There is the Iranian nuclear program, along with the deliberations related to it by the six major powers, and then there is the loud opposition to the Iranian regime that has been ongoing since the presidential elections last June. While the first issue appears to be a foreign policy issue and the latter a domestic one, they are in fact both intertwined and inextricably linked, and any development in the track of one issue will inevitably affect the other. Prior to the disputed elections, and during its campaign and up until today, we did not hear anything, and not even a hint, a position by the opposition that contradicts with that of the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the nuclear program, which was in fact the same stance taken by Mohammad Khatami before him, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani before them. Nevertheless, we hear and read from Western sources, particularly American ones, claims that changing the regime will mean the end of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, and of the debate on whether it is for civilian purposes or has military purposes as well. The Obama administration no longer speaks of ‘regime change'; however, it still believes, in the words of Defence Secretary Robert Gates this week, that there is plenty of time to impose effective sanctions and apply pressure on Iran. While the hard line neoconservatives are still seeking to overthrow the regime in Tehran, others, like Richard Haass, are uninterested in pursuing this, as they believe they can otherwise ‘encourage' regime change in Iran. But why would the West benefit if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime collapsed? I insist here that his successor will not be a friend of the West or of Israel specifically, nor do I believe that the nuclear program will be halted. Instead, any new government will adopt the stance of every previous Iranian government in insisting that the program is for peaceful purposes. Personally, I do not think that regime change in Tehran is possible in the first place. For instance, today will give several indications as to the shape of Iran's future, with the celebration of thirty first anniversary of the Islamic revolution taking place, and with the call by the opposition leaders Mir Hussein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi for their supporters to strongly take to the streets and demonstrate against the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This also means that they will demonstrate against the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who also became the focus of criticism that does not seem to have spared the concept of Vilayet-i-faqih [clerical rule] as set forth by Imam Khomeini. But the Iranian government issues threats to the demonstrators and this must be taken seriously. Since last June, approximately 90 Iranians were killed in violent incidents in the streets of Tehran and other cities, and two protestors were executed while nine other were sentenced to death on charges of disturbing the peace. Violence only fuels more violence and fiercer opposition Nevertheless, this all will not benefit the West and Israel in an issue that I believe is groundless: while I also do not believe that Iran's nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes, I infer from all the information available to me, and most of it comes from Western sources, that Iran is not capable of building a nuclear bomb even if it desires so. In fact, both the Geneva meeting last October and the meeting that followed in Vienna expressed this clearly. Iran has uranium enriched up to five percent, and what is being offered is to transport three quarters of its stockpile, or about 1200 kilograms out of 1600, to Russia and France in order to enrich it further to 19.75 percent. This enrichment level would then be enough to operate a medical research nuclear reactor near Tehran. This assessment is coming from the West, and is undisputable. However, in what regards the news coming from Tehran, it is all rather contradictory, with Ahmadinejad one day proposing to send the Iranian uranium abroad for further enrichment, then the other day backtracking, then again announcing that a deal is still possible, before ordering the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization to increase uranium enrichment to 20 percent. It is certain that the Iranian organization is not able to enrich uranium to high enough levels to operate the reactor near Tehran, which was an American gift to the Shah under the ‘Atoms for Peace' program. Also, we know from purely Western sources is that Iran, after two decades of its nuclear program which started as a secret program but was exposed later, could not enrich uranium beyond five percent because the centrifuges in its possession does not give Iran such capability. Moreover, a peaceful nuclear reactor requires 19.75 percent (or 20 percent as Ahmadinejad said) while a nuclear program requires uranium that has been enriched up to 95 percent, something that is impossible for Iran to achieve whether today or in the near future. Thus, I have no explanation for the issue of the alleged Iranian nuclear bomb other than it can relieve Israel from the need to engage in the peace process. In the meantime, the Western countries seem to have become a party in the domestic dispute between the regime and its opponents, as if these countries believe that another regime can dispel their fears of a nuclear program that is impossible for Iran to produce in the foreseeable future. This is while there is cooperation taking place with armed Iranian opposition groups, while the United States has deployed missile defence systems in the Gulf and enhanced the presence of its ground troops there. All of this will only increase tension for the already tense regime, and may trigger an unexpected full scale confrontation that no one desires except Israel... The present regime is like the previous one, and its successor will be also like it, and no military nuclear program is currently underway. [email protected]
