via The Marmot

In the Australian: Henry Kissinger: Some atomic arm-twisting

IF George W. Bush’s first term was dominated by the war against terrorism, the second will be preoccupied with the effort to stem the spread of nuclear weapons.

This challenge is more complex than the first. Do we oppose proliferation because of the rogue quality of the two regimes – Iran and North Korea – furthest advanced on the road towards acquiring nuclear weapons? Or is our opposition generic; does it extend to fully democratic countries?

How far are we prepared to go in resisting proliferation? Is it possible for one country alone to become the sole custodian of the task of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons? And, if not alone, with what combination of powers should the US act?

It is a nicely written piece with well rounded, reasoned, yet plain-spoken advice for our talks and beyond with Iran. I especially liked this part:

One reason European negotiators have made the limited progress they have on the nuclear issue with Iran is the implied threat of actions the US may take in case of deadlock. The key issue between the US and Europe should not be over the necessity of pressure if diplomacy fails but the definition of it, the timing and precisely by what process that pressure is designed to lead to a non-nuclear Iran.

Indeed.

Let the Europeans tie specific rewards [non-nuke energy based] to specific positive actions taken by Iran AND consequences via the US tied to specific actions [or absence of them] from Iran. With timetables Short ones. And we do it now while they know crazy George is in office and has them surrounded.

May 13th, 2005 | Global War On Terror, Non-Proliferation, Politics

You must be logged in to post a comment.