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.
