マーク・フィッツパトリック：イランがウラン濃縮したらイスラエルが攻撃
米国の元外交官で今はIISSの部長をしている人の話。イランが高濃度のウラン濃縮をする直前か、したすぐ後に、イスラエルは攻撃するだろう。しかし、一番大きな可能性は、イランがそれをしない状態で冷戦構造が続くことだ。
イランが濃縮技術を完成しにくくする目的で、対イラン制裁を実行している。
米欧中露は、イランの核開発反対で一致している。トルコの立ち振る舞いはナイーブ。
ガザ支援船を攻撃して死者を出したイスラエルの行動は馬鹿げている。トルコ・イスラエルの関係悪化は一時的なもので、修復可能。
War 'inevitable' with nuclear Iran, US expert says
Monday, October 25, 2010
ARAS COŞKUNTUNCEL
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News
If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, there will be war, an American expert on Iran has said. But, he said, even if its outlook seems to be "too naive," Turkey still has role to play in persuading Iran to limit its nuclear weapons capabilities.
Despite Tehran's claims to the contrary, Iran is developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, according to Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, or IISS, in London. "And it appears to want to be able to do so, as quickly as possible if it makes a decision."
Western powers suspect that Iran is masking a weapons drive under the guise of a civilian atomic program, while Tehran insists its nuclear program has no military aims.
"It has produced a stockpile of 3,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, which serve no civilian purpose today because Iran receives the fuel for the Bushehr reactor from Russia, and Iran has no capability to take the low-enriched uranium and produce fuel," Fitzpatrick told the Daily News & Economic Review in a recent interview. "So what's the purpose?"
Fitzpatrick said the main reason that the West rejects a nuclear Iran is not because it thinks Tehran would actually use a nuclear weapon but because the Western world cannot be sure that the nuclear weapon would stay in Iran and "not go into the hands of terrorists."
"I don't think any government in Iran would purposely give a nuclear weapon to terrorist groups, but one cannot be sure ... through some mistake or some individual," he said. "I think actually if it gets to the point of having a nuclear weapon, there will be a war.
"I think that some other countries would find it unacceptable that Iran has a nuclear weapon," he said. "I'm talking primarily of Israel but maybe the U.S., maybe France, maybe Britain. They would take steps to try to deny Iran having the capability, and I don't advocate military action, but I think it's a possibility."
Cold war in Middle East
According to Fitzpatrick, who also spent 26 years working in the U.S. State Department where he focused on non-proliferation issues, military actions are not currently on the table.
"Iran is still several months away from having the capability to actually to produce nuclear weapons," Fitzpatrick said. "But as it gets closer to that line separating capability from production, then Israel in particular will become very nervous, and at some point Israel's leaders may decide that they have to take matters into their own hands. Like they did in Syria and Iraq."
In September 2007, Israel carried out an air strike on a site in Syria that Tel Aviv and Washington intelligence analysts said was a partially constructed nuclear reactor. Admitting that a military strike on Iran would be more difficult and complicated, Fitzpatrick pointed out that Israel has been practicing and planning for many years.
"I think Israel will attack before they have a nuclear weapon. Or just after they have it," Fitzpatrick said. "So in this way, if the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to deter Israel, it would have the opposite effect. It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy."
But possible war between the West and Iran depends on whether Tehran provokes Israel and its allies, Fitzpatrick said but added that he believes the most realistic scenario in one that results in a "long, cold war" in the Middle East.
In this scenario, "Iran realizes that if it provokes Israel and the U.S. and others that it could lead to war, so they decide not to provoke," he said. "And also because they have technical difficulties with their program and because they cannot acquire good quality components from the outside world, so their program is limited. And sanctions and export controls help to keep the program limited. In fact export controls are very important. If they cannot acquire certain components, they cannot make additional good centrifuges and this way their program would be limited. ... I think the most probable outcome is that the Middle East will be in for a long, cold war with Iran."
Fitzpatrick also rejected the argument that Iran is looking to gain nuclear capabilities simply because Israel has nuclear weapons and pointed to the history of Iran's nuclear program, which started during the Shah era.
"Israel's existence as a nuclear power in the region didn't cause the nuclear race in the region," he added. "It had nothing to do with Israel. ... Now today Iran justifies its behavior by pointing to Israel. It's an excuse, a debating point. It makes the tension of the region focus on Israel rather than Iran. But it's not the purpose of Iran's program."
In the international arena, Turkish leaders often make a distinction between what Western powers claim to be Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons and what Iran says is a peaceful program to produce nuclear power.
Although Fitzpatrick finds this distinction to be a fundamental point, he said Ankara tends to give Tehran the benefit of the doubt.
Turkey's role as a mediator
"The difference is that Turkey seems to be more willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt to accept Iran's explanations that its intentions are purely peaceful, and many other Western nations and Russia and China are less willing to believe Iran because of all of the evidence of military intentions," he said. "So if you ask me Turkey's position, sometimes it seems to be too naive."
Fitzpatrick also highlighted Turkey's role as a mediator in the region and said that the worsening relationship between Turkey and Israel was a temporary and repairable situation that stems from "Israel's stupidity over the flotilla and now stubbornness on both sides."
In May, Israeli forces intercepted a six-ship flotilla headed for Gaza, killing eight Turkish activists and one American of Turkish descent in a raid that prompted a wave of international condemnation.
"Turkey has a very important role in trying to persuade Iran to limit its nuclear weapons capabilities by either joining with the rest of Europe in applying strict sanctions or for being a loophole whereby Iran can acquire various items from Turkey that it cannot get elsewhere," said Fitzpatrick.
If Iran faces a united world, he said, it would be more willing to accept negotiations. "But if Iran thinks it can split the rest of the world and get what it wants from countries like Turkey, then it would be less willing to accept negotiations," Fitzpatrick added.
Turkey, a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, had voted against the latest sanctions. After the U.N. voted to apply the sanctions, Turkish Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek said Ankara would abide by the U.N. sanctions but ruled out following tougher measures imposed by the United States and the European Union.
Before the most recent round of sanctions, Turkey and Brazil in May brokered a fuel-swap deal with Tehran that would have seen Iran ship much of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for nuclear fuel rods needed for a medical research reactor.
Western nations rejected the deal and backed a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Iran on June 9. But the deal still has the potential to be a starting point for a diplomatic solution, Fitzpatrick said.
"The May 17 declaration that Turkey and Brazil brokered was important because it persuaded Iran to make a compromise on one key question. That question was exporting a certain quantitiy of low-enriched uranium before the receipt of fuel for the Tehran research reactor," he said. But "there were other aspects of the deal that made it unappealing to all the Western countries. You might say that although Turkey and Brazil succeeded in one major area, on all of this what one might call fine print of a contract, Iran got the advantage. If that deal could be renegotiated to address these problematic areas then it could still hold some promise."
Fitzpatrick said the deal was not off the table yet. "There is very little enthusiasm for the deal in Western capitals, but I think the principle of exporting low-enriched uranium is an important principle," he said. "If that could be built upon, then I think it could be the basis for a deal."
イランが濃縮技術を完成しにくくする目的で、対イラン制裁を実行している。
米欧中露は、イランの核開発反対で一致している。トルコの立ち振る舞いはナイーブ。
ガザ支援船を攻撃して死者を出したイスラエルの行動は馬鹿げている。トルコ・イスラエルの関係悪化は一時的なもので、修復可能。
War 'inevitable' with nuclear Iran, US expert says
Monday, October 25, 2010
ARAS COŞKUNTUNCEL
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News
If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, there will be war, an American expert on Iran has said. But, he said, even if its outlook seems to be "too naive," Turkey still has role to play in persuading Iran to limit its nuclear weapons capabilities.
Despite Tehran's claims to the contrary, Iran is developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, according to Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, or IISS, in London. "And it appears to want to be able to do so, as quickly as possible if it makes a decision."
Western powers suspect that Iran is masking a weapons drive under the guise of a civilian atomic program, while Tehran insists its nuclear program has no military aims.
"It has produced a stockpile of 3,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, which serve no civilian purpose today because Iran receives the fuel for the Bushehr reactor from Russia, and Iran has no capability to take the low-enriched uranium and produce fuel," Fitzpatrick told the Daily News & Economic Review in a recent interview. "So what's the purpose?"
Fitzpatrick said the main reason that the West rejects a nuclear Iran is not because it thinks Tehran would actually use a nuclear weapon but because the Western world cannot be sure that the nuclear weapon would stay in Iran and "not go into the hands of terrorists."
"I don't think any government in Iran would purposely give a nuclear weapon to terrorist groups, but one cannot be sure ... through some mistake or some individual," he said. "I think actually if it gets to the point of having a nuclear weapon, there will be a war.
"I think that some other countries would find it unacceptable that Iran has a nuclear weapon," he said. "I'm talking primarily of Israel but maybe the U.S., maybe France, maybe Britain. They would take steps to try to deny Iran having the capability, and I don't advocate military action, but I think it's a possibility."
Cold war in Middle East
According to Fitzpatrick, who also spent 26 years working in the U.S. State Department where he focused on non-proliferation issues, military actions are not currently on the table.
"Iran is still several months away from having the capability to actually to produce nuclear weapons," Fitzpatrick said. "But as it gets closer to that line separating capability from production, then Israel in particular will become very nervous, and at some point Israel's leaders may decide that they have to take matters into their own hands. Like they did in Syria and Iraq."
In September 2007, Israel carried out an air strike on a site in Syria that Tel Aviv and Washington intelligence analysts said was a partially constructed nuclear reactor. Admitting that a military strike on Iran would be more difficult and complicated, Fitzpatrick pointed out that Israel has been practicing and planning for many years.
"I think Israel will attack before they have a nuclear weapon. Or just after they have it," Fitzpatrick said. "So in this way, if the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to deter Israel, it would have the opposite effect. It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy."
But possible war between the West and Iran depends on whether Tehran provokes Israel and its allies, Fitzpatrick said but added that he believes the most realistic scenario in one that results in a "long, cold war" in the Middle East.
In this scenario, "Iran realizes that if it provokes Israel and the U.S. and others that it could lead to war, so they decide not to provoke," he said. "And also because they have technical difficulties with their program and because they cannot acquire good quality components from the outside world, so their program is limited. And sanctions and export controls help to keep the program limited. In fact export controls are very important. If they cannot acquire certain components, they cannot make additional good centrifuges and this way their program would be limited. ... I think the most probable outcome is that the Middle East will be in for a long, cold war with Iran."
Fitzpatrick also rejected the argument that Iran is looking to gain nuclear capabilities simply because Israel has nuclear weapons and pointed to the history of Iran's nuclear program, which started during the Shah era.
"Israel's existence as a nuclear power in the region didn't cause the nuclear race in the region," he added. "It had nothing to do with Israel. ... Now today Iran justifies its behavior by pointing to Israel. It's an excuse, a debating point. It makes the tension of the region focus on Israel rather than Iran. But it's not the purpose of Iran's program."
In the international arena, Turkish leaders often make a distinction between what Western powers claim to be Iran's program to develop nuclear weapons and what Iran says is a peaceful program to produce nuclear power.
Although Fitzpatrick finds this distinction to be a fundamental point, he said Ankara tends to give Tehran the benefit of the doubt.
Turkey's role as a mediator
"The difference is that Turkey seems to be more willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt to accept Iran's explanations that its intentions are purely peaceful, and many other Western nations and Russia and China are less willing to believe Iran because of all of the evidence of military intentions," he said. "So if you ask me Turkey's position, sometimes it seems to be too naive."
Fitzpatrick also highlighted Turkey's role as a mediator in the region and said that the worsening relationship between Turkey and Israel was a temporary and repairable situation that stems from "Israel's stupidity over the flotilla and now stubbornness on both sides."
In May, Israeli forces intercepted a six-ship flotilla headed for Gaza, killing eight Turkish activists and one American of Turkish descent in a raid that prompted a wave of international condemnation.
"Turkey has a very important role in trying to persuade Iran to limit its nuclear weapons capabilities by either joining with the rest of Europe in applying strict sanctions or for being a loophole whereby Iran can acquire various items from Turkey that it cannot get elsewhere," said Fitzpatrick.
If Iran faces a united world, he said, it would be more willing to accept negotiations. "But if Iran thinks it can split the rest of the world and get what it wants from countries like Turkey, then it would be less willing to accept negotiations," Fitzpatrick added.
Turkey, a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, had voted against the latest sanctions. After the U.N. voted to apply the sanctions, Turkish Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek said Ankara would abide by the U.N. sanctions but ruled out following tougher measures imposed by the United States and the European Union.
Before the most recent round of sanctions, Turkey and Brazil in May brokered a fuel-swap deal with Tehran that would have seen Iran ship much of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for nuclear fuel rods needed for a medical research reactor.
Western nations rejected the deal and backed a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Iran on June 9. But the deal still has the potential to be a starting point for a diplomatic solution, Fitzpatrick said.
"The May 17 declaration that Turkey and Brazil brokered was important because it persuaded Iran to make a compromise on one key question. That question was exporting a certain quantitiy of low-enriched uranium before the receipt of fuel for the Tehran research reactor," he said. But "there were other aspects of the deal that made it unappealing to all the Western countries. You might say that although Turkey and Brazil succeeded in one major area, on all of this what one might call fine print of a contract, Iran got the advantage. If that deal could be renegotiated to address these problematic areas then it could still hold some promise."
Fitzpatrick said the deal was not off the table yet. "There is very little enthusiasm for the deal in Western capitals, but I think the principle of exporting low-enriched uranium is an important principle," he said. "If that could be built upon, then I think it could be the basis for a deal."
"マーク・フィッツパトリック：イランがウラン濃縮したらイスラエルが攻撃" へのコメントを書く