The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Dangerous Game of Chance

 

iran-nuclear-dealUpon first hearing of the Iran Nuclear Deal I, like so many others, felt that Western leaders had made a grave error in judgment. A careful review of the text of the deal has removed all doubt. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the vast majority of people who hold this view do not do so out of a desire for war. We simply understand that the Iran Nuclear Deal makes war more, not less, likely.

As details of the deal became clear, many were left scratching their heads in wonder. The E3/EU+3 (US, UK, China, France, Germany, Russia and UN) effectively abandoned every objection to the Iranian nuclear program based solely on Iran’s promise to operate henceforth in accordance with the standards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency. All sanctions will be reversed and the signatory nations have agreed to aide Iran in further developing her nuclear industry. More importantly, they will assist Iran in the development of a uranium enrichment program. For those not familiar with nuclear energy, enriched uranium of the kind sought by Iran  has one purpose: weapons. Moreover, international observers will not be allowed to inspect some of Iran’s nuclear facilities. So how, you ask, are they planning to ensure that Iran is in compliance with the already lenient terms of the agreement? Well, Iranian officials will inspect their sites and report their findings to the IAEA. All of this is predicated on a mere promise of good-faith and fair dealing by the Iranian government.

It is only reasonable then that so many have been left in a state of bewilderment about the benefits of the agreement for world peace. What exactly do the leaders of the US, EU, and UN expect to gain from an agreement so fraught with potential dangers? Let us not forget that the Iranian regime has been quite candid in its hostile intentions toward Israel and the United States. How does arming such an acrimonious oligarchy advance the cause of world peace?

After carefully examining the facts, I believe there may be a perilous logic behind it. The answer lies in an understanding of the ideological and demographic makeup of Iran.

Although most Iranians are Muslim, that tells us little about their views on social, political and economic issues. Iran has long been home to Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sufi, and Baha’i. The Constitution of 1905 declared Islam the official state religion, yet the Iranian people have always been accommodating of other faiths, with the exception of Sufi and Baha’i, which are considered heretical Islamic sects. But the thing that has defined Iran, at least since the outset of the 20th century has been her ideological makeup.

Iran was home to the Islamic Modernist Movement spearheaded by Jamal al-din Afghani during the late 19th century. They sought to change the existing state of affairs in the Islamic world. Reformers envisioned a world wherein the government served the people. For centuries on end, the people existed to serve the government. Additionally, the reformers wanted to limit, and in some cases eliminate, the role of the clergy in the daily affairs of the people. Most notably, this involved the clergy’s control over justice and education. Were the Mujtahid to lose authority in these key areas, their power and influence would be nominal except where it concerned individuals living on Shrine Lands (property owned by the Mujtahid). The Islamic Modernist Movement can thus be regarded as the birth of an Islamic reformation.

Unfortunately the hopes of the Movement were cut short by the outbreak of the First World War and the subsequent socialist upheaval in neighboring Russia. Lenin viewed all native reform movements not specifically aligned with the Bolshevik cause as nothing more than latent bourgeois conspiracies. With the aide of the Iranian Communist Party, the Islamic Modernist Movement was crushed. Over the course of the 20th century, Iranian society would be dominated by various socialist movements, some pro-Soviet (i.e. the Tudeh), others anti-Soviet (i.e. National Front, Sumka) but all opposed to the Shah, the US, and Great Britain. These were the people who championed the revolutionary movements that ultimately lead to the rise of the Islamic Republic.

Leftists mobs lost control of the revolution to the Islamists in late 1978. Although the Shah departed Iran in 1979, the Leftists and Islamists remained in a bitter civil war for nearly two years. The Islamists, though smaller in number, won the war, largely because the military leadership feared the prospects of a Soviet puppet regime in Tehran. As the world witnessed the civil disturbances that rocked Iran in 2011-2012 (aka, “Day of Rage”), Leftists may have lost control of the nation, but they never lost control of the culture.

Thus we have the second element in our equation, Iran’s demographic picture.

The men who control Iran today are essentially those who took control in 1979. They comprise the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council, the Assembly of Experts, and the leaders of the government. All of these men are over 70. On the other hand, the median age of the lay Iranian is 28 years. As the vast majority of Iranians are still of the socialist persuasion, it is easy to surmise that within the next 10 to 15 years, the ruling class in Iran will be slowly eliminated by nature. Therefore, the people who stand to inherit the reins of power are the younger generations of Iranians who share an ideological ancestry with the leaders of the US, EU and UN.

Given these facts, one might conclude that our Western leaders don’t see the danger of a nuclear armed Iran since the people likely in control by the time a functional weapon is developed will be people inclined towards rapprochement with the West. More importantly, they will probably abandon the current regime’s hostile posturing towards Israel and the US.

If this is a factor in their decision, it is still pregnant with the inherent danger of nuclear proliferation. Some of the deal’s supporters have alleged a double-standard in the case of Iran, since so many nations already have nuclear capability. But that is as logical as a man with one foot removing the other for the sake of creating balance. Nuclear capability in the hands of any nation is a dangerous game of chance, yet that capability in the hands of a group of men whose intentions are well known is simply suicidal.

Nevertheless, adoption of the Iran Nuclear Deal and Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon may be a fait accompli. Thus we can only hope that the situation plays out such that the world is not left a smoldering ash heap of lost dreams and shattered hopes.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Tom , IMHO your second to the last sentence says it all. Iran either has the bomb or will have it shortly after the sanctions are lifted. This is 70 year old technology. South Africa put six together over thirty years ago. Building the bomb is the easier part of the equation,it’s enrichment that is difficult. Iran has all but admitted to having enriched to 20 %. This agreement was put together by Wendy Sherman, the same person that put together the North Korea agreement. How has that worked out? At20% enrichment 90% of the work has been done towards weapons grade material. I predict Iran will either test or use a bomb six months after receiving the 150 billion dollars. The site that Iran is going to self inspect is we’re all the bomb technology was done. I believe they closed it because all the work was finished. They are waiting for the enriched material.

    • #1
  2. Tom Phillips Inactive
    Tom Phillips
    @TomPhillips

    World leaders appear to be blissfully ignoring the fact that Iran may actually be but a single element away from a functional nuclear weapon. This program began when the Shah was in power and sanctions have done little to halt its advance.

    • #2
  3. Odysseus Inactive
    Odysseus
    @Odysseus

    Tom Phillips:More importantly, they will assist Iran in the development of a uranium enrichment program. For those not familiar with nuclear energy, enriched uranium has one purpose: weapons.

    Erm… not quite! I’m sorry to say that you clearly have no understanding of this subject.

    • #3
  4. Tom Phillips Inactive
    Tom Phillips
    @TomPhillips
    • #4
  5. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Odysseus, I would say that Tom is correct. Except for some enrichment for medical applications there is no need for enrichment beyond3-5% for producing electricity.

    • #5
  6. Tom Phillips Inactive
    Tom Phillips
    @TomPhillips

    @ Odysseus – In the context of this discussion, Iran’s uranium enrichment program is solely related to weapons development. Although low enriched uranium can be used for nuclear power generation, enriched urianium is a key component in nuclear weapons. You might want to look a little closer at this.

    Additionally, although most (not all) of the world’s existing power plants rely on U-235 uranium it is not sufficiently enriched to meet weapons grade.

    As for the deal itself, the text makes it clear that Iran’s enrichment program will not be halted although they have promised to sell “excess” amounts to firms dealing with enriched uranium.

    • #6
  7. Odysseus Inactive
    Odysseus
    @Odysseus

    You can argue now about the level of enrichment, but the point is perfectly straightforward: enriched uranium does not have “one purpose: weapons”.

    It is precisely because of the energy-generating use for enriched uranium that, due to the NNPT, the West had such a hard time getting them to stop (back when we were trying to stop them).

    I note that in your comment you are now making a distinction between “low enriched uranium” and “enriched uranium”. I mention this merely in passing.

    You go on to say “enriched urianium is a key component in nuclear weapons”. Well, no, not necessarily. Plutonium, which is more efficient as a fissile material for bombs, is a decomposition product in uranium reactors. This is another flaw in the NNPT.

    • #7
  8. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    All you ever need to know about uranium enrichment and Plutonium production can be had right here on Ricochet. anonymous had a Saturday Night Science post on uranium on March 14 and on on plutonium on April 11 of 2115.

    • #8
  9. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    If the Egyptians and other neighbors in the region, plus the Israelis, say its a bad idea, it’s a bad idea. The only thing that thugs understand is the message peace through strength.  The Iranians are assisted by other thugs – they all help each other – to not only destabilize the region and world, they make threats that I believe they will attempt to carry out. They supply weapons that have killed our soldiers in the Middle East.

    Who in the world lets the fox guard the henhouse? Not to mention we left the hostages there?! Make no mistake, not only Iran, but China, Russia and North Korea know they have a window as long as the current administration is in place.  They are skirting our borders, land and sea. The ungrateful Iranian regime laughs while they can now be sent billions of dollars. Madness.

    • #9
  10. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    FS Cat, it’s all about legacy both Obama and Kerry. We also should never discount that Obama is a Musilm

    • #10
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    It may be that we can’t stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.  What I don’t understand is why we want the U.S. stamp of approval on the process, which is what this “deal” seems to accomplish.  Wouldn’t it be better to just slink away and cower?

    There may be an answer to this, but so far I haven’t heard it.

    • #11
  12. Tedley Member
    Tedley
    @Tedley

    I’ve been surprised by the willingness of the UK and France to go along with the agreement.
    It doesn’t seem logical that the mullahs would let their lineage die out in a decade. That sounds like the same sort of wishful thinking that Castro would die or be assassinated by now. They’ve been in charge for over 35 years, enough time to notice the need to breed and train the next generation of mullah leaders.
    One thing which seems to have gotten very little attention was Iran’s physical threat against IAEA head Amano a couple of weeks ago. They were concerned that he would provide details to Congress about the side agreements between Iran and the IAEA. Who should have faith in this agreement when physical threats are being casually made against the head of the international organization tasked to do the monitoring?

    • #12
  13. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    PHCheese:  It’s Muslim, not muslin which is a filmy cheesecloth-type fabric (I’m joking with you :-)

    I don’t know anything about this agreement, but from what I have heard, it constitutes a treaty, which under US law, must be ratified by 2/3 Senate – can anyone confirm?

    • #13
  14. Lensman Inactive
    Lensman
    @Lensman

    Front Seat Cat:If the Egyptians and other neighbors in the region, plus the Israelis, say its a bad idea, it’s a bad idea. The only thing that thugs understand is the message peace through strength. The Iranians are assisted by other thugs – they all help each other – to not only destabilize the region and world, they make threats that I believe they will attempt to carry out. They supply weapons that have killed our soldiers in the Middle East.

    Who in the world lets the fox guard the henhouse? Not to mention we left the hostages there?! Make no mistake, not only Iran, but China, Russia and North Korea know they have a window as long as the current administration is in place. They are skirting our borders, land and sea. The ungrateful Iranian regime laughs while they can now be sent billions of dollars. Madness.

    The only way to understand this is to see it as a “Bizarro World” version of American leadership. You remember the DC Comics where Superman was not the real Superman, but a version from another universe where everything was reversed?

    We have Bizarro World versions of a President and Secretary of State who believe that America is evil and Iran has to be allowed at any cost to feel like they are members of the “international community.” They are sufficiently anti-American that chants of “Death to America” in Tehran, led by the theocratic dictators, are no more upsetting than those from a crowd at an Alabama football game shouting “Roll Tide.”

    That would explain why Obama would push through a deal that violates the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by recognizing that Iran has a “right” to enrich uranium and by paving a path for Iran to have nuclear tipped missiles in the next 10-15 years, if not sooner. Since the inspection regime is a joke (the one that has been leaked), it is unlikely that we will know when Iran has a nuke before they test it in some desert.

    The Democrats appear to be counting on the Iranian nuke being built in about three to five years, when they can blame it on a Republican President. (Behind closed doors they know that Hillary Clinton is toast and the Democrat “bench” consists of over-the-hill, 70-something white men.

    I’m only half-kidding. The inherent anti-Americanism of Obama’s world view is no joke.

    • #14
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.