After a decade of diplomatic talks that saw the Iranian government repeatedly bait and switch the international community in a deliberate effort to buy more time for its nuclear program, even many skeptics anticipated a new outcome from last month’s Baghdad talks between Iran and the six world powers (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany).
The Iranian economy and the Iranian government’s finances have been suffering under the most crippling economic sanctions of Iran’s post-revolutionary history.
Amid report after report of Iran’s collapsing economy and unprecedented global isolation, it finally appeared as if Iran had reevaluated its position when the Iranian nuclear chief, Fereydoon Abbasi, indicated Iran would consider suspending uranium enrichment as part of any deal with the six world powers.
By the second day of the Baghdad talks, it grew apparent negotiations were going nowhere as Iran insisted on its right to enrich uranium. The talks ended with no deal.
Three days later, contradicting his previous statements, Abbasi unequivocally declared Iran would not suspend uranium enrichment. Iran’s nuclear chief then insisted that Iran would continue to enrich uranium to a degree of purity reaching or surpassing 20 percent.
Once again, Iran had misled the international community.
We would live in a fundamentally more dangerous world the day after Iran acquired a nuclear weapon. All of our calculations about global security would be seriously altered for the worse.
A nuclear Iran could deal a historic setback to the international community’s nonproliferation goals. Diplomatic milestones like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, courageous efforts like Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev working together to reduce American and Russian stockpiles, and global efforts to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty could all be effectually undone by an Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.
If Pakistan was not above peddling nuclear materials and secrets in the international black market for years without detection, an outlaw state like Iran certainly presents a similar risk.
Moreover, a nuclear Iran would likely provoke a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a nightmare scenario for global security. Saudi Arabia has already announced its intention to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons in the event that Iran acquires them first.
Turkey, Egypt and Jordan have also been mentioned as potential proliferators. Nuclear gamesmanship in the world’s most unstable region could also re-escalate a nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan.
Finally, there is the threat that Iran would deliver a nuclear bomb to its terrorist agents.
To appreciate just how urgent the Iranian situation has become, it was recently confirmed that Iran has been enriching its uranium stockpiles up to 27 percent. While Iran claims the enrichment is for a research reactor, most civilian reactors use uranium enriched to just 4 or 5 percent.
While 27 percent seems far away from the 90 percent enrichment threshold for weapons-grade uranium, enrichment is not a straight-line process; it is more of a curved exponential process. As a result, Iranian enrichment is estimated to be about 80 percent of the way toward producing nuclear weapons-grade uranium.
The Obama administration deserves praise for uniting the world against Iran’s nuclear program. Under the president’s leadership, Iran has faced an unprecedented degree of economic and political isolation.
The price of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is certain to be unpredictable and destabilizing, and the president of the United States is responsible and wise to exhaust all alternative options first. The sanctions should be given more time to work.
However, Iran’s behavior at the Baghdad talks reflected an irrational commitment to nuclear proliferation in the face of economic and social ruin.
There is simply no telling where Iran’s breaking point is, and the time is soon when it will become too risky to find out.
Dan Dimatteo is a law student at UF.
