Particle or nuclear?

This is interesting. A Tehran University physics professor has been killed by a bomb planted outside his home. There is speculation whether this could be the work of outsiders, especially from Israel or the US.

To me the accusation that this was an Israeli operation seems anything but far fetched. After all there has been ample talk of the Israelis bombing Iran's nuclear facilities the way they did with Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1980. But any such action would likely cause immense international outrage and political problems for Israel, not to mention added Arab animosity. Thus from their perspective the next best option would be to do something like this, assassinate someone who was playing a key role in the nuclear program with the hope that it would at least slow down Iran's plans and intimidate them.

The trouble is that until now the specialty and role of the assassinated professor is not known. As the NYT reports,

There was some dispute about his field of scientific specialization.

The English-language Press TV said he taught neutron physics at Tehran University, although it was not clear whether he was part of Iran's contentious nuclear enrichment program.

The broadcaster called the professor a ?staunch supporter of the Islamic Revolution? of 1979 that overthrew the Shah and initiated three decades of theocratic rule.

But two Iranian academics, who spoke in return for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said in telephone interviews that he was not a nuclear physicist and had specialized in particle and theoretical physics. The Web site of Tehran University lists him as a professor of elementary particle physics.

Now that's silly. A professor who teaches neutron physics would likely know a lot about nuclear reactors and bombs; in 1939, the greatest expert in neutron physics in the world was Enrico Fermi, probably the most important physicist working on nuclear energy. Everyone should know that it does not matter much whether the dead professor's field of specialty is "nuclear" or "theoretical and particle" physics since it is quite easy for a particle physicist to learn nuclear physics and vice versa (even the movies seem to have understood this; in the George Clooney-Nicole Kidman blockbuster "The Peacemaker", the scientist working for the bad guys is an astrophysics PhD.)

Thus the unfortunate man's specialty by itself does not at all preclude him from working on the nuclear program. Only time will tell what his exact role was.

SIMPLY BE READY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES

Yesterday I attended an illuminating talk about Iran by former New York Times columnist Stephen Kinzer and Iranian academic Fatemeh Keshavarz. They essentially stressed the point which people like Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer have been making, that many Americans see Iran-US relations as beginning with the hostage crisis of 1979 and everything after that being Iran's fault.

It's pretty clear that the US is almost as responsible for the current state of Iran as Iran itself. It's also pretty clear that increasing ignorance among Americans of the history of US foreign policy is going to lead them down a disastrous path. Keshavarz also indicated how Iran is much more progressive compared to Arab countries, and how any kind of belligerent action by the US against Iran is going to trample whatever goodwill the US still has among common citizens of Iran. As for Ahmadinejad, he is something akin to a court jester who thrives on rhetoric, and who is despised by many Iranians.

Clearly, George Bush attacking Iran in any way may be the worst thing to happen to the US in the last one hundred years, whose repercussions will be deadly and far-reaching.

But when I was discussing US involvement in Iran over the last 50 years, mainly for the oil, a friend quipped, "But of course, the US is going to be looking at its self-interests. Why blame it for doing that?"

There are two answers to this questions. Firstly, even if we accept the thesis that every country always does what is necessary for its self-interest, in the case of American involvement in the Middle East, Bush and even earlier Presidents have actually jeopardized American interests and national security. The effect of pursuing oil in the Middle East for self-interest is that the US has become utterly dependent on this politically unstable, frequently America-hating group of countries.

The second and more chilling effect is that this hatred of the US because of its continued presence has led to and will continue to lead to a rapid rise in terrorist activity against the US. I have just ordered Michael Scheuer's "Marching toward Hell" in which he basically says that only when there is a devastating terrorist attack in the US in the next couple of years leading to the loss of thousands of American lives- and Scheuer portentously thinks this is almost certain, especially because of the way US leaders have engaged in conflicts abroad at the cost of neglecting border security at home- will Americans realise how Bush had been misleading them about national security for the last several years since 9/11.

Secondly, and I always say this to people with whom I get into arguments, it's fine if you really want to pursue your self-interests. But then, just be prepared for the consequences. That's all. Many Americans live in a weird world of expectations in which they want it both ways, to enjoy their standard of living and to engage with the world in such a manner that all their interests will be satisfied, and also to hope that everyone will be their friend and won't harbor any resentment towards them. The only thing I say is, fine, if Americans want to linger in the Middle East to satisfy their self-interest, so be it. But then they should not complain about increased American hatred and possible increased terrorist attacks against the US.

Interestingly I also have a similar argument with some extreme Republicans who don't want any taxation at all; in their world-view where every person is on his own and nobody cares if inequality massively rises, they simply should be ready for an increased possibility of a French-revolution style uprising where poor people have had enough. I doubt if these same Republicans who grumble about taxation will agree to such a predictable consequence.

In any case, sadly, not only are many Americans unaware of these consequences, but their leaders are not only unprepared for them, but they keep increasing their probability.

Suggested reading:
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror- Stephen Kinzer
Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq- Michael Scheuer

NOW WILL YOU STOP?

One of the key ideas in stopping nuclear proliferation is to actually help countries enrich their nuclear fuel and monitor the entire process. A country like Iran which threatens to use its own facilities to enrich fuel can be lent assistance by another country. The goal would be to allow such a country to engage in some preliminary steps of fuel processing (eg. converting uranium to uranium hexafluoride gas). The preliminary processed materials can then be shipped to another country for further processing and enrichment and the enriched fuel could then be returned to the other country. Thus, countries which claim that they want to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes should then have no problem in accepting such an arrangement, and it will be much harder for them to then justify indigenous fuel enrichment. Russia seems to be working on such an agreement with Iran, and leading arms expert Pavel Podvig writing in The Bulletin is optimistic about it. Surprisingly, it also seems to have received a semblance of a blessing from His Majesty George Bush the Second:

"It's possible that by delivering the first 180 fuel assemblies to the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran on December 16, Russia scored a critical victory for the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Early acknowledgement of the event's importance came from an unlikely source--President George W. Bush. Commenting on the Russian shipment, he publicly urged Iran to now suspend its controversial enrichment program, arguing that with Russian fuel, Iran no longer needed to enrich uranium on its own. Of course, it's unlikely that Iran will stop its centrifuges--at least not any time soon. But if Washington accepts the shipment of rector fuel to Bushehr as legitimate--despite the continuing controversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear program--it will set an important precedent that should help build a workable system of fuel supply guarantees."

SATANIC PROGENITOR

Gaurav writes about the US hand in giving rise to fundamentalist Iran. A joint British-American effort restored the Shah of Iran back in power. After the coup that achieved this, it is not without interest to note that America controlled about 40 percent of Iranian oil. I think back with bitter amusement in my mind, about the number of fundamentalist countries and dictators the US directly or indirectly gave rise to. Whenever there was a democratically elected left-wing people's government, the US government and the CIA has tried almost every tactic possible to suppress it and house a government of its choice in its place. I would take this involvement even further back, right from the end of World War 2, beginning with the Truman Doctrine, which supported and almost replaced British interference in Greece. The British had already accepted their role as "junior partner" in the US-British alliance.

Basically every President since Truman has suppressed political and social uprisings abroad that were unfavourable to US interests. In fact, it was even before WW2 that Secretary of State Henry Stimson spoke about America as a great equalizing and humanizing force in the world. Even that has many precedents in British rule. I will always remember the incident about a famous essay that John Stuart Mill penned in 1858, expounding the value of British style freedom, humanist ideals and democracy. Consider; this was 1858, one year after the British brutally suppressed a revolt for freedom in their most coveted colony.

To be honest, this is hardly surprising. Every country tries to use many means to ensure its influence in the world's geopolitical landscape, especially a superpower like the US. By this token, almost every powerful contry's leaders are to blame. But what's always been amusing, and probably not amusing anymore, is how the US has always tried to justify all these actions under the garb of 'spreading democracy and freedom'. There is no doubt that some of the countries like Iran which the US is carping against constitute troubling governments, but the US never exactly had the authority to take an exclusive high ground against them.

For an excellent model of how the media always tries to spin these government actions around and put them in a context that is favourable to the administration, Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent still rings very much true.

Frankly speaking, I still would consider the Americans and British among the most gentlemanly and fair rulers and superpowers in history, compared to others. Even now, I respect the relatively free dialogue and freedom of the press that is encouraged in both these nations. But there is always another side to every issue, and the problem is that both these nations, and especially the US, still try to act as if they are morally perfect and completely free of blame, and that they are the ones who have the greatest claim to teaching the world, and indeed imposing upon it, moral rectitude. That's what bugs people.

Addendum:
Just because America interefered in the past affairs of the countries it is despising does not mean it 'deserves' retribution from them, and any one who thinks this way is a bonafide kook. But in my opinion, this is really a question of attitude. If someone makes a totally unprovoked attack on you, someone with whom you had absolutely nothing to do in the past, then your attitude is rightly one of extreme moral indignation and aggression. However, if you know that directly or indirectly, in some way you contributed to this state of his, you might naturally empathize a little more with him and adopt a more conciliatory stance. As has been made clear by conflicts such as the Vietnman war, one of the most important reasons for the US disaster in South Vietnam was a lack of empathy, a lack of understanding Vietnamese culture and their ambitions (unlike what the US thought, the Vietnamese were not fighting as pawns of the Russians or Chinese, but were fighting for their independence). In any case, as the above example shows, if Americans know something about US interests and past actions in Iran, it is much more likely that they will empathize with their enemy. The mindset of a man who thinks Iran sprang from nowehere and is committing aggression against the US, is much different from a man who knows something about US-Iran historical relations. He would be far more empathetic towards the situation, and empathy is neessary for solving such problems.