[lbo-talk] Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran, Then Backtracks

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

France is such a tease. -- Yoshie

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html>
February 1, 2007
Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran, Then Backtracks
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and KATRIN BENNHOLD

PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran
had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and
that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like
Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times,
The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly
magazine, were vastly different from stated French policy and what Mr.
Chirac has often said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée
Palace to retract many of his remarks.

Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had
spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had
been talking about Iran off the record.

"I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and
understood that perhaps I was on the record," he said.

The tape-recorded, on-the-record interview was conducted under an
agreement that it would not be published until Thursday, when Le
Nouvel Observateur appears on newsstands.

On Monday, Mr. Chirac began by describing as "very dangerous" Iran's
refusal to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used to
produce electricity or to make nuclear weapons. Then he made his
remarks about a nuclear-armed Iran.

"I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the
fact of having a nuclear bomb," he said. "Having one or perhaps a
second bomb a little later, well, that's not very dangerous.

"But what is very dangerous is proliferation. This means that if Iran
continues in the direction it has taken and totally masters
nuclear-generated electricity, the danger does not lie in the bomb it
will have, and which will be of no use to it."

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use
a nuclear weapon against another country.

"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Mr. Chirac asked. "It
would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would
be razed."

It was unclear whether Mr. Chirac's initial remarks reflected what he
truly believes. If so, it suggests a growing divide with American
policy, which places the highest priority on stopping Iran from
gaining the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chirac has privately expressed the view occasionally in the past
year that a nuclear-armed Iran might be inevitable and that it could
try to sell the technology to other countries. But publicly the policy
has been very different. In fact, Élysée Palace prepared a heavily
edited 19-page transcript of the Monday interview that excluded Mr.
Chirac's assessment of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The transcript even inserted a line that Mr. Chirac had not said that
read, "I do not see what type of scenario could justify Iran's
recourse to an atomic bomb."

There are divisions within the French government — and between Europe
and the United States — about how much Iran should be punished for
behavior that the outside world might not be able to change. Some
French officials worry that the more aggressive course of action by
the United States toward Iran will lead to a confrontation like the
Iraq war, which France opposed.

In noting the sanctions against Iran that were imposed last month by
the Security Council, Mr. Chirac warned Tuesday that escalation of the
conflict by both sides was unwise. "Of course we can go further and
further, or higher and higher up the scale in the reactions from both
sides," he said. "This is certainly not our thinking nor our
intention."

Mr. Chirac argued that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon was less
important than the arms race that would ensue.

"It is really very tempting for other countries in the region that
have large financial resources to say: 'Well, we too are going to do
that; we're going to help others do it,' " he said. "Why wouldn't
Saudi Arabia do it? Why wouldn't it help Egypt to do so as well? That
is the real danger."

Earlier this month, Mr. Chirac had planned to send his foreign
minister to Iran to help resolve the crisis in Lebanon. The venture
collapsed after Saudi Arabia and Egypt opposed the trip and members of
his own government said it would fail.

Mr. Chirac, who is 74 and months away from ending his second term as
president, suffered a neurological episode in 2005 and is said by
French officials to have become much less precise in conversation.

In the second interview, Mr. Chirac retracted his comment that Tehran
would be destroyed if Iran launched a nuclear weapon. "I retract it,
of course, when I said, 'One is going to raze Tehran,' " he said.

He added that any number of third countries would stop an Iranian bomb
from ever reaching its target. "It is obvious that this bomb, at the
moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately," Mr.
Chirac said. "We have the means — several countries have the means to
destroy a bomb."

Mr. Chirac also retracted his prediction that a nuclear Iran could
encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to follow suit.

"I drifted — because I thought we were off the record — to say that,
for example, Saudi Arabia or Egypt could be tempted to follow this
example," he said. "I retract it, of course, since neither Saudi
Arabia nor Egypt has made the slightest declaration on these subjects,
so it is not up to me to make them."

As for his suggestion in the first interview that Israel could be a
target of an Iranian attack and could retaliate, Mr. Chirac said: "I
don't think I spoke about Israel yesterday. Maybe I did so but I don't
think so. I have no recollection of that."

There were other clarifications. In the initial interview, for
example, Mr. Chirac referred to the Iranian Islamic Republic as "a bit
fragile." In the subsequent interview, he called Iran "a great
country" with a "very old culture" that "has an important role to play
in the region" as a force for stability.

Mr. Chirac's initial comments contradicted the long-held French policy
of deterrence, which holds that Iran must not go nuclear. The thinking
is that a nuclear-armed Iran would give Iran the ability to project
power throughout the region and threaten its neighbors — as well as
encourage others in the region to seek the bomb.

Under Mr. Chirac's presidency, France has joined the United States and
other countries in moving to punish Iran for refusing to stop
enriching uranium, as demanded by the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the United Nations Security Council.

Iran insists that the purpose of its uranium enrichment program is to
produce energy; France, along with many other countries, including the
United States, is convinced that the program is part of a nuclear
weapons project.

The purpose of the initial interview was for Mr. Chirac to talk about
climate change and an international conference in Paris later this
week that parallels a United Nations conference on the global
environment.

The question about Iran followed a comment by Mr. Chirac on the
importance of developing nuclear energy programs that are transparent,
safe and secure.

In the midst of his initial remarks on Iran, Mr. Chirac's spokesman
passed him a handwritten note, which Mr. Chirac read aloud. "Yes, he's
telling me that we have to go back to the environment," Mr. Chirac
said. He then continued a discussion of Shiite Muslims, who are by far
the majority in Iran but a minority in the Muslim world.

"Shiites do not have the reaction of the Sunnis or of Europeans," said
Mr. Chirac, who over the years in private meetings has expressed
distrust of Shiite Muslims.

The president had a different demeanor during the two encounters.

In the first interview, which took place in the late morning, he
appeared distracted at times, grasping for names and dates and relying
on advisers to fill in the blanks. His hands shook slightly. When he
spoke about climate change, he read from prepared talking points
printed in large letters and highlighted in yellow and pink.

By contrast, in the second interview, which came just after lunch, he
appeared both confident and comfortable with the subject matter.

The attempt by Élysée Palace to change the president's remarks in a
formal text is not unusual. It is a long-held tradition in French
journalism for interview subjects — from the president to business and
cultural figures — to be given the opportunity to edit the texts of
question-and-answer interviews before publication.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france-text1.html>
February 1, 2007
Text
Chirac's First Interview on Iran

Following are excerpts from an interview by President Jacques Chirac
of France with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune
and Le Nouvel Observateur on Jan. 29, 2007. The interview was
conducted in French and recorded and translated by The New York Times.

Q: Mr. President, you spoke earlier about nuclear energy. What are the
possibilities for nuclear energy in the future, especially for
emerging countries, a country like Iran, for example?

A: I would like to tell you there are first of all two different
problems: nuclear power for electricity and nuclear technology for
military purposes. What worries us in Iran, it's not electro-nuclear
(nuclear energy) as such but uranium enrichment. That's what worries
us. It is the refusal of Iran to accept the constraints of the
I.A.E.A. [International Atomic Energy Agency] and so to stop enriching
uranium. It's very dangerous. It's very dangerous. One has to pay
careful attention to that.

I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the
fact of having a nuclear bomb — having one, maybe a second one a
little later, well, that's not very dangerous. But what is very
dangerous is proliferation. This means that if Iran continues in the
direction it has taken and totally masters nuclear generated
electricity, the danger does not lie in the bomb it will have, and
which will be of no use to it.

Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone
200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the
ground.

What is dangerous is proliferation. It is really very tempting for
other countries in the region that have large financial resources, to
say: "Well, we too, we're going to do it. We're going to help out
others to do it." Why wouldn't Saudi Arabia do it? Why wouldn't it
help Egypt to do so as well? That is the danger. So one has to find a
way to settle this problem. That, then, is the military nuclear issue.

Q: How far can the West go in threatening sanctions against Iran
without risking reprisals, in particular on Lebanon?

A: This is not quite the topic of our interview. You know about my
feelings about Lebanon, and there is no mystery about them. The
question is, how can we impose sufficiently strong constraints on
Iran. This is a difficult issue. One has to know what Iran can
withstand or not. Iran has a regime that is still a bit fragile, a bit
fragile. The last elections proved in particular that the president
did not have all the authority one could have expected. This somewhat
fragile regime is afraid. Afraid of what? Afraid of being contested.

What does it want? It wants to maintain the regime of the mullahs. To
maintain the regime of the mullahs, it needs to not be contested or
threatened by the international community, and the international
community. Who is it? It's the United States. So how much of Iran's
reaction is about wanting to control military nuclear technology, and
how much is a desire to be recognized and respected by the
international community and in particular the United States so as to
avoid bad surprises that could at one moment or another destabilize
the regime of the mullahs? This is a difficult question, because the
Shiites are very particular people. The Shiites, since the beginning,
are people who have a culture of minorities. They are minorities, they
have a culture of minorities. They do not react like the Sunnis or the
Europeans.

[...]

Q: But is there a fundamental dilemma in this world where we are at a
moment where we, at a moment where we have to reduce carbon emissions,
so electro-nuclear energy is very important especially for such powers
such as India or China, but at the same time we live in a world where
terrorism and proliferation are a major worry.

A: ...No expert will claim there is a connection between
electro-nuclear technology and the nuclear bomb. These are two things,
two completely different technologies. Our entire problem with Iran
that we evoked earlier, it is because Iran wants, through the
enrichment of uranium, to make a nuclear bomb. But with
electro-nuclear (nuclear energy), you have no way to get to a bomb.
There is no risk. There is the I.A.E.A. that monitors this. There is
control. There is no risk.

Q: There is no risk?

A: None, absolutely none. You cannot take an electrical nuclear plant
and make a bomb. It just doesn't work.

Q: So the question the technology of uranium enrichment...

A: It is uranium enrichment, in fact under very special conditions
that are controlled by the I.A.E.A. The I.A.E.A. checks all the time
to verify that they are not doing secret enrichment. But enrichment is
of no use for electro-nuclear technology. No, there is no link between
the two.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france-text2.html>
February 1, 2007
Text
Chirac's Second Interview on Iran

Following are excerpts from an interview by President Jacques Chirac
of France with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune
and Le Nouvel Observateur on Jan. 30, 2007. The interview was
conducted in French and recorded and translated by The New York Times.

President Chirac: I wanted to say a little about how I really see the
Iran problem. Iran has started a process that the I.A.E.A.
[International Atomic Energy Agency] thinks could lead to control over
military nuclear technology, which as you know is against Iran's
commitments as a signatory of the N.P.T. The N.P.T. is the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran has signed it. So Iran is going back
on its commitments, which is why the I.A.E.A. has been working on this
and observed that uranium enrichment was likely to lead to military
nuclear technology. As a consequence, this was neither normal nor
acceptable.

>From this point on, major countries consulted, especially the six
comprising the three European countries — France, Germany and the
United Kingdom — and the United States, and then Russia and China. The
aim was to explain to Iran that it was putting itself in a situation
in which it was breaking international law and that it should
therefore stop nuclear enrichment and everything to do with
nuclear-based military technology.

Iran is still a great nation and an important nation that matters....
We explained to Iran that it could not put itself into this situation,
and that therefore we had to discuss, negotiate to obtain the
suspension of uranium enrichment, which is the symbol in a way, the
core of military nuclear technology. What we thought would happen is
that we would be able to discuss this. I would remind you that France
also made an open proposal to Iran that did not criticize Iran's
authority but said, "You yourselves are going to take a decision in
your own way to provisionally stop enriching uranium, and the six
countries will in exchange agree to stop the sanction procedure in the
U.N. Security Council." I honestly believe that this was an acceptable
position, in the sense that we were telling Iran, "The day you decide
to start up again, you resume and we will resume the sanction
procedures. We shall start implementing the sanction procedures."

Each side was taking a step towards the other, and we thought that we
had an acceptable process given Iran's demands. In fact actually the
Iranians did not accept this process. They did not agree to interrupt
their uranium enrichment work, and as a consequence the six continued
their action in the Security Council.... This led to sanctions that
initially involve in fact the supply, import or export of military
nuclear equipment to Iran, so these sanctions were imposed in Security
Council Resolution 1737.

>From this point on, we find ourselves in a situation that is rather
confused. So of course we can go further and further, higher and
higher up the scale in our reactions on both sides. This is certainly
not our thinking and our intention. What we wanted was to reach a
result, as I mentioned earlier, that would comply with both N.P.T.
obligations and I.A.E.A. controls.

In the present state of affairs, we have not received any positive
responses from Iran, so I said — in a rather short-hand way — that "In
the end when you think about Iran, what use would it have for a bomb?"
If indeed their real goal is to build a nuclear capacity — in other
words a nuclear bomb — it is obvious that that this bomb, the moment
it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately. We have the
means, several countries have the means to destroy a bomb, once they
see a bomb-carrying rocket launch. So it is hard to see what advantage
Iran could find for dropping a bomb. The bomb would naturally be
destroyed as soon as the rocket was launched. This is to me an
important aspect of the issue.

Q: It would be destroyed, the bomb?

A: The bomb would be destroyed, yes.

Q: And what would the repercussions be for Iran?

A: Well the repercussions for Iran would have to be examined,
naturally. I spoke quickly and I retract it, of course, when I said,
"One is going to raze Tehran." It was of course a manner of speaking
in my mind. I don't imagine that we could raze Tehran. But it is
obvious that if an undeniably aggressive act, which is to say sending
a bomb payload on a launch rocket, took place and this bomb would be —
I repeat — automatically destroyed without even having left the
Iranian soil or at least the Iranian airspace, it is obvious there
would be without a doubt measures of coercion, measures of
retaliation, of course. It is part of nuclear deterrence....

Saying one would destroy Tehran is meaningless but what is meaningful
is that in nuclear deterrence, there are initiatives taken in case of
a nuclear attack which are to be examined, to be negotiated and which
are up to the authority of the countries that consider themselves,
with good reason or not, attacked.

Q: Including a retaliation of a nuclear type?

A: Everything is possible.... It is deterrence that allows attacking,
counter-attacking a nuclear attacker that would have manifested
itself. So that's the first problem.

The second problem of course concerns proliferation. The great danger
of this plan of Iran is proliferation. Everyone knows that some
countries have already reached the nuclear level and that have
undeniably taken part in the development of proliferation. I won't
name any country. It's useless but we know it, even Iran benefited
from the expertise, the knowledge of the technology of some countries
in the nuclear sector. So proliferation is a dangerous thing, starting
from the moment when Iran would be able to access military nuclear
technology, it would become ipso facto a potential center of
proliferation that would be extremely dangerous for the entire region.

I drifted, because I thought we were "off the record," to say that,
for example, Saudi Arabia or Egypt could be tempted to follow this
example, I retract it of course since neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt
have made the slightest declaration on these subjects so it is not up
to me to make them....What is certain is that such a process leads to
an arm race that could lead a number of countries to participate in
this arm race. I don't want to name any countries naturally, even
though I did so yesterday, I shouldn't have done so....

Q: In the region?

A: In the region and maybe beyond it....There is a second risk that is
also extremely serious which is the risk of proliferation because even
without using a bomb they would have made, they can transfer to other
countries for political reasons technologies that would allow these
other countries to gain access to military nuclear technology....

Iran is still a great country. It's a country with a tradition. It's a
complex country, which has a very old culture.... Iran has necessarily
an important role to play in the Middle East region.

This region was traumatized by the Iraq affair. The Iraq affair
shifted red lines, in fact, in the region and it has created a new
situation. It has become dangerous, this region, more vulnerable, and
therefore, Iran undeniably has an important role — taking into account
its history, its tradition, its philosophy — an important role to play
in the region under the condition of course to do so in a peaceful and
cordial way.

I was a bit quick yesterday.... The current problem, in my view, is
the environment. About Iran, we unfortunately will most likely have
many more occasions to talk about it....

Q: Yesterday, frankly, you could have given the impression, at least
it could have led to confusion, in that you were also saying that Iran
could possess its first bomb, and maybe a second one. For you it was a
way of saying that the problem is proliferation. You have evoked the
possibility that it [Iran] may attack Israel, which seemed almost a
bit secondary.

A: I cannot imagine this. I cannot imagine this. I repeat, the means
of protection that exist around the world, in particular with the
Americans but also with the Europeans, with a certain number of
Europeans, are such that I don't imagine that a bomb, that a rocket
carrying a [nuclear] bomb could be launched from Iran without our
detecting it. And as a result, it would necessarily be destroyed. So I
don't think I spoke about Israel yesterday. Maybe I did so but I don't
think so. I have no recollection of that....


-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>