When Good News Is Bad News
David Ignatius is reporting that Iran is having problems enriching uranium in its ‘peaceful’ nuclear program:
Intelligence analysts believe that Iran is encountering technical difficulties in mastering the complex process of uranium enrichment. That means the West may have a bit more time than previously expected to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.
The problem, according to intelligence officials, is that the centrifuges that are supposed to enrich uranium are overheating. Some are breaking down and must be replaced. As a result, Iran has not ramped up its enrichment effort as quickly as analysts had expected.
That is good news, to be sure, but it gives the West yet more reason to drag its feet and engage in endless rounds of fruitless talks that end with pledges to talk some more. If the report is true, it means (a) without a doubt, Iran is moving forward, and (b) we should have a greater sense of urgency, because it’s not yet a done deal.
Why, then, do I still despair of anything being done?…
Pascal’s wager, that’s the parallel I have come up with regarding the right’s position regarding Iran…perhaps that’s why you worry so? Except, of course, the negatively infinite “payoff” of nuclear war replaced the positive infinite gain of heaven.
Mike, that’s not so far off; I think it is something similar to that, but it’s not nuclear war so much as (a) an isolated nuclear terrorist attack supplied by Iran, (b) an attack on Israel, or (c) a Middle East completely dominated by Iran…
It’s a completely reasonable position…one in which I happen to disagree with, probably for a similar reason to why I’m not rushing to church anytime soon.
a) I agree that it’s a possibility, but don’t find it high on the list of possible actions
b) Same as a)
c) I don’t find this to be a problem if a) and b) don’t occur. Although, perhaps the likelihood of either/both rises because of it…
To put percentages on it, I would say the risk of a) and b) (presuming c)) is slightly higher than the risk of
d) The United states using an isolated nuclear attack on Iran prior to a) b) or c) occurring.
As I type this, I understand why this position of “crossing fingers and hoping only c) comes true” might sound unreasonable, but I don’t put the likelihood of a) and b) above 0.01%, which might sound low, but that is actually fairly substantial, all things considered. Until all nations get rid of their collective nuclear arsenals that risk will always be present. IMHO.
Another problem with Iran having a nuke would be that it would be not only a fundamentalist Muslim country with a nuke, but it would be a Shia fundamentalist Muslim country with a nuke. Not only would non-Muslim countries in the region (Israel) be concerned about an Iranian bomb, Sunni Muslim countries (Egypt and Saudi Arabia) would find it problematic as well, and may feel the need to develop their own nuclear programs. While both these states are US allies, their regimes are not particularly stable or above corruption, so the threat of nuclear terrorism is increased by much more.
I’m all for a tough stance with Iran on the nukes but mostly because they deserve tough treatment on general principle. Making a fission bomb from the ground up is no simple thing, even in this day and age, and to set up a cascading/scavenging enrichment infrastructure, which is what you need if you are to produce anything more than a bomb or two, is very difficult indeed. Even if such an enterprise were purchaseable ready to roll, the maintenance, safety and operation of the thing is the work of an army of expert scientists and technicians. This is before you even get to the question of fusion over fission. Let’s not forget that the EU frolicked and danced with at that bizarre celebration was low enriched uranium and don’t go boom. That said, it is this demonstration of nuke ambitions that is troublesome. They could still buy their materials or otherwise make mischief with radiation short of a full fission burst but more importantly, Iran declared (proxy) war on America during the Carter administration. They should have war waged on them in turn if we expect to stop it. I’m not sure we do.