| Newsweek Home » World News |
 |
Iran’s Defiance
NEWSWEEK’s Michael Hirsh joined us for a Live Talk on the growing tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, Feb. 8. Read the transcript.
 | Most Popular |
| |||||
| BLOG TALK |
Read what bloggers are saying about this Newsweek article |
Since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office, he has shown himself to be an expert at outrage, calling for the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, berating the “so-called superpowers.” Although he continues to swear that Iran’s nuclear research is peaceful, the world’s lack of faith in Ahmadinejad’s promises was clear last week when even Russia and China agreed to send Tehran's case before the United Nations Security Council. Iran’s response: threats to cease voluntary cooperation with nuclear investigators from the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.
What lies ahead for Iran's nuclear program? Is the world prepared to handle the outcome? NEWSWEEK Senior Editor Michael Hirsh will take your questions on Ahmadinejad, Iran and the future of U.S.-Iranian relations. Join him for a Live Talk, Wednesday, Feb. 8, at noon, ET. Submit questions now.
- Read this week's cover story on the Iranian nuclear crisis.
- Read Fareed Zakaria’s column on Islam and power.
- Read Michael Hirsh's biography.
Michael Hirsh: Greetings.
Washington, DC: Aren't there legitimate reasons for Iran to pursue a nuclear energy program?
Michael Hirsh: This is the subject of much debate. Washington and the European three (Germany, France and Britain) say no, there are no legitimate reasons for Iran to have a civilian nuclear program, given that it is awash in oil. Iran declares that it has a right like any other signatory to the NPT to develop nuclear energy, and says it is preparing for the day when its oil runs out. But there is little doubt that it is pursuing technologies, including missiles, that can only be intended for nuclear weapons, not just nuclear reactors.
_______________________
San Jose, CA: What does it take for us to arrive into a truce with Iran? I feel Iran could be a real contributor and a friend to the US if a set of conditions that satisfy both sides are met.
Michael Hirsh: For the Iranians, it would require U.S. and Western acceptance of Tehran's nuclear program, including enrichment that would give it the capability to make bomb-grade fuel, and that is unacceptable to the Americans and Europeans. So there's not much common ground there. Also bear in mind that, at least until Bush's 'axis of evil' speech in 2002, the US. government has made several attempts to get friendlier with Tehran, and all have been rebuffed.
_______________________
Boston, MA: I do hope for a peaceful resolution w/ Iran, but how did we expect Iran to react after Bush's rhetoric of being an axis of evil & later invading Iraq? Would we as Americans have sat still & folded our hands if the tables were turned?
Michael Hirsh: Good point. That rhetoric, so much a part of the administration's early hubris, frankly didn't help at all. It was a reflection of the fact that in the first term the hardliners were fully in command, actively contemplating military action against Iran and disdaining diplomacy. But it only consolidated Iranian determination to pursue its nuke program, and now that the administration needs diplomacy it's got a much bigger hole to dig itself out of it.
_______________________
Houston, TX: How can the world demand that one country not have any nuclear weapons, and then turn a blind eye toward another, such as Israel? What about the nuclear powers obligation? This is clearly a double standard, how can it be addressed?
Michael Hirsh: It is a double standard, and the Bush administration as well as previous U.S. administrations have been able to avoid acknowledging it because no one has ever proven Israel has a bomb, and they have never tested. But it is getting more difficult to do so, as the Iranians never tire of reminding us.
_______________________
South San Francisco, CA: How can the US keep a military option with Iran when we dont have more troops to face it?
Michael Hirsh: There is no realistic invasion option. Potentially, as a last resort, there might be an air strike option. But no one is actively considering this now because, first, it would likely have only limited success in targeting Iran's spread-out and buried facilities, and two, the retribution that Iran could exact, especially on our troops next door in Iraq, is too terrible to contemplate at this critical juncture when we are trying to stabilize that country. Also, the Bush administration knows it would only unite Iranians who may not love their clerical regime now around the regime.
_______________________
Seattle, WA: While we're on the subject of a nuclear Iran, what is the status of North Korea's nuclear ambitions?
Michael Hirsh: Good question. The North Koreans have been mostly silent since a deal struck a year ago to resume talks. There is no progress, but I have a feeling we will get some news on this soon as the State Department is pushing for a deal.
_______________________
Boston, MA: In your opinion, will the Western leaders repeat mistakes of 1938 Munich agreement in their dealings with Iran?
Michael Hirsh: Historical analogies are always inexact, but of course Munich has become the all-relevant model for how not to appease. To answer your question, I genuinely don't know. Certainly two years ago, before it got bogged down in Iraq, the Bush administration would have resorted to a military option (because that really is the only lesson of Munich, opting to go to war against an aggressive power) much more readily. But it is too weak to do that now, and the European powers are no longer capable of doing it. That leaves the Israelis, who do see this as an existential threat and may well strike if no one else does.
_______________________
Traverse City, MI: How are we to believe anything the media or this administration tells us after what happened in Iraq with WMDs?
Michael Hirsh: It's a huge problem. The administration shattered its credibility with its trumped-up case for war with Iraq. That is one reason why it is being so careful now to move step by step against Iran, never getting too far ahead of its allies, so that there is consensus on just what Iran has. For the moment, the administration has succeeded in maintaining this consensus, helping to restore its credibility. If it ever decides on a military option, however, it will have a hard time making its case because of what it did with Iraq.
_______________________
New York, NY: How popular do you think Ahmadinejad is? Has he won support even among the people who previously voted for Khatami and the other "reformists"?
Michael Hirsh: It was a very divided election. Ahmadinejad was the surprise winner because it turned out that his opponent, former President Rafsanjani, was seen as corrupt and unpopular. But Ahmadinejad gets more popular the more he portrays himself as a lone holdout to Western pressure. Call it the Castro syndrome.
_______________________
Birmingham, UK: What would happen if the UN imposed an economic sanction against Iran and they retaliated to reduce significantly exporting their oil? Can the Iranian government survive and still able to continue its research on nuclear energy, and can the western economy survive with an oil price of 100 dollars per barrel?
Michael Hirsh: Both economies, Iranian and Western, would suffer badly but survive. And that may well happen.
_______________________
Columbus, IN: I thought the U.S. stance was not to bargain with terrorists, but to destroy them! What are we waiting for?? Give them the option and 24 hours to comply or else!
Michael Hirsh: Brave words. Perhaps you should go in with the first assault wave.
_______________________
Bridgeport, CT: If U.S. forces or Israel are attacked by Iranian forces using non conventional means i.e. chemical, biological, or nuclear, what is the likelyhood of a nuclear response to such an incident?
Michael Hirsh: From Israel, it's possible. But that scenario is very far-fetched frankly. Iran won't even have a bomb for several years, if that is indeed what it intends and it moves ahead full bore. The military option being discussed now, or at least gamed out --though not actively considered in WAshington at least -- is to pre-empt Iran before it gets such a weapon.
_______________________
North Las Vegas, NV: Nuclear capabilities in Iran is part of the broader Islamic militant uprising. What should our strategy be as a nation in approaching Iran's immediate nuclear threat?
Michael Hirsh: I think we have no choice but to do what we're doing now, which is to diplomatically isolate Iran. Also, I would not characterize Iran's strategic build-up on nuclear capability as being part of the "broader Islamic militant uprising." Even secularists in Iran going back to the Shah want a nuclear capability.
_______________________
Philadelphia, PA: Why is Iran's nuclear capability scorned and yet other nations who have the same capabilities tolerated?
Michael Hirsh: Much of this goes back to the basic bargain achieved more than 30 years ago with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The idea was that the established nuclear states, including the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain, would be permitted to keep their nuclear arms as long as they worked to dismantle them eventually, while every other signatory would agree not to develop arms as long as it could have access to civilian nuclear power. This has held for the most part; only India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed, and North Korea has pulled out. Iran, of course, is now saying that it is only asserting its rights under the 1970 NPT, but it has acknowedged violating parts of the treaty by secretly building facilities it did not disclose to the inspectors who enforce the treaty.
_______________________
Elk River, MN: With the potential interruption of financial aid to the Palestinians, will Iran forge a strong relationship with Hamas, and fund them? It seems that based on recent comments from the Iranian President, he would welcome more terrorism towards Israel. This would potentially force Israel's hand to take action against Iran and Hamas, would it not?
Michael Hirsh: Yes, it is highly likely that Iran will strengthen its relationship with Hamas. But as is the case with its interference in Iraq, it will be careful and discreet about this so as not to further incite the Israelis.
_______________________
Jackson, TN: Why dont people understand what impact this would have if Iran were allowed to have this power? Do people want them to have this power?
Michael Hirsh: It's never been a question of wanting them to; it's always been a question of practically stopping them from getting it, short of military action. A very tricky problem.
_______________________
Mashhad, Iran: As an Iranian don't you think US and Europe are commiting a huge diplomatic blunder that by trying to push Iran into a corner, Iran might really start developing nuclear weapons even if until now it never intended to do it?
Michael Hirsh: I think you have a good point. The Europeans who have led the talks have tried to avoid confrontation for two years precisely to avert pushing Iran into a corner. But because Tehran has broken the agreement with the EU-3 the Western countries now feel that they have little choice. However, the "axis of evil" rhetoric from the Bush administration has probably been counterproductive.
_______________________
Los Angeles, CA: What are the odds that the U.S. will need to take some form of military action against Iran within 3 years?
Michael Hirsh: Slim. The odds will go up considerably, in my view, if Iraq stabilizes and the U.S. government no longer feels its troops there are held hostage to Iranian interference, like fomenting civil war.
_______________________
Memphis, TN: How can the USA give aid to Israel when they will not sign the non-proliferation pact?
Michael Hirsh: There has been a tacit understanding that because Israel is the No. 1 U.S. ally in the Middle East, because it is a democracy, and because it is surrounded by hostile states that threaten its existence, Israel's quiet defiance of the NPT can be ignored.
_______________________
Aurora, CO: Will World War III be fought in the Middle East?
Michael Hirsh: Far likelier there than anyplace else, I think. But with all the terrible problems we face there is no sign of it breaking out as yet.
_______________________
Northport, AL: Given the recent violent reaction to something as benign as a cartoon, do you think that Iran has the self-control to not launch nuclear weapons?
Michael Hirsh: Well, the Iranians weren't the ones who first launched the demonstrations. However, an Iranian newspaper, presumably with the regime's blessing, did add a whole new level of tastelessness to the controversy by proposing a Holocaust cartoon context.
The self-control of an Ahmadinejad-run regime is a real legitimate question. But I don't think it's related to the cartoon controversy.
_______________________
Turkey: If a military opearion against Iran is decided, do you think other world countries will support the USA?
Michael Hirsh: I know that Washington is working to avoid what happened with Iraq, where it invade with almost no support. That is why the U.S. is being so careful to win the support not only of the Europeans but of China and Russia too. However it will need a whole new diplomatic offensive if it is to gain support for a military strike. I would say that no country supports that option at this point.
_______________________
New York, NY: To what extent are the current plans for a Euro-based International Oil Bourse in Tehran affecting the debate over nuclear technology? It is said that this Bourse will threaten the supremacy of the US Dollar and therefore is a bigger threat to the US than the potential WMD.
Michael Hirsh: I don't think it's affecting it at all.
_______________________
Irvine, CA: Have we ever apologized for our treatment of Iranians by training their agents to torture when the Shah was in power? Older Iranians cannot forget our role in the overthrow of their government and support of the Shah.
Michael Hirsh: You're right about the older Iranians. Even in the current negotiations, the specter of the 1953 anglo-American orchestrated coup against Mossadegh is always invoked by the Iranians. It is used to build support, especially as the rhetoric from Washington gets more fiery. No, we have not apologized.
_______________________
Imperial Beach, CA: With the US acting as the world bully, why wouldn't any country want nuclear capability? Why does the US keep upgrading its neuclear capability? If Saddam had actually had neuclear weapons do you think that the US would have invaded?
Michael Hirsh: I'm afraid that the safe bet for most rogue powers out there is that having a nuclear weapons is the main insurance against a U.S. invasion. This is the opposite of the message the Bush administration intended to send. The U.S. is upgrading its capability because its nuclear weapons stock is rapidly aging.
_______________________
Mogale City, South Africa: If a resolution is taken to sanction Iran, how will that impact world trade--particularly, oil importing countries?
Michael Hirsh: If that resolution is taken, I'd advise you to go out and buy a mini -- or a Vespa. Inflation will rise, economies will flag.
_______________________
Nichols, NY: How could anyone NOT understand why Ahmadinejad would want nuclear capability? He listened to Bush include Iran as one of the countries of the "Axis of Evil," and then watched the United States attack a country bordering his own! If Canada or Mexico were invaded by superior forces, would the United States sit on its hands and do NOTHING? I think not! Yes, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man, but can you see WHY he has acted as he did?
Michael Hirsh: Yes, I'm afraid I can see. I agree with your analysis completely.
_______________________
Skowhegan, ME: Why is the U.S. trying to destroy the duly elected government of Iran?
Michael Hirsh: There is no such official policy as yet, despite what you read. However the administration has made no secret of its wish that the clerical regime that has sat atop Iran since 1979 would collapse on its own.
_______________________
OH: i believe that all this fuss around the so called iran's nuclear program is just a part of Bush's plan to invade the whole region. After Iraq, there are Iran and Syria on the schedule. Don't you think that this is hypocrisy that nobody talks about Israel's nuclear weapons?
Michael Hirsh: After Iraq, you won't be seeing any more invasions for quite a long time, at least a generation I would say. Preemptive regime change as a policy is finished, the outcome of the terrible and unanticipated costs of that policy in Iraq.
_______________________
Washington, DC: How can Israel, the US and our alies--which do and make nuclear weapons--impose by force sanctions against another country who does the same? What gives us the right to wage or threaten via force?
Michael Hirsh: I'd refer you to my earlier answer on the diplomatic bargain of the 1970 NPT.
_______________________
Ann Arbor, MI: Wouldn't a nuclear first strike against Israel by an Islamic militant state such as Iran kill as many Palestinians as Israelis, the very people that Ahmadinejad claims he wants to help?
Michael Hirsh: Well, you raise a good point about an unthinkable scenario. First, very few strategists believe that Iran, shouuld it get a nuclear weapon, would actually use it, even against Israel. The idea would be deterrence and strategic power. But you are right: many many Muslims would die if a nuclear weapon were ever used against Israel.
_______________________
Colorado Springs, CO: What would Iran's response be to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear development sites?
Michael Hirsh: Most immediately, they would probably plow huge amounts of more money into Hamas and Hezbollah. They would also plan various large-scale terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. And they would resume their nuclear program with a vengeance.
_______________________
Alexandria, VA: Why don't we get a definitive ruling from Iran's supreme leader on whether it is permitted, forbidden or mandatory for Iran to get nuclear weapons (not clear he ever has); and if they had the chance, would it be forbidden, mandatory or permissable for them to attack the US and Israel with them?
Michael Hirsh: Khamenei has ruled in a fatwa that Iran is not to develop a nuclear weapon. But I haven't looked at the fine print.
_______________________
New York, NY: Wouldn't it be better, and more certain, to do a real raid, i.e. fly in a few thousand men, take an airfield, supply them for a week or so while they level the place, take home lots of stuff, and fend off the Iranians, and then go home?
Michael Hirsh: Perhaps. But that would require detailed intelligence knowledge about the exact whereabouts of all the Iranian nuclear apparatus, and we don't have that.
_______________________
Michael Hirsh: Well, that's it for me folks. Thanks for a very interesting discussion.
| MORE FROM NEWSWEEK WORLD NEWS |
 Newsweek World News Section Front |
