Israel Matzav

Ignorance is Blix

Former IAEA Director General and nuclear arms inspector Hans Blix worries that Iran 'won't sit back and accept' a strike on its nuclear facilities. But he questions whether Iran is even capable of enriching uranium to 20% (which the IAEA has now admitted that it is and that it has done) and he totally disregards the possibility (as did his interviewer at Der Spiegel) that Ahmadinejad really intends to try to wipe Israel off the map (God forbid). Iran's support for terrorism is also a non-factor in this interview.

SPIEGEL: But what if Iran doesn't want to step back? What if, in fact, Iran wants the bomb instead?

Blix: I don't rule out the possibility that Iran wants nuclear weapons, but I find the probability higher that the political leadership is divided over the issue. Merely the ability to enrich uranium already serves as a deterrent, and for some in the regime it might even be sufficient. If there is a desire to have the bomb, it certainly goes back to the 1980s and the threat coming from the Iraqi nuclear program at the time. But Iraq collapsed in 1991 and again in 2003, and if there is anything that makes me optimistic today, it is the notion that Iran, following the disarmament of Iraq, no longer has a security-related reason to acquire nuclear weapons.

SPIEGEL: Doesn't Iran feel surrounded by enemies?

Blix: I don't think the Iranians perceive Israel as a threat. The conflict between the two countries over enrichment is relatively new. Afghanistan? No. Pakistan? No. And not Turkey or Russia, either.

SPIEGEL: And the United States?

Blix: Yes. Aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf are a different story. But this is precisely where we see the best options for a solution. In the case of North Korea, the United States offered a non-aggression agreement and the establishment of diplomatic relations. In the case of Iran, both options have not been discussed publicly to date. In other words, no one can claim that all the diplomatic options have already been exhausted.

SPIEGEL: What other possibilities does the West have to stop the Iranian nuclear program? What do you know about covert US operations in Iran?

Blix: I don't have any evidence to support that, but it wouldn't surprise me. The US Congress has approved millions for these purposes -- not a very wise decision, by the way, because it just plays into the hands of the hardliners and harms the opposition.

SPIEGEL: Now new sanctions against Tehran are being discussed. Do you think they make sense?

Blix: Sanctions have certainly been successful before -- just think of Libya. But it took a long time, and they are a blunt weapon. They were devastating in Iraq, where they harmed the people but hardly even affected Saddam. Whether sanctions can be effective against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard remains to be seen. In the case of North Korea, freezing certain bank accounts in Macau was obviously effective. Economic sanctions could certainly be appropriate, but I'm against military sanctions, because the only thing there is to bomb at the moment is intentions.

SPIEGEL: The Israelis have more or less openly threatened to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Blix: Hardliners who analyze the drawbacks of a diplomatic solution today should, with the same scrutiny, analyze the drawbacks of a military solution. It's easy to let the bombs fall, and a military strike could set the nuclear program back by a few years -- something that would be very welcome. But what would the long-term consequences be? Iran won't simply sit there quietly and accept an attack.

SPIEGEL: Can air strikes even successfully destroy Iran's nuclear program? Most of the facilities are buried deep underground.

Blix: Anyone who's worried that al-Qaida might be making dirty nuclear bombs in the caves of the Hindu Kush ought to be much more concerned about the fact that such air strikes can't do much harm. Iran is a big, sophisticated country, and you can't destroy or occupy everything.

SPIEGEL: So you think a military strike would be pointless?

Blix: I believe, at any rate, that it's impossible to eliminate Iran as a potential enemy. Despite Ahmadinejad's inflammatory speeches, Iran hasn't been an aggressive, expansionist country in a long time. Besides, the glow that the mullahs' 1979 revolution kindled throughout the region has disappeared. After the discredited election, and after the corruption they have permitted, the mullahs can no longer spark enthusiasm in anyone -- neither the Iranians themselves nor anyone else in the region.

An Obama kind of guy....

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:32 AM