Email this page to friends RSS feed About Allan Topol Allan Topol is a partner in a large Washington-based international law firm. He has a science and engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon, and a law degree from Yale University. For almost 40 years, he has been involved in issues at the height of the Washington power structure. He is also a national bestselling novelist, using the thriller genre to explore international geopolitical and military issues. His new novel, ENEMY OF MY ENEMY, dealing with an American pilot shot down over Eastern Turkey and Russian nuclear weapons, was released February 1, 2005. His 2001 novel, SPY DANCE, is about a former CIA agent on the run and Saudi Arabian oil. His 2003 novel, DARK AMBITION, deals with the corruption of power in Washington and China's threatening posture toward Taiwan. In January 2004, his new novel CONSPIRACY was released dealing with a foreign leader's attempt to influence an American presidential election and the possibility of renewed militarism in Japan. Allan Topol contact info: Allan Topol Website Email Allan Topol Allan Topol Books: Spy Dance Dark Ambition Conspiracy Allan Topol Archives Military Opinions Index Discussion Board Have an opinion on this article? Sound off. Your Two Cents Submit your stories, news items, or a benefits update -- and help Military.com bring the best, most important stories to your fellow servicemembers, veterans, and family members. Contribute here

May 18, 2005

[Have an opinion about the issues discussed in this column? Sound off here.]

As the United States tried to persuade Saddam Hussein to come clean on his weapons of mass destruction in the months prior to the war, our friends in France and Germany were being less than helpful. Once the war began, those two European allies were downright hostile in their approach. Their motivation may have been a concern for business at risk by their national corporations, resentment in general against the United States, or a dislike for President Bush. Regardless, they did nothing to help the United States resolve the troublesome problem of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Perhaps in an effort to repair the Atlantic alliance, President Bush let the Europeans take the lead on dealing with Iran's development of nuclear weapons. The United States has not been obstructionist, but it has remained on the sidelines as France, Germany and Britain undertook negotiations with Iran in an effort to persuade Tehran to shut down its nuclear weapons program and put all of its reactors and related facilities under international inspection. For months now, these negotiations have continued with the Europeans offering various carrots and incentives to Tehran, only to be rebuffed at each point.

This week the Iranians ratcheted up the pressure on Europe by taking a harder line in the negotiations. Specifically, Iran's parliament passed a resolution insisting that the government resume developing nuclear fuel. The unmistakable signal was being sent to the Europeans, who have another meeting scheduled with the Iranians next week -- a signal that they are not about to compromise. While the Iranians have continued to insist that their nuclear program is peaceful, they have at the same time made it clear that developing nuclear weapons is strongly in their self-interest and they intend to do it. For the last 20 years, Iran has a record of lies, cover-ups and evasions in its dealings with international atomic agency inspectors.

This action by the Iranian parliament demonstrates that Tehran regards itself in the driver's seat during negotiations with the Europeans. Indeed, Tehran has read the situation correctly. The Europeans have enormous leverage over Tehran, but have been unwilling to use it. Specifically, the European companies are doing an enormous amount of business with the Iranians, moving in to fill the vacuum created by American firms who are not permitted to do business there. If the Europeans had made it clear to Tehran that they either agree to the European position in the negotiations or face a total economic boycott, then Tehran would have had to get serious.

Without utilizing this threat, the negotiations are nothing more than a haggling over terms of a carpet sale. They will drag on interminably and make no progress. At the same time, the Iranians have made it clear that, with this parliamentary resolution, they will proceed with the development of weapons.

The Europeans' only response has been to state that they would halt talks and refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council for possible international penalties. This threat is meaningless, as we all well know from having watched U.N. deliberations in other matters, such as Iraq. Moreover, the Russians, heavily involved with Tehran from a business standpoint in nuclear as well as other areas, will have their own reasons for blocking effective U.N. action. Even if a U.N. consensus could be reached on sanctions -- which is unlikely -- then what real teeth will they have?

All of this places the United States in an extremely difficult position. The Bush administration, having tried to mend fences with France and Germany, is understandably loath to come roaring into the middle of this dialogue like a bull in a china shop. On the other hand, the United States at least has some credibility. If it threatens action after the Iraqi war, the mullahs ruling Tehran will not easily brush aside Washington's threats.

Even if the United States wants to become more active, there is still a difficult question of what should be done. Washington's intelligence on Iran's nuclear program is limited. Likewise, we have limited information about where the key Iranian facilities are and some of them may be buried so far underground that bombing is not a viable option. Given how thin our ground forces are in Iraq as well as the size of Iran and its army, the introduction of American military ground personnel in Iran is not feasible.

What is needed, however, is solidification of our intelligence about Iran's nuclear program and a practical list of locations and facilities which could be targeted. Without making it known to Iran what those locations are, we could meaningfully relay the information to Tehran that the United States is prepared to move militarily and that it has viable targets for attack.

If we are not prepared to take this significant step, then the United States' only other pressure point would be to lean on the Europeans. We could try to persuade them to threaten the economic sanctions that they have been unwilling to impose on their own. It is possible, although probably unlikely, that we have sufficient clout to persuade the Europeans to take this step.

If both of these options are non-starters, then the United States must begin to accept what was previously unthinkable. That is we will have to live in a world in which the mullahs have the bomb. The consequences of this development for the rest of America's Middle Eastern policy are severe. Iran, dominated by the Shiites, is viewed as a threat to Sunni nations, such as Saudi Arabia. With Iran in the nuclear weapons business, the Saudis are likely to follow.

Email this page to friendsRSS feed

© 2005 Allan Topol. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.