I feel like this blog is coming across a bit like a spokesman for the Iranian foreign minister, and I really dont want to do that, but alot of the stuff written here should be said.

NTI reported yesterday (US) that director of the CIA Mike Hayden has questioned last years NIE and has personally concluded that Iran does in fact have a weaponisation program.

"...when asked whether he personally believed Iran was developing nuclear weapons, he replied “Yes.”

"You know, this is not court of law stuff … in terms of beyond all reasonable doubt,” he said. “This is Mike Hayden looking at the body of evidence.”

But, as the report notes...

"He cited Iran’s behavior as suggestive of a nuclear weapon intention rather than any specific evidence."

Does that seem a little familiar? The report makes the point that suspicious behaviour as evidence was what led us to war with Iraq five years ago. But many other top US officials are making similar claims, and disputing the NIE, with little to no evidence. I dont claim that any NIE can be a flawless document, but the attacks do have the hint of political motivation. Dick Cheney has claimed Iran is intent on weapons grade enrichment, Bush has claimed that Iran is pushing for the bomb, and even the man who authored the report, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnel, has said he "...would change a few things."

Now, I havent seen what they've seen. But there does seem to be little real evidence pointing towards any Iranian weaponisation program. Two major documents on Iran's nuclear program, the latest IAEA report and the NIE, put forward litle confidence that Iran currently  has a weapons program, and at worst one existed until 2003. 

The weaponisation issue now is where any future Iranian bomb program is going to come from. Diversion of nuclear material under the guise of the civil program would be near impossible under the IAEA and the amount of attention Iran is recieving, so any program now must be an undeclared facility. This is where the focus should be

We also have to remember that Iran did break its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and still refuses to stop its enrichment program after calls (and sanctions) from the UN to do so. 

However, this does not mean we should base policy on suspicions. Dubious suspicions have already led us to one bad conclusion, we cant let it lead us to another.

Would US interests be served by democratisation in the Middle East?

American interests in the strategically important Middle East would largely not be served by any real democratization. Many argue that US interests would be assisted, however there is little evidence that terrorism or strategic cooperation in the region would be improved through democratization efforts.

The idea that democratization in the Middle East would help combat terrorism gained in strength after the September 11 attacks in the US. It became a major part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq after the total lack of weapons of mass destruction became apparent. The idea was that Iraq would become a shining beacon of democracy, which would inspire a wave of democratization over the region.

Undemocratic and repressive regimes can breed terrorism, and political repression can radicalize opponents and create extremists. The argument follows that a democratic system could enable peaceful reconciliation of grievances, allow peaceful channels for dissent, and provide inclusion in policy making for marginalized groups. A democratic system can arguably work better to respond to other causes of terrorism, such as poverty and social divisions.

However there is little real evidence that this theory holds true, as recent democratisation efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are a testament to. Democratic systems also have not stopped terrorist groups becoming active throughout Western Europe and the US in the past. Terror organizations often do not have much widespread appeal, therefore are unlikely to gain power through democratic processes, so why would they respect the system? Why would a terror organisation hold the ideal of democracy above previous goals? An efficient authoritarian regime is also arguably better able to deal effectively with a terrorist threat than a democracy.

The second and most important problem for US interests in the region is that if Middle Eastern governments were actually representative of public opinion, they would be overwhelmingly against the US. A democratic Middle East would produce governments less likely to cooperate with the US than the current Authoritarian ones. The problem for democracy in the Middle Eastern states is not that the people do not want democracy, but that the USA would not like the results. Some argue that democracy would benefit the US, as authoritarian regimes can have trouble submitting to US wishes because of public opposition, but by definition that would only get worse if those governments had to listen to their people. Democratic systems would also most likely bring Islamic parties to power, which the US has not shown a preference for, as they often form the only organized political force besides the government. A democratic Iraq, with a Shiite majority, would also most likely move for closer ties with Iran, which the US could not allow. If the US were serious about democracy and respecting public opinion within Iraq they would have withdrawn by now.

The limited versions of democracy that exist in the Middle East often result in anti-US victories, and are largely condemned by the US because of their outcomes. Iran has limited political participation and restricted elections, with the anti-American Ahmadinejad elected from a controlled list in 2005. More recently the Palestinian territories experienced democratic elections, with the Anti-US Hamas gaining power, which resulted in US led sanctions.

Democracy promotion for the USA is a strategic tool, and is subsequently focused on enemies such as Iran and Syria, rather than allies such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt. There is little pressure upon America’s autocratic allies to democratize, and they continue to obtain strong US support. Undemocratic US allies such as Musharraf in Pakistan and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan receive strong US support as they assist the US on their democratisation mission in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia is an intensely totalitarian state, the main ally of the US in the region, and the linchpin of US regional hegemony. There is massive popular resentment against the Saudi regime, and its main supporter the USA. The US has put some limited pressure on the Saudi monarchs to democratize, and an election was held for local councils. It was restricted to male voters and approved candidates, and only half the council seats were open to election, with the others appointed by the regime. This miniscule step was praised by the US, and business went on as usual.

A similar case exists with Egypt, where Mubarak has ruled for over 25 years, and is a close US ally. Subject to political pressure he ran an election of pre-approved candidates in September 2005. The election was conducted in rounds, meaning if the first few rounds weren’t going his way he could rig it even further or just call it off. Mubarak triumphed in this engineered election and was commended by the US, but the semi-legal anti-US Muslim Brotherhood emerged as his main opposition. This resulted in a considerable cooling down of US pressure to democratize.

The IAEA report on the implementation of the NPT safeguards Agreement has been circulated within the IAEA, and their website states  that "The Reports circulation is restricted" and it "Cannot be released to the public".

However it has been unofficially released by  ISIS. The Report can be accessed here, GOV/2007/48.

According to the report, the earlier IAEA release i blogged about, INFCIRC/77, is the actual agreement, rather than just Iran's interpretation. 

Im definitely not a nuclear scientist, but the report suggests that the safeguards arent going too badly, and for various reasons Iran is slowing down enrichment processes. Marko Beljac has a good explanation of it here.

So if the IAEA is actually achieving some progress, why all the talk of war in Washington?