U.S. should not preemptively attack Iran

U.S. should not preemptively attack Iran

At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a discussion was held on the implications of relations between the United States and Iran. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, said that Iran must make a concession before the U.S. will negotiate them, the hostility of the region and the “clumsiness” that the problem has been handled has been a problem.

The U.S. has lived with a nuclear armed Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel for many years, deterrence will work with Iran as well, but preemptive war will not work, Brzezinski said. Iran is looking to build up its nuclear program to be secure in the region, but it is incorrect to say that they will use nuclear weapons to attack Israel or give them to Hezbollah, he said. The Iranian government is not very popular among the Iranian people and they will not support military action against other nations, they are only building up nuclear weapons to ensure security and safety in a volatile region, Brzezinski said.

The U.S. needs to be willing to lower sanctions on Iran, if the Iranian government promises not to use their uranium for nuclear weapons, Brzezinski said. However, the U.S. should not back down on nuclear proliferation and thereby unintentionally legitimizing the use of force to gain respect and power in the Middle East, he said.

Cold War nuclear facilities hammered and sickled out

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing to consider the National Nuclear Security Administration’s plan for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) said the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which maintains the nation’s nuclear weapons, is very successful, but its maintenance is scarcely considered. She said that as facilities of the Manhattan Project era crumble, America’s nuclear policies require updating.

Thomas D’Agostino, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security at the National Nuclear Security Administration said the U.S. is the only nuclear-armed state that is not modernizing its facilities. He said the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile was reduced by half during the Bush administration, so facilities need to be modernized and streamlined. He said a single planned facility in Tennessee would replace several aging Cold War era buildings. He said outdated facilities that handle Uranium and Plutonium pose safety concerns and are very expensive to maintain due to their large sizes. The NNSA plans to build new facilities to reduce square footage and increase efficiency.

Israel’s airstrike on Syria still creating political puzzlement

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) held a discussion on “Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Nuclear Reactor: Preventive War and the Nonproliferation Regime.” In September of 2007, Israel attacked what was rumored to be a partially constructed nuclear facility in Syria, and this facility has remained a subject of speculation in the months following the attack. Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, explained that there was very little information pertaining to this Syrian site immediately after the raid. Now, seven months after the fact, Kimball said U.S. intelligence believes that the site was a small nuclear facility under construction for Syrian military purposes.

David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Israel’s airstrike on Syria is a very strange and almost bizarre issue. Albright said that there was no doubt in his mind that a plutonium producing nuclear reactor was being constructed in Syria. He explained that there had been too much debate on whether a reactor was present and not enough discussion on whether Israel should have attacked the site in the first place. Albright also said that The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been paying enough attention to illicit nuclear trading; evidence had been obtained showing that Syria had used a North Korean trading company in order to get ahold of the nuclear materials needed for the facility.

Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at USIP, agreed with Albright and said the situation was “quite bizarre” and caused a lot of political puzzlement. Cohen explained that this attack was similar to Israel’s attack on Iraq in 1981, but also very different. In 1981, Cohen said that Israel attacked the Iraqi-an site on their own and acknowledged, defended, and justified their actions after the fact. The 2007 attack on Syria, however, was accomplished with communication with North Korea, and was not acknowledged. Cohen explained that not only did Israel not acknowledge the attack, but Syria also said nothing and made no complaints other than an air space violation. According to Cohen, this response of a “very loud silence” is the main difference between the two Israeli-an attacks.

Leonard Spector, the deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, talked about the attacks correlation with Iran. He said that the deliberate silence following the incident does not serve as a “green light” for taking action in Iran. Spector also talked about the Six Party talks and explained that though these talks are making progress, they are still “a far way from home.” Spector said that construction of the nuclear site in Syria was under way during the Six Party talks and nuclear exports with North Korea were taking place during these talks.

McCain, Obama campaigns battle over nuclear arms

Representatives from the campaigns of both Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) speaking at the Arms Control Associations annual luncheon argued their candidates position on nuclear weapons in a changing world. John Holum the former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security under Former President Bill Clinton speaking on behalf of Sen. Obama told the audience that Obama would place a high emphasis on prevention. “To Sen. Obama a nuclear free world is not just a dream on the horizon but an idea we can achieve,” said Holum.

Stephen Biegun a Corporate Officer and Vice President of International Governmental Affairs for Ford Motor Company representing the McCain campaign chastised what he viewed as the Obama campaign unfairly trying to tie Sen. McCain to President Bush. “The good thing is that John McCain is not President Bush, he’s John McCain.”

Biegun agreed though with the Obama campaign that engagement over nuclear disarmament is key with other nations but that civilian nuclear energy needs to be harnessed. “We will look to engage Russia on reduction of their weapons and will use civilian nuclear energy as an important way to contribute to the energy in America.”

While the two men remained civil throughout the exchange the idea that Sen. Obama would meet with the Iranians with no preconditions drew strong criticism from Biegun. “Meeting with no pre-conditions in the first year Obama would give the Iranian President more credibility than he needs.” Holum countered by saying “the absence of diplomacy has not worked (referring to the Bush Administration).

Iran: The spark that ignites the Middle East

Jackie Davis of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis said that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities has substantial implications for the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East. She said that in the past economic sanctions have been vital in deterring Iran from creating nuclear weapons. The major problem with the sanctions, she said, is that because Iran has so many natural resources that are in high demand, many countries are dependent on Iran and therefore less willing to enforce sanctions.

Davis said that from a U.S. perspective if Iran obtained nuclear capabilities it would “open the flood gates” for other countries to begin trying to acquire nuclear weapons. She said that the need for diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. is paramount. The relationship the Russians have with the Iranians and the military power they have put them in a position to have considerable influence over Iran.

She also said that without greater insight into the Iranian government, it is impossible to determine how they would actually use their nuclear weapons. She said that if Iran were to gain nuclear capabilities it could act as a catalyst and ignite the whole region.