Le president americain a repete qu'il ne "laisserait pas" Teheran se doter de la bombe atonmique. Sans preciser s'il tolereait que l'Iran devienne un "pays de seuil", ne possedant pas une bombe prete a l'emploi mais capable d'en assembler une en quelques semaines si necessaire.
The idea is to allow Iran to develop all the technology necessary for creating a bomb. The redline becomes assembly.
I hope this idea isn't gaining traction in American policy circles. This proposal is a mere face saving.
Does it address the problem of proliferation? If Iran is allowed to develop its nuclear weapons capacity to being weeks away from the bomb, then won't other countries in the region want a similar capacity? Or will assurances of American protection be sufficient?
At present, I suspect other countries won't be satisfied with American assurances--the British weren't. This, however, is a mere intuition of mine.
Another problem is trust. You'd have to establish reliable inspection regimes. What a bloody mess. And of course it will keep so many government and IGO functionaries busy. They'll love it. In the moment of crisis, they'll be uncertain. If the inspection regime fails, Israel, America, or a coalition of the willing will be forced to take unilateral actions. And Europe will be able to scream foul.
My greatest fear is if this idea gains traction, it will weaken Western resolve. The idea is insidious. If you assume Iran is a rational actor, it is so very pleasing. If your greatest worry is Iran's nuclear bomb being acquired by terrorists, the idea is still pleasing.
This proposal is a wedge; it challenges American/Israeli assumptions--or at least rhetoric. Iran is portrayed is irrational. And if you truly think that, then this idea is unsatisfactory. The power of the idea is that it reframes the debate; it gives Europe a way out; it give Obama a way out.
Will the President take it?
No comments:
Post a Comment