The Nuclear Question

Michael Young

Tweet

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has attacked western sanctions as 'the heaviest economic onslaught on a nation in history'. NY Daily News 

Military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme is the last thing the UK wants. 

Yet a regime that desires to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ is not one that should be allowed to develop a nuclear warhead. Estimates are that it will take Tehran only two to three years from now to do so. A sovereign state has every reason to be allowed to pursue a peaceful programme that produces energy under the conditions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the careful watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – yet Iran is not being entirely transparent about its operations. Despite continually insisting that its nuclear programme is indeed for ‘peaceful purposes’, the West is understandably suspicious, calling on the regime to halt its nuclear ambitions, at the very least temporarily, until the full facts can be established.

The UK, in line with the United Nations and the European Union, would always pursue talks and exhaust all liberal options before even considering military action against Iran. The solution to date has been sanctions, and the idea is to cripple a state economically in order to make it submit politically. Sanctions have been tried against North Korea in what is a similar situation and were in some ways successful – bringing the regime at one point to the negotiating table. But with countries like North Korea and Iran, the worry is that sanctions affect the ordinary man, woman and child much more than the political elite. What is clear is that the policy simply isn’t working with Iran.

Despite four rounds of UN sanctions, Iran has not showed any signs of giving up its nuclear ambitions. Recognising this, some states have taken an even harder line since the new IAEA report was published last year and adopted their own unilateral measures. The UK government blocked all financial transactions between London and Tehran last November, which ultimately led to the storming of the British embassy in the Iranian capital. This, in turn, led to the severing of diplomatic ties with the regime. UK Relations with Iran have been far from cordial in recent years - British Navy personnel were kidnapped by the Iranian navy in 2007, and Ahmadinejad’s supporters accused Britain of encouraging protest during the 2009 presidential election which saw the incumbent re-elected for a second term. He cannot, according to the constitution, seek re-election.

The problem is, sanctions against Iran have been rather half-hearted and devised with little enthusiasm. Like every country in the region, Iran’s economic strong point is producing and exporting oil, and as long as sanctions do not affect the industry then the Iranian economy isn’t dramatically affected. This view is shared by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently stated that sanctions must target the country’s biggest export, and its banking sector. Tel Aviv is getting rather restless and increasingly anxious over the situation, and is likely to have been considering an attack on Iran for several years now. Even though it would almost certainly not take any action unless it could be sure to receive strong support from Washington. 

Iran says it has a right to develop nuclear energy. BBC News.

We cannot sit and wait until the doomsday clock ticks yet another minute closer to midnight. If Iran’s regime was not so consistently threatening towards Israel and often hostile towards its neighbours, it would be hard to argue that the country should not be allowed to pursue a nuclear programme (West-compliant Pakistan has been allowed to run a nuclear programme for several years now). But given the fact that the regime does has a history of animosity towards other states, of supposedly sponsoring terror groups and committing gross human rights abuses at home, a nuclear armed Iran cannot be justified. 

If the UK government is serious about halting Iranian nuclear activity, it must pursue sanctions that work, and the only sanctions that would work would be ones that significantly damage Iran’s oil exporting industry. Although if this were to happen, there would be three major problems - firstly, the price of oil would almost certainly rise. Secondly, we’d become virtually reliant on one state, Saudi Arabia, for oil. Thirdly, China - Iran’s biggest importer of oil - would reject the sanctions and could even purchase more oil from Iran to help make up for the shortfall. 

If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz - the passage between Iran and the United Arab Emirates through which over 20% of the world’s oil passes through – in retaliation to further sanctions, military confrontation could easily break out. The US and Europe needs to keep the Strait open as a matter of economic urgency, and the UK would probably be more than willing to commit forces to ensuring this with the backing of many countries in the region, leaving Iran isolated. Also, Iran would not be able to hold out for long - they may disrupt the flow of oil for a time, but Iran’s Navy is no match for any opposition. Blocking the strait would be a perilous, desperate move by Tehran, and the regime knows it. 

Sanctions against Iran’s oil industry is clearly the next step. Yet if these fail or if Iran retaliates and the government did find itself embedded in a conflict, questions may be asked as to why we are putting military resources into a country that poses no immediate threat when, for example, the Syrian government has been firing on protestors for what is nearly a year. Any attack on Iran could therefore seem more personal - a possible appeasement of Israel and the US. The reality is that no evidence exists of a nuclear weapons programme, but until we can be satisfied that this is definitely the case – hopefully (but optimistically) through further talks and sanctions - then the Iranian government will have to continue to expect hostility.