A Short Analysis of Claudia Rosett’s “Excess Baggage”

By Craig S. Byrnes

09/06

Part I—Summary

A Wall Street Journal column titled “Excess Baggage” published on August 31, 2006 by Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, announces the United Nations deadline for a halt in Iran’s proliferation of nuclear materials has passed to no avail. The next step to compel Iran to back down is to inflict economic sanctions designed to pressure President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see eye-to-eye, but Rosett points out he, “does not seem deeply worried about the prospect of U.N. sanctions,” citing among other things, a media campaign where the Iranian president flaunts samples of enriched uranium and shuns U.N. demands.

According to Ms. Rosett, “some of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s behavior can be discounted on grounds that he is a messianic crackpot,” all the while she believes the modern U.N. is quite the opposite and perhaps still under the weather following the Oil for Food Scandal throughout the Saddam Hussein sanctions. When sanctions require cooperation of member nations Rosett fears Russia and China will cheat considering Iran holds around ten percent of the world’s oil reserves and comes in second in proven natural gas reserves.

Later in the article a United States Department of Energy country survey tells of a $100 billion, 25-year bargain with China for natural gas developments, along with other deals signed or on the table with 16 countries and a foreign subsidiary of Halliburton Co. having to do with oil & gas investments, oil swaps and pipeline developments. Rosett mentions many current and future Iranian business partners are known smugglers and terrorists who helped Iraq and would not stall in doing the same for their own.

Ms. Rosett also asks who would enforce U.N. sanctions and stop violations, pointing out that Russia and China are preaching “patience”, and have openly voiced opposition to sanctions. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez is trying for one of ten rotating seats on the Security Council and according to Rosett, “In his recent tours of the world’s thugocracies Mr. Chavez has reportedly garnered a boost from China for his U.N. bid, as well as a medal and a $4 billion investment in Venezuela’s oil fields—from Iran.”

Secretary General Kofi Annan will depart his position at the end of 2006, and the management of any Iran sanctions would pass to his successor—causing more delay and uncertainty. Rosett concludes citing delays by the International Atomic Energy Agency, European Union and the U.S. have left only the option of military force on the table, but says—no matter what the future holds—the United States will have to do the majority of the work gathering willing military allies, while carrying the weight of the United Nations on their shoulders.

Part II—Analysis

Iran poses a severe threat to peace by defying the United Nations call to cease their uranium enrichment program. Although representatives of the country continue to claim the program is of a peaceful nature and an inalienable right under the nonproliferation treaty, I like Ms. Rosett, tend to disagree. According to Hassan Rohani—a representative of Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran’s former top nuclear negotiator—in an article published by Time Magazine in May, “a negotiated solution still can and must be found if we intend to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and avoid an unwise and unnecessary conflict.” Any agreements that could be made, along with any sanctions imposed, would hold no weight considering Iran’s readiness and proved willingness to hide portions of their nuclear program, and the unwillingness of member nations—Russia and China—to jeopardize trade ties already in place with Iran. All sanctions and the process leading up to them will do is provide more delays and opportunities for Iran to make a mockery of the U.N. and their archaic ways of handling modern issues. It was proved to the world in the days leading up to the Invasion of Iraq that maybe the current policies set in place at the Security Council were irrelevant with the Oil for Food Scandal and the repeated chances Saddam Hussein was given to comply to resolutions.

There can simply be no trust for Iran when Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami blames Bush and the U.S. for turmoil in the Middle East, and according to an Associated Press article CNN quotes him as saying, “As a result of such wrong policies, such unilateral, violent policies, that is—the voice of logic has decreased and the voice of terror and attractiveness of terror unfortunately among youth has increased.” The current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his U.N. representatives have on many occasions called Israel a “horror and terror machine” blaming them for starting a war with Lebanon, and citing U.S. double standards in allowing their possession of a nuclear arsenal. All the while Iran funds and trains terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, most recently providing them with missiles funneled through Syria. One can only imagine what could have occurred if Nuclear weapons existed. According to an unclassified CIA report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction between July 2003 and December 2003, “Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.” The report also states, “Iran’s nuclear program received significant assistance in the past from the proliferation network headed by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.”

As Iran continues to use the guise of peaceful civilian energy programs to conceal the true nature of their nuclear program, the danger to U.S. forces abroad grows with every passing second of inaction. I agree with Rosett when she says a military option is the only option left to consider. Consider for a moment if Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy had taken preemptive action to prevent the former Soviet Union from gaining nuclear technology, or at least stopped them from acquiring a large one. In an article written by Scott D. Sagan for Foreign Affairs, he says Eisenhower was particularly alarmed, and in fact asked Secretary of State John Foster Dulles if, “our duty to future generations did not require us to initiate war at the most propitious time that we could designate.” Sagan goes on to say he did not take action out of fear of retaliation on our European allies. History has cycled around and we are now faced with another opportunity to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to secure the future of humanity.

There is great danger in allowing an extremist Islamic nation to obtain and produce nuclear energy. If the U.S. buckles and accepts a nuclear Iran, this will only provide a better cover for their weapons program, and will almost certainly equal easy access to this horrific technology for terror groups such as al-Qaeda, who say the primary difference between them and the West is their love of death and our love of life. The potential cost is too great too imagine and it is best for this generation to take calculated risks and sacrifice what we have to in order to secure a peaceful world for our children and grandchildren. When that overwhelming task is completed it might be time to rebuild the U.N., but for now I say we give them a set of dentures and take care of business.
SOURCES

1. The Wall Street Journal (8/31/2006), A8, “Excess Baggage” by Claudia Rosett
2. The Associated Press (9/5/2006), “Bush Uses bin Laden Quotes for War Rally” by Nedra Pickler
3. The Associated Press (9/5/2006), “Former Iranian President Criticizes Bush” by Nick Wadhams
4. The Associated Press (9/5/2006), “Iran Head Wants Liberal Teachers Ousted” by Nasser Karimi
5. CIA Archive: The Iranian Ballistic Missile and WMD Threat to the United States Through 2015, Statement for the Record to the International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services Subcommittee of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (As Prepared for delivery). By Robert D. Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs (9/21/2000)
6. CIA Archive: Statement by John A. Lauder, Director, DCI Nonproliferation Center to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Russian Proliferation to Iran’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missile Programs (10/5/2000)
7. Statement By Ambassador Mehdi Danesh Yazdi, Deputy Permanent Resident of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, Including the Palestinian Question. New York, (8/22/2006)
8. Statement by H.E. Dr. M. Javad Zarif, Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the Security Council. New York (7/31/2006)
9. CIA Archive: Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction—Iran. (July-December 2003)
10. Reuters (9/5/2006), “Russia Says Nuclear Sanctions Could Inflame Iran.” By Christian Lowe
11. Time Magazine (5/9/2006), “Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Way Out” by Hassan Rohani
12. http://un.int/iran/
13. Foreign Affairs Volume 85-Number 5 (September/October 2006), “How to Keep the Bomb From Iran” by Scott D. Sagan