The.Economist.2007-02-10 (966424), страница 6

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 6)

Does the European Union really wantto start laying down what is “official” history, declaring certain accounts kosher and others illegal?Jon GrinspanNew YorkSIR – With the reams of detailed first-hand and scholarly accounts available, there can be no reason whya sane, rational person would deny the Holocaust, other than an abiding hatred of the Jewish people. Sothe question is: should such hate speech fall under the legal protection of free speech? There will alwaysbe those who hate Jews (and other people as well). I don't see why their right to spread hatred should beprotected.Steve HerskovitsNew YorkSIR – American Jews, or any other Jew for that matter, will never lose their support for Israel; it is theJewish people's answer to anti-Semitism in the world and celebrates our resolve never to be destroyed.David MandelHigh-school studentGlencoe, IllinoisCopyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.

All rights reserved.About sponsorshipDealing with IranA countdown to confrontationFeb 8th 2007From The Economist print editionRex FeaturesCan anything deter Iran from its nuclear ambitions?Get article backgroundTHE streets of Iran are festooned this week with revolutionary bunting. Black and green bannerscommemorating the martyrdom of the third Shia imam, Hussein, still flutter from lamp-posts, eventhough the mournful Ashura rites of late January are over. They now hang beside flags looking forward toFebruary 11th, when Iranians mark the anniversary of the Islamic revolution of 1979.Such celebrations usually go unnoticed in America. But not this time. The two countries are movingslowly towards confrontation, both over Iraq—where Iran is meddling—and over Iran's nuclearprogramme. Its provocative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (above right), has hinted that February'scelebrations will include “good news” about the progress of nuclear work.

Iran says it is fiddling withuranium and plutonium to produce more electricity. But America and many other countries suspect it isbuilding a bomb.Last month, when President George Bush announced the deployment of extra troops in Iraq, he also laidout a new strategy to confront Iran. A second carrier strike group, led by the USS John Stennis, is aboutto join the USS Dwight Eisenhower in the Gulf region. American aircraft will patrol more aggressivelyclose to Iran's airspace. At about the same time as Mr Bush's speech, American forces raided an Iranianoffice in Arbil, in Iraq, and arrested five men. On January 26th Mr Bush appeared to confirm that he hadauthorised American forces to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq, where they are accused of providingtraining and sophisticated weapons to Iraqi insurgents.

In the words of John Negroponte, America'soutgoing director of national intelligence, Iran is beginning to cast a shadow over the whole Middle East.The United States says it has no intention of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Robert Gates, the newdefence secretary, stresses that “We are not planning for a war with Iran.” But he will not take themilitary option off the table. One line of thought is that since Mr Bush is not up for re-election, andbecause his legacy will be defined mostly in terms of security, he might not be prepared to leave officewith the Iranian question unresolved, especially if he looks likely to be succeeded by a Democrat.

Thatpoints to the possibility, at least, of a military strike.Those keen to avoid a conflict over Iran's nuclear ambitions now pin their hopes on diplomacy toughenedby sanctions. Iran has repeatedly rejected an offer made more than a year ago by Britain, France,Germany, America, Russia and China to persuade it to stop its troubling activities. That offer included aproper dialogue with America, improved trade and political ties, co-operation in less proliferation-pronenuclear technologies that would have allowed Iran to produce electricity, but not weapons, anddiscussions on regional security.

Now tougher measures are being tried.After months of haggling, in late December the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1737,for the first time ordering, rather than asking, Iran to halt its suspect nuclear activities. Sanctions wereimposed on ten organisations and 12 individuals involved in either Iran's nuclear or its missileprogrammes, or both. Further measures may follow unless, within 60 days, Iran suspends its uraniumand plutonium-related work and resumes talks.Time is almost up, and Iran remains defiant. Its president has called the UN resolution a “piece of tornpaper”.

That attitude seems self-defeating. Iran is not isolated, as North Korea is: it depends heavily ontrade, and not just as a seller of oil. Two-thirds of its population is under the age of 30, andunemployment is high; it needs to attract as much outside investment for its oil and gas industry, andfinance for building roads and other projects, as possible. Already, the investment pinch from sanctions isbeing felt across the country: the government now offers cash for some priority jobs, such as building oilrefineries, but it struggles to attract reputable international contractors to build them. Sanctions have abetter chance of working here than they did in North Korea.

But will better be good enough?For Iran's clerical regime, gaining advanced nuclear technology means irresistible regional clout. Bydeclaring Iran a member of the “nuclear club”, Mr Ahmadinejad puts his country on a par with India andChina—as well as Israel (see article). Meanwhile, at home, nuclear achievements are a way to rallypopular support round Iran's “inalienable” right to whatever nuclear technologies it chooses.

The regimecalculates that it can ride out sanctions, and so far it has been proved right. Ordinary Iranians barely feelthem: the shops of Tehran are still crammed with foreign goods, from televisions to cornflakes.Iran has also been doing its damnedest to exploit what it perceives to be divisions within the SecurityCouncil, and especially among the six heavies that have taken the diplomatic lead against it.

They are inmany ways a disparate bunch. Russia, the country Iranian officials have been counting on to protectthem from real pressure, deliberately dragged its feet at the UN. It knew America was impatient forresults and wanted to flex its muscles. But Russia also wanted to protect its investment in the nuclearreactor it is building for Iran at Bushehr.

Tortuous exemptions were written into Resolution 1737 toenable Russian companies to be paid for construction costs, the future supply of reactor fuel, and evenfor anti-aircraft missiles recently sold to Iran (see article) that could be used to protect its nuclear sitesagainst attack. China, a big buyer of Iranian oil, is no keener on sanctions than Russia is.Yet the six have nonetheless managed to keep in step. Over the past year America's secretary of state,Condoleezza Rice, has persuaded Mr Bush to keep the diplomacy on track, both by accepting that Irancan have a nuclear programme (just not a weapons-building one) and by agreeing that, if Iran doesdecide to suspend its nuclear work, America will join in serious talks “any time, anywhere”.

Those werebig concessions from what Iran likes to call “the Great Satan”. Meanwhile Russia, for all its truculence,has repeatedly delayed supplying the nuclear fuel for Bushehr.So the six all still see mileage in their diplomatic efforts. And already, in diplomatic terms, Iran is quiteisolated. Although it claims the backing of the 114 members of the non-aligned movement for its right toenrich uranium, many are unhappy at its defiance of the Security Council and the International AtomicEnergy Agency, the UN's nuclear guardian.The ponderous process of adopting a new sanctions resolution at the UN will probably get under way nextmonth.

But Iran is already feeling a much sharper pinch from financial sanctions that do not requirefurther UN approval. Operating under the United States Patriot Act, as well as on the basis of apresidential directive adopted in 2005 to target the funds of proliferators, officials from America'sTreasury Department have been criss-crossing the globe to persuade governments and banks to curbtheir business with Iran.As a result, Iran is finding it increasingly expensive to borrow money. Foreign government-backed creditsare getting harder to come by; Japan is among countries that have scaled back their plans to invest inIran's oil and gas industries. Even legitimate businesses are suffering, as foreign banks find it hard to becertain that the transactions they handle are not being diverted, for nefarious purposes, through Iran'snetwork of front companies.

All dollar exchanges, including small transfers for private individuals, havebecome extremely complicated, and it is very hard to use a credit card to buy online from inside Iran.Already capital is fleeing the country, much of it reportedly ending up in Dubai.Inside Iran a heated debate is now under way over how to respond to its growing isolation and theprospect of more sanctions to come. There are signs of rising popular discontent with Mr Ahmadinejad'sfirebrand rhetoric and his capricious management of the economy—as well as worries about sanctions,and how much the nuclear programme will cost Iran. More pragmatic politicians, such as Ayatollah AkbarHashemi Rafsanjani, would prefer to re-open negotiations with the West to avoid open confrontation.When Mr Ahmadinejad and his allies did badly in recent local elections, criticism came into the open.

Характеристики

Список файлов учебной работы