A Western official said that Iran’s main nuclear sites are too well protected to be destroyed by an Israeli air strike, Newsweek reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 24).
(Oct. 27) -
Former U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns has urged the United States to pursue nuclear talks with Iran (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images).
Israel and the United States are concerned that Iran’s nuclear program could support weapons development, but Tehran defends its nuclear work as a strictly civilian effort and has promised a swift reprisal to any attack.
To significantly damage Iran’s nuclear program, an attack would have to reach four or more underground enclosures that are each beneath fortified shells more than 60 feet thick, the Western official said.
The official and other U.S. analysts said that conventional Israeli weapons could not break through the walls, a task that would require multiple bunker-buster bombs detonated at a single location.
"These targets would be very hard to destroy," said David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security (Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, Nov. 3).
Meanwhile, Russia said Friday that it would probably scale back its support for new U.N.-based sanctions against Iranian nuclear activities following last week’s U.S. penalties toward a state-run Russian company, Agence France-Presse reported.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the independent economic penalties on Rosoboronexport “inadmissible.” Washington alleged that the firm and companies in other nations had exported equipment that could support development of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
“These sanctions have been introduced without any international legal basis," Lavrov told reporters, calling the penalties an "overseas application of American laws.”
"If someone in Washington thinks the United States will achieve reconciliation with Russia and will obtain acceptance of the U.S. approach to solving the Iran problem, they are mistaken,” he said.
"We are going to continue speak on behalf of the ongoing work of the [International Atomic Energy Agency] in Iran and against severe measures envisaged by some of our partners which threaten to halt Iranian cooperation with the IAEA and provoke a crisis," Lavrov added.
In a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry called the sanctions an "unfriendly act which cannot but have negative consequences as regards our dialogue with Washington, in particular in discussions between the [five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany]” on Iran (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Oct. 25).
The U.S. State Department stressed Friday that the sanctions strictly target individual companies and not governments.
“We impose sanctions because foreign companies proliferate weapons of mass destruction … and related material,” the department said in a statement.
“Sanctions were imposed because there was credible information indicating that [targeted] entities had transferred to or acquired from Iran, North Korea, or Syria goods, services, or technology listed on multilateral export control lists … and certain other items that could make a material contribution to weapons of mass destruction or cruise and ballistic missiles” (U.S. State Department release, Oct. 24).
Former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns last week called on the next U.S. president to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear efforts.
“If the talks end up succeeding, we will have prevented a third, and potentially catastrophic, war for the United States in the volatile area linking the Middle East and South Asia,” Burns wrote in a Newsweek column published Saturday. “If the talks fail, we will have a far better chance of persuading Russia and China to sign on to tougher sanctions against Iran. I think war with Iran would be unconscionable if we refuse even to try diplomacy first.
“I'm not saying the next president should sit down immediately with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. We should initiate contact at a lower level to investigate whether it's worth putting the president's prestige on the line. We should leave the threat of military action on the table to give us greater leverage as we talk to the Iranian government. And ultimately we'd want other countries with influence — like Russia and China — to sit on our side of the table in order to bring maximum pressure to bear against Tehran.
“The United States hasn't had a meaningful set of talks with Iran on all the critical issues that separate us in 30 years, since the Khomeini revolution. To illustrate how far we have isolated ourselves, think about this: I served as the Bush administration's point person on Iran for three years but was never permitted to meet an Iranian.
“To her immense credit, [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice arranged for my successor to participate in a multilateral meeting with Iranian officials this past summer (see GSN, July 21). That is a good first step, but the next American president should initiate a more sustained discussion with senior Iranians.
“If we aren't willing to talk to Iran, we may leave ourselves with only one option — military action. The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn't determine Iran's bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks” (Nicholas Burns, Newsweek, Oct. 25).
Elsewhere, Germany plans to encourage specific companies to voluntarily stop doing business with Iran, United Press International reported Friday.
The German Foreign Ministry is expected to tap Economy Ministry officials as liaisons on the issue with the country’s business community, Der Spiegel reported.
France recommended such measures to target firms that sell Iran sensitive equipment or services to Iran; however, German firms might be reluctant to adopt such measures in an unstable financial climate, UPI reported (United Press International/Middle East Times, Oct. 24).