On the Fence | U.S., Europe must stand firm on Iranian nukes

Ian Saxine Columnist

In affairs of international diplomacy, there is a time for compromise and a time for standing ground. In the case of Iran acquiring nuclear technology, compromise is a bad idea. No amount of dancing around the issue could hide the fact that Iran can’t be trusted with anything that can possibly be converted into a nuclear weapon. There is no evidence to suggest that giving in to Iran on this point is a wise risk.

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a beacon of militant theocracy, beginning with its assault on American and Soviet embassies in Tehran and the 444 days of hostage negotiations that ensued. Since then, Iran has been a cheerleader, banker, and arms dealer for terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Periodically, the Iranian government has issued statements about its “right” to nuclear technology. This is especially disturbing in light of public clamor in some Iranian circles for the country to obtain nuclear weapons.

The Iranian government would have the world believe that it is a victim of bullying by America, Europe, and, of course, the Jews. Besides being a friend of Islamist terrorists, Iran is also among the world’s greatest exporters of anti-Semitic paranoia. Foreign Minister Manoucheher Mottaki attended an “anti-Zionism” conference in October 2005, and announced that negotiations for Iranian nuclear plans could only take place “in a climate not influenced by Zionism.”

Then again, maybe Iran would have already developed nuclear weapons if so many of its scientists hadn’t been busy debunking the “myth” of the Holocaust, even unsuccessfully asking Poland to allow investigation teams into Auschwitz to show, once and for all, that the Holocaust is nothing more than a dirty Jewish trick to justify Israel’s existence. (For the record, the official policy of Iran, as stated by their president last December, is that the Holocaust is a myth.) It takes little imagination to picture what would happen to Israel if the Iranians got hold of nuclear weapons.

Compromise and negotiation only work if both parties have a grip on reality. A perusal of Iranian news outlets makes the FOX network look like the model of balance and objectivity. The official radio network of Iran (IRIB) contains numerous interviews with prominent neo-Nazis, cast as “experts.” One of them, when consulted to analyze the 2004 American Presidential debates, informed listeners that the outcome of the election didn’t matter, since the American media and government were almost entirely under the sway of “Zionist Jews.”

The point here is not to dwell on the anti-Semitism displayed by the Iranian government and much of its media, but the neurotic nature of its wild suspicions, which dwarf anything that even the most hawkish of American supporters of the Patriot Acts have cooked up. Iran’s half-baked conspiracy theories about Jewish plots to “hold the world hostage” over the Holocaust reveal a lack of a real grip on reality held by those in power.

Worst of all, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been identified by a number of the American embassy hostages from 1979 as one of the ringleaders in the incarceration, interrogation, and abuse of hostages. America bears the guilt of Abu Ghraib, but I doubt any of the soldiers involved will be elected president. Personally, I’d pick a man arrested for drunk driving outside Kennebunkport over an abusive fanatic any day. (The fact that this is the measure of two major world leaders has not been a comforting one for me.) President Ahmadinejad has recently called for the need for “martyrdom” in Iran’s standoff with America and Europe.

So what should we do? Embargo those unhinged bigots until they drop this thing! (Their plans, not a bomb.) Military invasion would be stupid, and worse, impossible, thanks to our entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan. America’s military overcommitments have undoubtedly been a factor in the growing stridency of Iranian demands. But, stuck as we are in Iraq, America still has diplomatic allies. Even if America is not the most popular team in town, Europe isn’t eager to see a nuclear-armed Iran. Besides nations outside Iran, activist groups inside the country have been fighting the repressive government crackdown on free speech on university campuses and in the media since Ahmadinejad’s election in 2005, demonstrating that the government doesn’t speak for everyone.

In the meantime, Iran can’t be allowed to have anything that can possibly be used to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran refuses to stop building its uranium enrichment plants, then a full-blown economic and diplomatic freeze-out is in order. If the world won’t sell anything but essential food and medical supplies to a nation that won’t behave reasonably, then nobody will have to invade Iran. Unlike Saddam’s totalitarian Iraq, Iran is a democracy (although a drastically limited one), and an intelligent embargo coupled with a tough, unified stance by the United Nations could reduce support for Ahmadinejad’s hard-line government. Maybe then, at long last, cooler heads will have a chance to prevail.