Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 05:31:10 AM EST
Busy today, so just a quick few thoughts.
In previous discussions we decided that
- Iran wants nuclear power. They say they don't want nuclear weapons.
- The way their programme is set-up is conducive to creating nuclear weapons by diverting material from the civilian programme, though there is no evidence that is happening.
- No-one wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Let's add, for the sake of argument:
- There is a way of setting up a nuclear programme that is not conducive to building nuclear weapons. (I assume that) This depends on a higher level of technology than the current Iranian programme.
A suggested solution to the crisis: the West transfers the know-how and technology required to build a civilian nuclear programme that is not easily diverted to creating weapons while the Iranian mothball their current programme. The UN inspections continue to provide assurance that Iran is fulfilling its obligations under the NPT and everyone is happy. The parts of the current programme that are worrying are decommissioned in due time and we compensate Iran for doing so.
What's wrong with this plan? Everyone's interests are satisfied. In particular, what's wrong with point 4?