高樓低廈,人潮起伏,
名爭利逐,千萬家悲歡離合。

閑雲偶過,新月初現,
燈耀海城,天地間留我孤獨。

舊史再提,故書重讀,
冷眼閑眺,關山未變寂寞!

念人老江湖,心碎家國,
百年瞬息,得失滄海一粟!

徐訏《新年偶感》

2012年3月12日星期一

The Iran nuclear crisis: Q&A with Saeed Kamali Dehghan and Richard Norton-Taylor



Ask our journalists about the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, and what Iranians themselves are saying

A nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran. Tehran denies it is making a nuclear weapon, insisting its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes

The prospect of armed conflict with Iran seems to grow more likely by the day. Israel has warned that it will not countenance an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, and the US has argued that, while it wants to give diplomacy time, all options remain on the table.

The rhetoric was ratcheted up again last week with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington DC. But to what extent should we take the sabre-rattling at face value? And what's being said inside Iran?

Join Iranian Guardian journalist, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, and security writer Richard Norton-Taylor, from 2-3pm GMT this afternoon when they will be live in the comment thread, answering your questions. Comments will be open from 1.30pm.

redredrhine asks:

Iran has dozens of nuclear sites, some of which are underground. How can bombing Iran serve to diminish their nuclear ambitions - won't it always just entrench them? Have they any hope of success, whether by Israel alone, or with American assistance? And if they fail, are we not just strengthening the position of radicals in Iran, such as Mahmoud "I'madinnerjacket"

SaeedKD responds:

Well, bombing Iran is illegal under international law in the first place. Little has been said about the legality of the issue, so one might mistake it as to be justified, where as it is not.

When we talk about Iran's nuclear ambitions, it should be noted, that it's what the west assume is Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iranian officials have publicly said they have no intention to go onto the path of a weapons programme. Of course, whether that's true or not, is under an international dispute.

Despite all concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, we should always remember, there's still no proof of Iran actually making a bomb.

If, as Israelis suspect, Iran has plans for military applications of their nuclear programme, then an air strike would only make them determined to pull out of NPT and make it.

RichardNortonTaylor responds:

Thanks for this. There are many different , possibly deliberately conflicting and confusing, views expressed by Israeli, US, and UK, intelligence agencies about for how long any bombing would delay an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. The consensus is that it might delay but not end, the programme.

UNOINO asks:

For there to be an honest discussion about the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran about Iran's nuclear program surely mention must be made of Israel's nuclear arsenal, yet to find such mention in any of the mainstream news outlets is near impossible. Could you tell us why this is the case.

SaeedKD responds:

There has been mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal in the mainstream media, very recently in a Guardian's editorial here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/05/israel-iran-straining-leash-editorial

RichardNortonTaylor responds:

A good point - I have always been astonished by the 'omerta' surrounding this - and the lack of any sympathy with the Israel nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu among people I would have thought would be sympathetic to him and appalled by the treatment he received.

sjxt asks:

1. Do you really think Obama would use force if and when he came to the conclusion sanctions had "failed"?
2. What on earth would he do/hope to achieve if he did - given every military experts from Panetta down seems to be of the clear view that at the very best this would only delay Iran for a year or two?

RichardNortonTaylor responds:

I really don't think Obama wants to use force against Iran ever. In my view, he must hold his nerve during the final months of the US presidential elections.
Attacks would only delay, not end - that seems to be the consensus.

SaeedKD responds:

I think Obama will only use force if the US believes Iran has passed its "red lines". Up to now, Iran hasn't passed the US "red lines", which is making the bomb rather than enriching uranium - even on high levels - but yet allowable under NPT.

DrRocks asks:

Given the geographically limited size of Israel, and the widespread negative effects of a nuclear strike, why would Iran be likely to launch an nuclear attack against Israel when the effects would be near equally felt by it's muslim allies in the region?

DavidShariatmadari responds:

That's a good question - you've highlighted one of the lesser disincentives to Iran using a nuclear weapon. Others include the catastrophic effect on its economy, the opprobrium of the entire civilised world, the overwhelming likelihood of an immediate and deadly military response, the swift sweeping away of the regime.

All of which points to the conclusion that Iran, even if it tested a nuclear weapon, would be exceedingly unlikely to use it in anger.

Remember - nuclear weapons, if used correctly, never explode! They're a tool - albeit a very expensive and blunt one - of policy.

StephenStewart asks:

The Iran crisis is a manufactured affair motivated by a convergence of Israeli and American interests. Both Israel and America, of course, already have nuclear weapons and Israel has never allowed inspectors to examine it's weapons capabilities.

On the Israeli side, Bibi Netanyahu's Likud party represents the religious zionists whose vanguard are the kippot srugot zealots, or so-called "settlers." This faction will do anything to avoid implementing a two state solution.

Unfortunately, the only hope for peace in the middle east requires Israel and Palestine to mutually acknowledge the other's right to exist. In the absence of a sincere effort to make peace with it's neighbors, Israel recognizes that it's greatest threat comes from Iran.

The Americans have been fighting a war in Afghanistan for the past ten years for the right to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India. This strategy is being undermined by a proposal to build a pipeline from Iran to Pakistan that will deliver much lower cost fuel. Hence the urgency for a boycott of Iranian oil.

Of course, America also has a long term strategic interest in another regime change in Iran which, after all, has the world's third largest oil reserves.

The irony is that Israel and America are driving Iran to produce nuclear weapons by their escalating threats of war. Comments?

RichardNortonTaylor responds:

Thanks for this too.

A number of points:
Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty, unlike Israel (or India and Pakistan) - the US has turned a blind eye to this.

It is possible that the Iranian government and parliament is divided over whether to develop nuclear weapons. There is a view, which I can well understand, that an attack would unite the country into acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Another question: would Iraq or Libya have been attacked if they had had nuclear weapons ?

madpoppies asks:

I was in Iran a year ago, one thing I noticed was that every single person I spoke to absolutely loathed the current regime & clerics. Do you think an attack on nuclear facilities such as the one near Kashan & Qom would turn many of the Iranian people back towards the regime & clerics, or would they likely remain of the view that it's their own governments fault?

SaeedKD responds:

It's difficult to say whether international pressure on Iran has backfired, making Iranians to back the regime but I have seen many who are not supporter of the regime but support its nuclear programme which they see as a national cause.

Iranians are patriotic and an attack is likely to be seen as a strike against Iran rather than strike against the regime.

RolandEBrown asks:

A question for all posting comments here: If the current crisis were to evaporate, and Iran was to develop nuclear weapons and test them, how would you react on that day, and why?

SaeedKD responds:

I think we can still live with a nuclear Iran capable of making nuclear bomb. We are living with Israel, we would be able to live with Iran, too.