on Iran.
US officials have painstakingly compiled a list of industries that are particularly vulnerable to sanctions. Despite its oil wealth, Iran still has to import about 40 percent of the gasoline it needs, which leads Washington to believe that a gasoline boycott could be somewhat effective. But virtually all experts question the value of economic sanctions. "This country has endured so much," says Flynt Leverett, who served on the US National Security Council until 2003. "Just think of the endless war with Iraq."
Beside, all major nations would have to participate if sanctions are to be effective. That, however, is more than doubtful. China, for example, is interested in further developing its economic ties with Iran and has invested billions in new Iranian oil and natural gas projects over the last five years.
Dwindling Desire for Peace
In the US, there is also growing support for the next step on the escalation ladder: the use of military force. The desire for peace seems to have dissipated in many quarters, including among the electorate. According to a study by the public opinion polling firm Rasmussen Reports, 88 percent of Americans are concerned about the recent revelations regarding Iran's second enrichment plant. Only 5 percent believe the Tehran government's claims that the facilities are for peaceful energy production. After North Korea, Iran is now seen as the second biggest threat to the US.
A slim majority of Americans now supports a tougher approach toward the mullahs. According to the Rasmussen survey, 51 percent say that Obama has "not been aggressive enough in responding to Iran's nuclear program." In June, that number was only 40 percent.
This is music to the ears of the hardliners of the Bush administration. Eliot Cohen, former counselor to the State Department, says: "We have only two options: an American or an Israeli military strike, which would probably mean a real war. Or a world with an Iranian nuclear bomb."
Even supporters of the Democrats are voicing similar views. "The obvious danger of Obama's diplomacy," says Jeffrey Herf, a history professor at the University of Maryland, "is that it allows the Iranians to use negotiations to stall for time while they are working on the bomb and enriching more uranium.... The Iranians have made fools of many sophisticated diplomats in recent years. If Obama is not careful, he would be the latest in long line of fools." Herf is convinced that the Iranians can not be dissuaded by talks. Iran "wants the bomb," he says. "Negotiations won't change that."
Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel who is now vice president of the Brookings Institution in Washington, warns that the military options should not be ignored. In an article that appeared in Foreign Affairs, co-authored by Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he writes: "Preventive military action against Iran by either the United States or Israel is an unattractive option, given its risks and costs. But it needs to be examined."
'More Restraint'
In Germany, the previous administration's goal of preventing military action against Iran has not changed since the recent election. The liberal Free Democratic Party, soon to be part of the new government together with Merkel's center-right Christian Democrats, likes to paint itself as Germany's anti-war party. In 2003, for example, the FDP rejected a proposal to expand Germany's Afghanistan mission, just as it later opposed expanding Bundeswehr missions in Congo and off the Lebanese coast. Westerwelle has always stated that he advocates "more restraint" for German policy in the Middle East.
Oddly enough, Merkel's closest ally is US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only member of the Bush cabinet to have kept his position in the Obama administration. So far Gates, who has been unwilling to take part in the game of verbal escalation, has counseled moderation.
"The reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time," he said in an interview during the Bush years. He still says the same thing today.
RALF BESTE, GREGOR PETER SCHMITZ, HOLGER STARK, GABOR STEINGART
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
No comments:
Post a Comment