A tall-order to end all world conflict, to be sure, but as FP [Foreign Policy] writes:
"When the world goes to hell, policymakers often turn to Gareth Evans for solutions. For this week’s Seven Questions, FP asked the International Crisis Group chief for his take on the Bush administration and our collective responsibility for crises in Burma, Iraq, and possibly Iran."
The answers to the seven questions posed to Evans - a former Foreign Affairs Minister in Australia - are interesting, such as this:
FP: What is your take on Iran? Is an attack inevitable, and what would be the repercussions of a nuclear-armed Iran?
GE: My organization and I are a bit at odds with current thinking in the U.S. and EU, which is wholly tactical and not at all strategic. While an ideal solution would have been to persuade the Iranians through a package of incentives to accept international fuel, I doubt it was ever deliverable. It’s not deliverable now. There’s too much pride; there’s too much testosterone; there’s too much sense of regional significance among the Iranians. What has to happen now is a new red line beyond “Thou shall not enrich.” The real red line should now be: “Thou shall not translate thy technological capability to military form; thou shall not enrich to weapons grade; thou shall not make nuclear bomb devices; thou shall be very careful about what kind of missile delivery system you put in place.” If you draw that red line and make it absolutely clear that if there’s any move towards militarization, then basically all hell will break loose and there will be a unanimous international response to it.
People keep telling me there’s still a 50 percent chance of the U.S. taking military action against Iran. I’ve been inclined to not put it as high as that, but that’s probably getting closer to reality. It would unleash an absolute flood of terrorist assaults, attacks, and destabilization efforts. All bets would be off.
"When the world goes to hell, policymakers often turn to Gareth Evans for solutions. For this week’s Seven Questions, FP asked the International Crisis Group chief for his take on the Bush administration and our collective responsibility for crises in Burma, Iraq, and possibly Iran."
The answers to the seven questions posed to Evans - a former Foreign Affairs Minister in Australia - are interesting, such as this:
FP: What is your take on Iran? Is an attack inevitable, and what would be the repercussions of a nuclear-armed Iran?
GE: My organization and I are a bit at odds with current thinking in the U.S. and EU, which is wholly tactical and not at all strategic. While an ideal solution would have been to persuade the Iranians through a package of incentives to accept international fuel, I doubt it was ever deliverable. It’s not deliverable now. There’s too much pride; there’s too much testosterone; there’s too much sense of regional significance among the Iranians. What has to happen now is a new red line beyond “Thou shall not enrich.” The real red line should now be: “Thou shall not translate thy technological capability to military form; thou shall not enrich to weapons grade; thou shall not make nuclear bomb devices; thou shall be very careful about what kind of missile delivery system you put in place.” If you draw that red line and make it absolutely clear that if there’s any move towards militarization, then basically all hell will break loose and there will be a unanimous international response to it.
People keep telling me there’s still a 50 percent chance of the U.S. taking military action against Iran. I’ve been inclined to not put it as high as that, but that’s probably getting closer to reality. It would unleash an absolute flood of terrorist assaults, attacks, and destabilization efforts. All bets would be off.
Comments