Typhoon class Soviet submarine for under-ice patrolling

SHOULD IRAN INSIST ON HAVING NUCLEAR FACILITIES?


In our time deterrence is likely to stay with western groupings


Over the last few weeks I have been following the arguments for and against Iran having a nuclear research programme. The two sides are apparently at this point in time fairly fixed in their positions and Iran has recently rejected a Russian offer to enrich uranium for them by proxy.

My point and the argument I want to make is that at present the Europeans and Japanese will continue to rule the roost and that serious resistance to them is only likely to make matters worse for the relatively underprivileged ones among us. The ability to innovate and the power to lead are both vested in those people and if things change that will happen, if at all, in future generations.

Of course, it has to be noted from the outset that this particular kind of fuss is usually only generated and directed at certain targets only. There are some countries which have nuclear weapons without attracting oppropium such as, for example, the USA, the UK, France and Russia. There are other countries where it is considered to be “wrong” for them to possess such weapons but they have them anyway such as India and Pakistan and perhaps China (People’s Republic of). There are countries which are aspiring to get into the last group such as North Korea and Iran and whose nuclear ambitions are energetically boo-hooed. Finally, there is a large group of nations where the possibility of their ever aspiring to have such means of destruction is laughable such as, for example, Bangladesh, Uganda and Ecuador.

About six months ago I was listening to Tony Blair on the radio when someone in his audience asked him how he could justify the United Kingdom having nuclear weapons. Mr Blair’s reply was that the UK is bound by international treaties and possessed these armaments by the terms of those treaties. Smooth.

Only a few days ago while having my breakfast and listening to the Today programme on Radio Four, I heard that the defence chiefs over here are worried about the ageing characteristics of Britain’s Trident missiles and that a sum of nearly a dozen billion pounds sterling would have to be set aside to replace them a decade or so hence. The BBC commentator then remarked that the political leaders – all the major ones – believe in and support the principle of nuclear deterrence.

Well, that is food for thought indeed and I am not talking about my breakfast either. About eighteen months ago I had a conversation with a retired fairly senior member of the World Health Organisation in Geneva about this very subject. He said that what it all boils down to is that certain parties are not to be trusted with truly awesome weapons. “That is the implication,” he said.

If one stands back and looks at the big picture as the proverbial Martian would, I think it becomes apparent that there is a pattern. If one considers all the world’s nations as children in a playground gambolling together, certain groupings become apparent. There is one (very) major group which dominates the entire playground and which is loosely called “the West” although some members thereof are certainly not geographically western such as Australia and Japan. Then there is the group of nations with which “the West” seems to be having power and status issues with, namely, the Islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Finally, there is an apparently rag-tag of children who are not closely bonded to others and who are treated more or less as individuals such as Zimbabwe, Columbia and Myanmar.

It has to be noted carefully that in this post-Cold War era the former “second world” countries of the Warsaw Pact and the other socialist entities have either joined up with “the West” as in the case of Russia or joined the Islamic group as in the case of post-1979 Iran or joined the third group as in the case of Bulgaria.

At any rate, the big power resides with “the West” and that is how the Western leaders intend the matter to stand for a long time to come.

Probably no societies on Earth study history as carefully or take it as seriously as the Western ones. History, they reckon, is a valuable resource of information and guidance and historical epochs have, they think, as much value as oil and gas fields. For them it is no waste of time to keep leafing over past incidents and probing the motivations and actions of long-dead people.

One of the great lessons of history is that almost everything is temporary. Friendships are temporary and so are enmities. The British and the Germans were hating and killing each other only a few decades ago and today they are close friends. The Russians and the Americans were at loggerheads during the Cold War and now they are allies.

If our proverbial Martian stands back as recommended and looks at the big picture he may well conclude that since alliances and enmities constantly shift and change like the pieces in a kaleidoscope, personal power and strength is an enormous advantage in diplomacy and in the process of bargaining with difficult and dangerous people some of whom may well be feigning friendship with ulterior purposes in mind.

Iran says that it wants nuclear power for “civilian use” but in such a way that materials will be produced that can be processed into weapons grade stockpiles.

The overall objective of uranium extraction chemistry is the preparation of U3O8, called “yellow cake.” Extraction of uranium is often difficult and the metallurgical procedures vary with the geological environment of the ore. The ore is first crushed and ground to liberate mineral particles. The amphoteric oxide is then leached with sulphuric acid. All this the Iranians want to do.

Owing to the seething chaos of Middle Eastern politics and the threats and alliances therein, once Iran has the means of producing nuclear weapons it is highly likely that a future leadership will give the orders for nuclear weapons and the means of transporting them to become the possession of the Islamic Republic.

Once Iran has atomic and hydrogen bombs, the Arab states will be straining at their leashes to have them too. They will not want to be left behind.

That, I submit, is the major reason why the Americans do not want Iran to have “the bomb.” Once Iran has it the major Arab countries will probably go right ahead towards having nuclear weapons followed by such nations as Malaysia, South Africa (once a nuclear power under apartheid) and Argentina.

Furthermore, the Americans know that the penalties of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) are not likely greatly to deter zealous Muslims who are quite literally prepared to die in order to be welcomed to a Garden of Paradise personally by God and then get married to seventy maidens of paradise.

The way the world is governed at this time, put simply, seems to be that the relatively small group of powerful and mutually self-protecting countries are ensuring that the major means of retaliation is a near-monopoly vested in themselves. While the Americans debate among themselves whether or not to do anything in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and in any of the other trouble spots the abilities of the denizens of those places to do anything by way of retaliation is difficult, dangerous and suicidal. That is why 9/11 was such a great shock and that is also why all 19 hijackers are dead.

The key to the ultimate Western deterrence by way of devastating retaliation at this period of history lies not with their armies or with their air forces. Their navies hold the final power.

At any given point in time the American, British and Russian navies have nuclear submarines beneath the world’s oceans constantly moving about in such a way that only the most trusted military personnel in their nations and the highest politicians know where they are. If anybody does anything such as, for example, “nuking” London, the retaliation would be swift and annihilating. Furthermore, “the West” acts as a group. An attack on one is an attack on all.

Because satellite imaging nowadays is such that submarines can be seen through cloud cover and up to a certain depth of ocean, it has become customary for western submarines to lie under Arctic ice for long periods of time. They are invisible and silent but their presences are known and feared by all who oppose them.

The probability is that the Israelis will simply not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Even if that was made possible by some means, they would be land based missiles which would be moved about within Iran itself in an attempt to prevent enemies knowing where they were but spies would be deployed to that end. Iran will probably never be allowed to possess even one submarine which carries nuclear bombs.

In our lifetimes, therefore, I submit that we can be fairly sure that the western group of nations will control and guide the destinies of Mankind and that we will have to follow that guidance for good or for ill.

THE END

This article was published in the Bangla Mirror newspaper on 22nd March 2006