 "Photo:")
As the tensions between the United States and Iran continue to flare, experts across the nation are offering their analyses of Iran's defiant nuclear program and their predictions of a possible war over the issue. Dr. Jim Walsh, a research associate at MIT's Security and Studies program and one of the leading experts on Iran, addressed these topics in front of both faculty and students in a lecture entitled "A Nuclear Iran? Energy, Weapons and the Future of the Middle East" on Thursday.
The lecture is the first installment of a five-part series entitled "Energy, International Security and the Changing Middle East," which is sponsored by the Middle Eastern and Islamic studies program of Boston College.
The series will focus on various current issues ranging from Iraqi and Iranian relations to energy transit. Kathleen Bailey, coordinator of the Middle Eastern and Islamic studies program and political science professor, introduced Walsh and stated that the overarching purpose of this series is to discover "where, how, and if" these varying issues "intersect."
Walsh is an international security expert and focuses primarily on the issues of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. His current project involves dialogues regarding nuclear weaponry with leading figures in both North Korea and Iran.
Walsh noted that the situation in Iran has greatly escalated within the past three months. In order to account for this, he modified the content of his lecture to focus on the question of whether the United States will attack Iran, and the keys to answering this are threefold: Iran's current political situation, the nuclear issue, and U.S. policy.
The first concern is the current political situation in Iran. Walsh described that there are actually two rulers of the country, the supreme leader, who is "the decider," and the president. The current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected in 2005 and is a vocal critic of the Bush administration and a staunch supporter of furthering Iran's nuclear program. Walsh explained that although Ahmadinejad was elected as a man of the people, his popularity in Iran and abroad have greatly declined since.
Iran's president has received criticism from the country's conservative parliament and complaints in newspaper editorials. Most recently, elections for the Iranian Assembly of Experts were held in December. This is the political body which elects the supreme leader and oversees his decisions. In this December election, supporters of Ahmadinejad did very poorly, perhaps the most telling sign of his withering popularity, said to Walsh. Although Ahmadinejad is a supporter of Iranian nuclear interests, he does not actually have the power to make executive decisions regarding nuclear policy.
This power is granted to a council which reports directly to the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who is not in favor of pursuing a nuclear weapons program. This is just one of the many examples which highlight the complex and evolving relationship between the president and supreme leader.
The next portion of the lecture focused on the nuclear issue. Iran is a signed member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which focuses on non-proliferation and disarmament, but does allow nations to peacefully pursue nuclear technology as an alternative energy source.
Walsh stated that Iran has had a secret nuclear program since the 1980s. The issue, however, has been in the spotlight the past year. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that Iran has "cheated" on its obligations to the NPT and IAEA. In December 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution which seeks to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program and freeze the assets of those who have been linked with the nuclear program. This came after Iran failed to comply with IAEA weapons inspections. Walsh went on to address the differing views of both the United States and Iran.
The United States believes that Iran does not need nuclear energy, however, Iranians cite the fact that the United States had supported the Shah's nuclear program in the past. The United States also states that Iran is seeking nuclear weaponry, not simply energy. Iran counters that nuclear weaponry violates the religion of Islam.
Finally, the United States makes the claim that Iran has lied to the IAEA in the past. Yet, Iran counters that it has been forced to conceal its nuclear activity because of U.S. pressure, but it is willing to open up to the world. Walsh believes that this issue is so difficult because he agrees with both sides.
There is a variety of opinions about the nuclear issue in Iran, but Walsh states that the people are indifferent. Whatever course the nation chooses to pursue, he states that Iranians only desire "recognition and an end of isolation."
The final focus of the lecture was on U.S. policy. Walsh listed four strategies that the United States can pursue: coerce, isolate and contain, military force, and increased negotiations. Walsh then explored the possibility of military force, stating that this would most certainly necessitate more troops in Iraq, inflame the Muslim world, and provoke Iranian retaliations. The benefits of a military strike are the delay of an Iranian nuclear program and the possibility of catalyzing democratic change in the country. Walsh stated that when he looks at this option, the "benefits are smaller than the costs."
Walsh believes, however, that one thing is certain, if the United States bombs Iran, then the United States almost guarantees their desire to become a nuclear state.
Walsh stated that President Bush talked about Iran four times in his State of the Union address in January. Furthermore, the United States has tried to raise troop levels and move the positions of many aircraft carriers. Walsh stated that these are all steps necessary for military actions, but he does not believe that they are sufficient.
Walsh maintained that a U.S. attack against Iran is "not likely," because it would put strain on the army and increase public outcry against the Bush administration. Furthermore, there is no Congressional support for such a move and no international "coalition of the willing." Walsh stated, however, that if new intelligence becomes available it could easily trigger a reaction.
In the last analysis, Walsh said that the nature of the United States and Iranian relationship is that "one will extend the hand and the other will rebuff it." For the United States, the question is if Iran extends its hand in the future, "will we seize that opportunity?"
Be the first to comment on this article!