Magazine article The New Yorker

Table Talk

Magazine article The New Yorker

Table Talk

Article excerpt

In the State of the Union address of 1954, which Dwight Eisenhower delivered less than a year after he had secretly ordered the C.I.A. to overthrow Tehran's left-leaning government, he celebrated "the forces of stability and freedom" at work in Iran. In 1980, Jimmy Carter delivered his annual address amid the whirlwind of Iran's Islamic and anti-American revolution, which was inflamed in part by Iranians' memories of Eisenhower's coup. "We will face these challenges," Carter declared. "And we will not fail." Three decades on, Iran's theocrats have built a police state, spread violence across the Middle East, and acquired nuclear reactors. Iran remains a perennially grim subject of Presidential oratory, and last week Barack Obama, while delivering his third State of the Union, added another entry: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

Leaving options on the table is a not-so-oblique way of threatening war. On the same day, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Knesset, "Only a combination of crippling sanctions and putting all the options on the table can make Iran stop" its nuclear drive. Meanwhile, three of the remaining candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination--Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich--have been speaking approvingly about bombing Iran's atomic sites or assassinating its scientists.

There is reason to doubt, though, that an attack on Iran is imminent. The United States and the European Union are ratcheting up economic sanctions in the hope that they will push Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to re-start serious nuclear negotiations after a year's hiatus. The E.U.'s twenty-seven member countries, which buy about a fifth of Iran's oil exports, agreed last week to forgo all Iranian crude by July. Ahmadinejad said soon afterward that he would indeed be willing to talk again. The strategy, led by Obama, appears to be achieving its aim of raising the pressure on the ayatollahs to an unprecedented level. The value of Iran's currency has fallen sharply. The diplomatic campaign would be stronger if it contained a definite plan to assuage Iran's fears that the West and Israel ultimately seek regime change in Tehran--fears that presumably inform Iran's search for a nuclear deterrent. Yet this is a rare period of momentum and international unity regarding Iran. "A peaceful resolution . . . is still possible, and far better," the President said in the State of the Union. An attack now by either Israel or the United States would shatter diplomacy's achievements.

The Iranian nuclear program is a problem with a long arc. The secret work began in the late nineteen-seventies, under the secular-minded Shah returned to power by Eisenhower's intervention. There can be little doubt that Iranian scientists have studied atomic-bomb design. Several leading Israeli defense officials have said recently that Iran's nuclear work has become so advanced that unless the sites are bombed soon--within months or, at most, within a year--it will be too late to prevent the country's acquisition of atomic arms. It is difficult to tell whether the officials really believe that or if they are just adding to the pressure on Tehran. Either way, the evidence casts doubt on their judgment. The centrifuge technology that Iran has acquired to enrich uranium is relatively easy to hide, so it is conceivable that work has advanced further than world governments understand. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.