THIS HOUSE WOULD RATHER BOMB IRAN THAN ALLOW IRAN THE BOMB (speaking against)

Speech delivered to Oxford Union on Thu 5th Mar 2009

Mr President (Charlie Holt, Lady Margaret Hall), Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be back at the Oxford Union. James Langman (University College), in his excellent speech opening for our side of the argument, made the point that everyone here tonight agrees that we must try to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The debate is about how best we can stop them doing so.

The proposers of this motion offer the illusion of the quick fix. Perhaps we would get lucky. Perhaps we would have the good fortune to find the target. Perhaps we would succeed in knocking over their embryonic nuclear capabilities.

Let's say immediate objective achieved. But I am certain it would be a pyrrhic victory.

Who remembers George Bush prematurely declaring "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq? But how many hundreds of thousands went on to lose their lives afterwards?

Our triumph would be temporary at best. We might delay Iran's nuclear programme, but we would redouble their determination and so make it totally inevitable in the longer term.

We would pay a terrible price. After the initial "success" we would marginalise the moderate elements in Iran with whom we must hope to work in the long term. We would consolidate support behind a failed and weak leader who is unpopular and insecure. And we would stymie Iran's integration into the international community.

But far worse than that, we would make new enemies, and divide friends. There is no chance - absolutely no chance - as Frank Gaffney and Douglas Murray tried to suggest, that the international community would support this strike.

We would light a fuse in a volatile region and - as we heard so powerfully from one of the floor speakers - would stir hatred and violence from Muslims in all corners of the world. In short, it would be a catastrophe.

Iran and the nuclear issue

This unhealthy preoccupation with Iran's nuclear capabilities grew up under the Bush administration. It became part of the broader 'War on Terror' rationale, whose logic that has been found flawed on innumerable occasions, not least on one of my previous visits to this Union.

Iran is certainly developing its capability, and - I am sorry to disagree with one of the floor speakers who was supporting our side - we are right to assume that civil nuclear power isn't their real objective.

But, there has been irrational demonisation of Iran, with Bush's absurd "Axis of Evil" policies. They were at it again tonight. Frank Gaffney says we have been at war with Iran for 30 years. Speak for yourself! Britain has had diplomatic relations with Iran for most of the last 30 years.

And didn't you find the rhetoric about us being just months away from the apocalypse all very reminiscent of Blair's "45 minutes from a nuclear attack"? Of course the Iranian regime is loathsome for all the reasons we have heard - and more. But we're told now that Iraq was a great success because it achieved regime change. Yet that was never mentioned as the reason for going in at the time. No - we had to go in because Saddam could nuke us at 45 minutes notice. The hawks are back to their favoured tricks. They conned the public once, so why not try it again?

The reality is that Iran's efforts to get a bomb are still well short of target. Or as David Letterman put it in a lighter moment: "The bad news is that Iran can now make a nuclear bomb. The good news is that they have to drop it from a camel."

Yes, I take the point that they recently launched a satellite. So what? Kim Jong Il, in North Korea, did that more than a decade ago. He issued a postage stamp to mark the event. The satellite warbled patriotic tunes back from space. But we are all still here to tell the tale.

Iran's rationale:

Ann Leslie made the point that Iran is a proud nation: once a great empire, with a rich cultural heritage. It craves being taken seriously as a key player in the region - which in truth it is. In my

opinion there is just a slight sense in which Iran views a nuclear bomb as a national virility symbol.

Iran feels threatened. It may well be paranoia, but it sees itself as being encircled by enemies. It is a Shia state in the Sunni-dominated Middle East. Its neighbours are Arabs, and as Ann pointed out, Iranians are not Arabs - they are Persians.

It has a long standing antagonism with Israel and a violent history with Iraq. It feels isolated by the main international powers. With US bases in the region, it sees a nuclear deterrent as a way of guarding its security.

And it has long and bitter past experience of the interferences of the West in the region.

Can we offer some form of guarantee, our underlying obligation in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to protect their security?

We are supportive of Israel, which has a nuclear stockpile and has flouted the NPT for years. Actually, Iran may not even be contravening the NPT. Enriching uranium is not against the Treaty, and there is a fine line between having weapons, and parking yourself just short of doing so, which many countries do: for example Japan, Germany and Italy.

Logistics and Consequences of Bombing Iran:

A few logistics must be considered. Could we be sure of the targets? Who would actually do the bombing? As Sir Richard (Mottram) pointed out "This House" (the Oxford Union) has no such capability. In reality the only possibilities are Israel and America.

Israel is the more likely suspect, but would struggle on its own to reach the facilities in Iran. It is 1,100 nautical miles from the Israeli base at Negev to Iran's border (let alone deep into the country). An F15 has a range of 900 nautical miles.

Israel would need permission to enter other countries' airspace - Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - and would almost certainly be refused. And no plane could travel that far without needing either to stop en-route, or refuel in mid-air.

The most Israel could manage alone would be a very modest first strike. It could not possibly mount the successive waves of attack which would be needed to knock out Iran's nuclear programme.

So you would have all the disadvantages of a strike - lighting a tinderbox in the region - without even the benefit of achieving your goal.

Which brings us to the other candidate: America. I don't believe they will do it. Despite the rhetoric, behind the scenes they have been frustrating Israel and putting obstacles in Israel's way.

Even in the Bush Administration, a well-placed contact told me they had no plans to attack Iran. Perhaps one shouldn't feel too reassured by that, as they didn't even have plans when they attacked Iraq.

Overlooked Iran:

Although he makes a lot of noise, President Ahmedinejad has very little real power. He is a failed and weak President. His lurid anti-western rhetoric is just an attempt to rally support, which is sinking away.

But we can abhor the Iran's regime without being hostile to its people. Iran ought to be a "natural ally of the West". Historically it was very close to both Britain and France, and I believe it can be again.

Ann Leslie made an important point about Iranians' age profile. In sharp contrast to our own "demographic time-bomb" - an ageing population whose pensions need to be paid for, two-thirds of Iranians are under 30 years of age. The median age is 26! Many of the young are frustrated by the religious restrictions imposed by the elderly mullahs, and things will inevitably change in years to come.

Iran enjoys a very high literacy rate, and will move to a more secular society as the educated ranks swell and demand change.

Young Iranians enjoy dating, western music, watching Sky, go-karting (even young women can enjoy go-karting as long as they wear a headscarf), paintballing, motorbiking and so on. And they are well connected to the outside world. There are more than 23 million internet users (one of the highest levels in the world) and a staggering number of blogs.

They are the future of Iran and they will be more liberal than the current regime. They are our best hope too, for a stable and constructive Iran, if we play a long game.

But bomb Iran now, and you turn them all against us.

So what alternative? Constructive Engagement:

So the challenge is to find a better alternative. Rather than bomb we need constructive engagement. Not concessions or pandering, but addressing the root causes of Iran's insecurity and its desire for nuclear capability, and then seeking to reduce the threat.

James Dray (Mansfield College): The opposition still hasn't said whether, if all else fails, they would rather - in the terms of the motion - bomb Iran, than allow Iran the bomb. Which is it?

Nick Harvey: The challenge, as I am explaining, is to find a better approach altogether, and avoid it coming to that. I reject the honourable Gentleman's underlying thesis.

We have to view Iran in its regional context, and consider our policy objectives in that region. Bombing Iran would have vast repercussions for our ongoing involvement in Afghanistan.

Iran is not supportive of insurgents in Afghanistan, and was until quite recently playing a useful role helping rebuild it. Iran has a vested interest in stemming the flow of opium from Afghanistan, as it has one of highest rates of heroin use in the world.

Having them onside in helping us with our long term challenges in Afghanistan is vital.

We should also call their bluff. They have said they want enriched uranium for civil nuclear power. We could guarantee to supply it. We could help them exploit their oil reserves efficiently.

Better still we should try to dissuade them from adopting nuclear power, as it is a totally outmoded means of providing power.

They have huge amounts of sunshine and wind; we should help them develop clean and renewable energy sources.

Conclusion:

My conclusion is that, although it would be better avoided, Iran getting the bomb would not be the end of the world.

But lighting a tinderbox in a volatile region, inflaming Islamic opinion throughout the globe, and heightening tensions on an unimaginable scale very well might be.

We should not be governed by our own insecurities, but rather we should address Iran's. We should face them head on, strive to resolve them, and extend our hand to help Iran regain its place in the community of nations.