War of words Part 2

Hans Blix: The Iranian threat

The former UN weapons inspector discusses Iran's nuclear programme and how to prevent another war in the region. Talk to Al Jazeera Last Modified: 24 Mar 2012 12:03

Few men have spent more time at the intersection of nuclear weapons and international politics than Swedish diplomat Hans Blix. As the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and then chief United Nations weapons inspector, Blix was at the centre of events when he publicly contradicted claims from the administration of former US president George W Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was an assessment the US pushed aside. Blix also accused the British government of dramatising the threat of weapons in Iraq in order to strengthen its case for joining the 2003 war against Saddam Hussein. No stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found. In his 2004 book Disarming Iraq, Blix gives an account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion. "I am sorry for the way it went because we failed, and if we had persuaded the UN Security Council and persuaded the world, then there might not have been a war," he said. Recent talk about a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear installations has made Blix concerned about a repeat of the events that led to the Iraq war. "When I hear [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu saying it’s not a question of days or weeks, but also not years, I think that sounds like a terrible threat," he says. In this interview with Al Jazeera, Blix discusses Iran's nuclear programme and how to stop what he calls a "legally unjustified" attack against Tehran. Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon? Is an Israeli attack on Iran coming? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/03/2012323161458267958.html 1.      What is the link to Crisis Management? The link to crisis management is established in "War of words" part 1. Nuclear power is an immense danger, no matter who possesses it. But, even greater than the risk of nuclear power is the risk of other nations thinking one country has nuclear power. Just as Iraq occurred over the false premise of weapons of mass destruction, Iran's future could be very similar. 2.      What stage of Crisis Management does the system appear to be at?  At this point the situation appears to be at a risk level, and depending on the future moves this could either move to a full out crisis or issue situation. It all depends on how the situation is handled by the nations involved.  3.      How well does the system appear to be handling the situation?  The nations involved seem to be handling it poorly, giving out empty threats to each other on military power. Blix on the other hand is trying to convince the world that just like in Iraq, there is no real threat from Iran. There is no factual base to the claims of Iran having nuclear power just like Iraq did not have biological warfare power. Although America is moving towards a more productive measure by reducing its nuclear capability, more needs to be done to illustrate solidarity.  4.      What level of crisis preparedness does the system appear to have? All the countries that are asking Iran/threatening Iran have their own nuclear ability therefore it seems that they are very prepared for a crisis of immense impact. 5.      What personal reactions/feelings does the description trigger in you? As stated in Part 1, this article makes me worry about the right signs being read wrong, as in Iraq. As of today Iraq has the largest population of orphaned children; this cannot be done to another nation, especially over the wrong premise. 6.      What advice would you offer to those involved? Let calmer heads prevail. Ensure that real evidence is brought to the world audience before any decision is made to invade any nation. The world needs transparency when it comes to world-war issues. Although American troops have left Iraq the scar will remain for many years to come and it does not seem to be healing well at all. This risk should be dissolved using diplomatic mannerism.