Iran’s Irresponsibility

Late last week, Iran announced its success in enriching uranium. This event, together with the recent poisonous words uttered by the extremist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are cause for alarm.

The Iranian leadership accused the American leadership of planning an invasion, and at the same time announced it would donate $50 million to the Hamas government. It recently reiterated its claim that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” this time noting that the “Zionist state” is “rotten” and “will be eliminated.” While some look upon these words as flighty and meaningless rhetoric, the prospect of nuclear weapons falling into Ahmadinejad’s hands is tough to stomach.

Regardless of the war of words between Iran and the West through all types of media these days, the U.S. should use the threat of air strikes and forceful measures against the Islamic regime as a deterrent to push its leaders back to the negotiation table. Our position stands strong, especially under these new developments: under no circumstances can America allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Troublingly, the announced enrichment puts the Islamic Republic a step closer to that goal.

While peaceful nuclear technology is a right under the Non Proliferation Treaty to reduce dependency on oil, Iran’s intentions are dubious at best. Due to the technology achieved since the times of the coup against the Shah, we now can be certain that Iranian missiles could easily hit Israel. Deterrence in the form of direct threats from the U.S. and its allies should focus on preventing the Iranian leadership from putting its hands on fissile material that can easily be turned into bombs.

The international community should push for plans like the one proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, under which Russia would manage all nuclear fuel for Iran. Although the extremists among the Iranian elites came to reject it, there was consensus over this plan just months ago. Such a proposition would be safer and more beneficial for both Iran and international stability. But should such a plan fail to gain traction, the U.S. should continue to exert pressure on its allies to enforce strict sanctions on Iran.

In all these struggles, the position of the U.S. has to be strong: we should lead the efforts to contain Iran at all costs. Whatever the potential international fallout of a tough U.S. stance, it pales in comparison to the devastation that could occur under a nuclear, uninhibited Iran.

Finally, when it comes to the internal politics of Iran, we should continue to favor change from within, as it is the only way to secure stability for the future. Ahmadinejad’s demential words and desires are not welcomed by most people in the Islamic Republic, and the West should favor those groups that pursue more freedom and real development for the Iranian people.