The Potential of Nuclear Terrorism

In a recent post, "No More Gasoline for you, Iran!" fellow blogger Scott Tenorman speaks about the threat posed by Iran's developing nuclear program. Iran's claim that their nuclear program is purely for energy is seems almost laughable as the president flexes his military muscles as often as he possibly can.

The Obama administration has been playing it smart however, and with an addendum of the START treaty aimed specifically at Iran we can rest a little easier in the knowledge that our Homeland Security is intently watching over Iran. At the beginning of the Nuclear Summit in Washington, President obama opened with a new threat to our security, the threat of terrorist groups acquiring nuclear weapons. In the President's words, "Two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face a cruel irony of history: The risk of nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up."

During the first full day of the summit the President explained that terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are actively seeking nuclear armaments and if they acquire them they are sure to use them.

The summit follows days of meetings between President Obama and other heads of nations discussing the threat of nuclear terrorism. In efforts to stem the ability of terrorist networks from obtaining nuclear arms from rogue states like Iran Obama is placing higher sanctions on Iran and encourages other nations to do the same. On last Monday the president met with Chinese President Hu Jintao to work out increased sanctions against Iran, China up until this point has been reluctant to sanction Iran, but after coming to understand the grave threat posed to international security by Iran's nuclear development program, they have agreed to lay heavier sanctions on the rogue state.

These sanctions combined with a declaration form Ukraine to be rid of their enriched uranium by 2012 are small steps towards President Obama's long term goal of a one day Nuclear weapon free world. And these are certainly big steps in reducing the threat of nuclear attack by terrorist networks.

We'll Just Have to Wait Him Out

With the Obama administration came a new approach to dealing with Iran, a state that had been classified as one of the ‘Axis of Evil’ under the Bush administration, president Obama sought to work with Iran to establish diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran. These efforts however, have not been fruitful for the United States; Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently scoffed at any efforts by the United States and has insisted that Iran will become a nuclear state. Now, after President Obama has made it clear that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states (with the exclusion of Iran and North Korea) president Ahmadinejad is beyond approach. So with the possibility of a nuclear Iran looming over our heads, how do we keep our country safe? Establishing a working relationship with Ahmadinejad is infeasible; our only hope is the people of Iran. The best course of action to keep the US safe is to wait out Ahmadinejad until a new president is elected in Iran, and to work with this new president.

In some of his latest public announcements Ahmadinejad has stated that an increase in pressure on Iran’s nuclear program would be met with an increase in Iran’s support of ‘resistance’ – Ahmadinejad’s code for the Islamic militant groups in Palestine as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. This statement serves twofold: first it is a testament that Iran will not stop its nuclear program, second it is a threat to the United States. If the U.S. does not ease its pressure and sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program then Iran will retaliate by fueling Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda. This threat coupled with Ahmadinejad’s mocking of President Obama’s ‘cowboy’ nuclear plan leave no doubt that we are beyond any point of working out a solution with Iran that will lead to both a safer world as well as a safer United States. But there is still hope; we in the United States are not the only ones fed up with Ahmadinejad, the people of Iran have had enough of him too.

In the election of 2009 Ahmadinejad ran against a reformer, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister of Iran. Although it was announced that the election was a landslide victory in favor of Ahmadinejad, Mousavi supporters believed that the election had been rigged because the official polls are unreliable and every unofficial sampling indicated a head to head race. After the ballots were counted hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters dressed in green rushed out into the streets in protest. A protest of this magnitude had not been seen in Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The Iranian police were quick to the scene, however, and began beating protestors and shooting into the crowds, the protest demonstrations quickly turned into riots. The international community as well as many people within Iran was appalled by the violent retaliation against what was started as a peaceful protest. This reaction may have been beneficial in reducing favor of Ahmadinejad’s regime in Iran itself. With a majority of the population in favor of Mousavi coupled with the approach of the end of Ahmadinejad’s second term, it is highly likely that in the next election Mousavi will come to power.

So does this mean that once Mousavi is elected Iran will cease its nuclear program? Unfortunately it does not; Mousavi has made his support of Iran becoming a nuclear power quite clear, but at the same time has publicly announced that he would be more than willing to work with the United States. This declaration alone is a drastic turn from Ahmadinejad’s claims that the United States must now in essence bend to Iran’s will.

Last year the UN proposed an offer that would take Iran’s uranium and enrich it to a level that could be used to produce electricity. This proposal would have both reduced the quantity of uranium in Iran as well as ensure that the uranium was only usable for electricity and could not be brought to weapons grade. Ahmadinejad however defected on this proposal stating that Iran would decide the terms of how much uranium would be enriched and to what levels. It seems that Mousavi, unlike his opponent, would have made that deal, and today we would be working with Iran instead of reading the papers every day to see what outrageous claims Ahmadinejad has made now.

Israeli Construction in Palestine Hurts Peace

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reply on the subject of new construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem, the largely Arab section of Jerusalem annexed by Israel during the 1967 war, made his position on the matter quite clear: “Jews have built their homes in Jerusalem for centuries and will continue.” Its too bad that the Palestinians have been building their homes in Jerusalem for centuries as well. I guess somewhere along the lines of history the deed for Jerusalem got lost. Luckily enough though, it seems that the Israelis found it, and a few eviction notices as well, sorry Palestinians.

Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands have always been a heated issue, but expansion into East Jerusalem has Palestinians particularly enraged because they claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The Palestinians have been trying to halt construction in East Jerusalem in efforts to resume Peace Talks with Israel, a position mirrored by the Obama administration. In spite of this, prime minister Netanyahu remains adamant as ever stating that halting construction, “will serve only to delay peace talks further.” In reality halting construction would do the exact opposite, it would be a sign of Israel’s willingness to restore, or better yet, create peace in a region that has been wracked with conflict since its inception.

The Israeli prime minister’s remarks are nothing new to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been consistently characterized by Israel’s resilience to concede to any Palestinian requests. Not only this, but new construction in East Jerusalem completely violates the 10-month moratorium on construction in the occupied territories. Israel claims that their plans for construction are still valid because Jerusalem is their capital and does not fall under the same category as Gaza and the West Bank. While the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is true enough, there still remains the fact that the disputed part of Jerusalem that construction is to begin is in East Jerusalem, the occupied portion taken by Israel after the 1967 War and then annexed which has never been internationally recognized. So while there may be, as Netanyahu says, a consensus in Israel that Jerusalem will always be apart of Israel, the international community sees Israel’s actions as a direct violation of International Law, as well as a violation of the countries own policies (the 10 month suspension of construction in occupied territories).

Netanyahu’s claim that suspending construction in East Jerusalem will delay the peace talks another year is not a statement of fact, or even the warning of a country attempting to reach peace sooner, it is a threat. Netanyahu’s warning has no factual backing, there is no legitimate reason that peace talks would be delayed even further if construction was halted. The prime minister’s warning is instead a threat to the Palestinians as well as the international community that if they must concede to the demands of the Palestinians that they will not resume peace talks for another year. It seems that one year is how long it would take Israel’s ego to recover from such a stunning blow from the international community; how dare they demand that Israel keeps its word and keep from doing the very actions that would destroy any notion of peace in the region.

So instead of maintaining the status quo, instead of continuing the behaviors that have clearly done everything but bring peace between Israel and Palestine, I suggest a new course for Israel to take: Halt the construction in East Jerusalem. Not only will this halt of construction stop Israel form violating international law as well as the country’s own declarations of a moratorium on construction in the occupied territories, but is will demonstrate a new attitude towards peace negotiations on Israel’s behalf, an attitude that Israel wants peace. Instead of provoking retaliation attacks from militants in Palestine, Israel would show a sign of good faith, that they are willing to meet the Palestinians half way in the quest for peace in the region instead of threatening to delay peace even further.