Blix on Iran

Our old buddy Hans Blix was recently interviewed and asked about his opinion on Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Here's what he had to say:

It is desirable to induce Iranians to refrain from enrichment activities because it would increase the tension in the Middle East. However, I have to admit, as a lawyer, that the NPT allows enrichment for peaceful purposes. The Iranians point to Brazil and Japan: They are also part of the NPT and they do enrich uranium. No one suspects them of seeking weapons. Of course, Iran's peaceful intent has been challenged, but nothing has been proven otherwise.

In the end, if we want Iran not to go down the path of nuclear weapons, we have to ask why they would want such weapons and remove that reason. No one discusses security in this current debate over Iran. But there are 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq next door. And there are U.S. bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan and other surrounding neighbors.

Then the U.S. says “all options are on the table” and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is saying the U.S. will make it very painful if Iran does not tow the line. Actually, the October 2004 agreement in London between the Western countries and Iran included a passage about a working group on security. But it never met. What I'm saying is that the way to induce Iran to forego weapons is with a guarantee of their security.

I'd also add that it is better to negotiate with Iran at the IAEA in Vienna instead of at the Security Council in New York. In New York, the Iranians will feel they are negotiating under a threat, which will make it harder for them to make a deal. We talk with the North Koreans in Beijing. No one seems to care that it is not in New York. Why do we have to negotiate with Iran in New York?

...I don't know Iran's intentions. There is circumstantial evidence [that it is seeking a nuclear bomb], as there was [circumstantial evidence of WMD] in Iraq. Of course, the more you look at it, the more you are capable of making judgments about the circumstances. But also, as in Iraq, you can't prove a negative. I'm amazed that the U.S. is demanding that the IAEA "prove" Iran has no intention to make a bomb. You can't!

It's almost cute that Blix is playing ignorant at the end here. I can't imagine he's really "amazed" that the US is pursuing the "prove a negative" angle. Although, the more that I think of it, perhaps he's "amazed" that the US is getting away with the same shell game again.

(via political theory)