Transcript

Host: This is “On the Line,” and I’m Eric Felten.

Many observers say that a recent Israeli air strike inside Syria was aimed at a shipment of nuclear technology. Immediately after the attack, North Korea protested the Israeli action, raising the suspicion that the materials that reportedly were bombed had come from North Korea. President George W. Bush was asked about the air strike at a press conference in Washington:

President Bush: "We have made it clear and we’ll continue to make it clear to the North Koreans through the six-party talks that we expect them to honor their commitment to give up weapons and weapons programs. And to the extent that they are proliferating, we expect them to stop their proliferation."

Host: North Korea has a long history of selling ballistic-missile technology to other rogue regimes, such as that in Iran. President Bush says the U-S is working for a diplomatic consensus to halt Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons:

President Bush: "We are working with allies and friends to send a consistent message to the Iranians that there is a better way forward for them than isolation -- financial isolation and/or economic sanctions. I believe it’s imperative that we continue to work in a multilateral fashion to send that message. And one place to do so is at the United Nations. We are also talking to different finance ministers about how we can send a message to the Iranian government that the free world is just not going to tolerate the development of know-how on how to build a weapon or at least gain the ability to make a weapon."

Host: At the United Nations General Assembly, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said that letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons would be an “unacceptable risk to the stability in the region and in the world.” German chancellor Angela Merkel said that she supported tougher sanctions against Iran if it continues to push for technology that could be used for nuclear bombs.

Can sanctions stop the spread of nuclear-weapons technology in the Middle East, and what if sanctions fail? I’ll ask my guests: Dan Ephron, Deputy Washington Bureau Chief for Newsweek magazine and President of the Reform Party of Syria: Farid Ghadry, and joining us by phone from Bedminster, New Jersey: Gordon Chang, author of the book “Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World.” Welcome. Thanks for joining us today.

Dan Ephron, we don’t know much about what happened in Syria recently with this Israeli air strike. There’s been incredible speculation, and yet, given numerous opportunities for officials both from the U-S, Israel, elsewhere to confirm or deny that this had to do with nuclear weapons. People have fastidiously avoided confirming or denying. Perhaps the closest that we’ve come to has been Andrew Semmel, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Nuclear Nonproliferation, who said there are North Koreans in Syria and that Syria may have “secret suppliers” to obtain nuclear equipment. Based on your reporting, what’s the general notion of what may or may not be going on with nuclear proliferation in Syria?

Ephron: Eric, when you clear away the speculation and the innuendo, what we know is very little still, and I think it will continue being like that until either Israel or Syria come out and say, “This is what was hit.” What we do know is that Israel struck some target in northern Syria. We know that Israel believes that it was a very significant target. One Israeli source told us recently that when the world finds out what exactly was hit, we’ll all be stunned. But the issue of some link, some nuclear link to North Korea has really been mainly either speculation or unsourced reports. And we are being very cautious about it, in part because the source for these reports often tends to be people who have some agenda, some bias. And what we’re told in Washington and intelligence circles to date, anyway, is so far there is no concrete evidence about some nuclear link and some nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea.

Host: Farid Ghadry, what’s your sense?

Ghadry: Well, I believe it’s more than innuendos. I believe these are facts. The fact that the U-S State Department, which has historically taken a very soft stand on Syria and the intelligence community, when they come out or the State Department comes out and says, “It’s nuclear weapons, and we believe North Korea’s behind it,” we have to take that at face value. We truly believe that Syria is tallying or at least dabbling into forbidden technologies. We believe that Syria has engaged with the North Koreans and has been able to obtain North Korea’s material. And the danger in all of this is not the fact that Syria is using that material as a way to actually obtain concessions to protect this regime or to actually get the United States to speak with them. We believe that Syria has much more sinister goals. The fact that rockets rained on Israel in 2006 carried the label of Syria demonstrates that Syria has intention very similar to what Iran’s intentions are. But the difference that Syria does not come out and say them. They just do them. And this is what the [Bashar] Assad regime has been doing. So, we believe that Syria is embarking on something extremely, extremely dangerous. And the Syrian people do not want to be involved in this at all.

Host: Gordon Chang, are you there in New Jersey?

Chang: I certainly am.

Host: A few days before this air strike early in September, there was a shipment from North Korea to Syria that was a shipment labeled of cement. Is North Korea in the cement-sales business?

Chang: North Korea will sell anything, and that’s really been the problem. We, of course, don’t know what happened with the Israeli raid. And, of course, much of the reporting has been unsourced and unreliable. Yet I do believe that this is more than just cement or even missile parts, largely because the reaction from the Arab nations has been so quiet that I can’t believe that they would remain that way if this were just a normal raid. So, there is certainly something going on. I mean, and nuclear makes the most sense. Of course, we won’t know for a little while, but at this point, I think we have to fear the worst.

Host: Well, Gordon Chang, how does this fit in with the ongoing negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program? There’s been some who have speculated that North Korea may be trying to just find someplace to keep some of its nuclear materials.

Chang: There have been a number of reports about North Korea warehousing its nuclear program in other nations. Syria makes some sense with regard to that. The one thing that I’m concerned about is that the State Department is not willing to talk about this because they feel that if it were known that the North Koreans were in Syria, that would derail the six-party talks. And, of course, the talks are at a critical phase because they could end up disarming North Korea or they could end up in another debacle. It could go either way. And we really won’t know. But in any sense, this is a very important moment for those talks. And, of course, the State Department does not want them to be derailed because of this or any other news event.

Host: Dan Ephron, a year ago -- Let’s talk about what this might mean for North Korea and these talks that Gordon brings up. A year ago, President Bush said, “The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the consequences of such action.” What does that mean? And what does that mean if this is shown to be some spread of nuclear technology?

Ephron: First of all, let me point out, I’m not sure that this wasn’t some nuclear facility or some nuclear material. One version we’ve heard is that maybe this was something that was transiting Syria on its way to Iran from North Korea. My point is that we don’t know, that all the sources of information are not coming across to us with everything they know and that until they do, we have to be cautious. Now, North Korea has committed, made various promises about its nuclear project. If North Korea is sharing some of its nuclear facilities with Syria or with any other country, I think that would require U-S action, certainly very tough sanctions or other U-S actions. For now, I think the concern certainly for the United States and for countries that neighbor Syria -- Israel, for instance -- is more the issue of Syria and Iran and to what extent are they putting their hands on W-M-D?

Host: Farid Ghadry, we see Israel taking action in Syria. Is there some sense that the West has left this issue of proliferation as sort of an expectation that they can just count on Israel to attack if proliferation is going forward, whether it’s in Iraq, back at the Osirak nuclear facility, or perhaps even in Iran at some point?

Ghadry: Well, I don’t have the answer to that question. I think one has to ask the Israelis about that. But what we get a sense of as Syrians is that this proliferation is not in the best interest of Syria. And what the Israelis have decided to do -- and certainly it seems they have done it -- is to make sure that Syria does not embark on any meaningful program that will not only put Syria at risk, which is our own main interest here, but will also put other countries in jeopardy. We don’t believe that Syria is a transitory point, as Dan was kind enough to talk about it. But I think we believe that Syria is actually doing some kind of -- It’s embarking on some kind of a program -- nuclear program. And the reason why is because Syria really has some sinister -- as I mentioned earlier -- some sinister goals. What we need to do is be very cautious about that and actually put the screws on Syria in such a way that not only we don’t see this happen in the future but that a strong message is sent to us that getting on that road will not be in the best interest not only of Syria but of your own regime. And I hope that the U-S Administration does send that message.

Host: Gordon Chang, what room is there for the U-S at this point to be sending messages?

Chang: It’s very important for the United States to send messages because this is a very important time, where you have conjunction of a number of crises. As you mentioned, we have the North Korean six-party talks. We have the United Nations paying much closer attention to what’s happening in Iran, the Europeans becoming much more amenable to sanctions. So, this is a time when we have a number of various issues coming together, and we could conceivably solve all of them or all of them could go out of control. So, we really need to, as you say, send messages.

Host: Dan Ephron, one of the more surprising, at least given recent history and the policy of France going back for years, one of the more surprising developments and messages has been France’s rather tough line on Iran. And let’s hear what the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, had to say at the United Nations:

Sarkozy: "There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran has the right to nuclear power for civilian purposes. But if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons we will run an unacceptable risk, to the stability of the region and the stability of the world. I say, in the name of France, that this crisis will not be resolved unless firmness and dialogue go together, hand-in-hand."

Host: Dan Ephron.

Ephron: Yes, we are seeing new voices in Iran, certainly in France, even in Germany. And I think one of the reasons that American intelligence is inclined to take what France has to say very seriously is because unlike the United States, France has assets in Iran. France has business dealings with Iran. And that means they have people on the ground inside Iran -- that very important human intelligence that we lack. And I think one of the perceptions in Washington is that if France is getting tougher on Iran, they know something about how serious Iran’s nuclear program is and how evolved it is.

Host: Farid Ghadry, does France taking a larger role make a difference for what’s going to happen in Iran and also in Syria?

Ghadry: Absolutely. Historically, France has had a lot of influence in the region, going back to a very short history of Syria, at least. And France has always enjoyed that free access to Syria. And the Syrian people appreciate that and have ties to France. So I think when Nicolas Sarkozy stands up and says, “Is it the bomb to Iran or bombing of Iran?” People in Syria take that very seriously. The Syrian people feel the importance of this when a President of France takes that stand. And I believe he’s right. I truly believe that what President Sarkozy is doing, is undertaking, is actually upping the ante about the danger of Iran. And now we see the danger of Syria about this issue. This is not something that we should discount. This is not something we should stand back and say, “Well, maybe this or maybe that.” This is an issue that we have to be extremely tough about. And we have to ensure, for the sake of our people inside Syria, and I’m sure for the sake of Iranians -- and I know a lot of Iranians who speak the same language -- that we need to make sure that Iran and Syria do not enjoy nuclear weapons or have access to nuclear weapons at this time.

Host: Gordon Chang, what’s your sense about the ability to actually stop Iran and perhaps Syria, as well, from getting nuclear weapons?

Chang: I think we still have at least a year and a half to prevent Iran from getting the technology needed to master the bomb. There are some estimates, of course, that it could take them five years or even ten years to do so. But I think that we still have a year or so in which to stop them. It’s going to be very difficult because we don’t have that much time. But nonetheless, with the new attitude in France and in Europe and if the United States is able to put the hard word on China and Russia, if we say to them that this really is critical to the international community, then I think that we can see some optimism. Because if Iran and Syria do see that they are basically alone in the world, not even supported by their Arab neighbors, then there could be some change in the calculus that the Iranian regime makes. Clearly they want nuclear weapons, or at least they want the capability to produce them. And so, I think that they’ve just got to see that everyone in the world stands against them, because if they do, then there really is an opportunity for diplomacy to work.

Host: Dan Ephron, at the United Nations, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that the nuclear topic was a closed issue. And is Iran going to be able to continue to basically just sort of put off the nuclear issue as long as they need to develop weapons?

Ephron: They’ve very skillfully played the world in this matter of diplomacy, granting some concessions and then pulling back. I think for sanctions to work against Iran, they have to be much more aggressive than they are now. They probably have to take place outside the framework of the U-N. We have to see companies in Europe and Japan, elsewhere, pulling back from Iran, especially from investments in Iran’s oil infrastructure, which is run-down, which needs foreign investment. A massive campaign of sanctions in Iran might stop the nuclear program, and it might not. But we’re very far away from that. And in the absence of that, it’s hard not to fathom the Americans, maybe, but certainly the Israelis in some term, a year, two years down the road, contemplating, at least, military action against Iran.

Host: Farid Ghadry, we only have a couple of minutes left, but a lot of countries have nuclear weapons and yet there is particular concern about Iran or Syria getting nuclear weapons. Is that warranted? Why are they a special case?

Ghadry: I’m not afraid of a country that’s democratic that has nuclear weapons because to actually make the decision to launch an attack against another country requires, in a democratic nation, a large consensus and, actually, also talking to other democratic nations. But I am afraid of an autocratic nation like Iran and Syria, where one man can make the decision to push that button. And that’s the big difference. We don’t want those countries to have it because they will be able to use those nuclear weapons without building the consensus and by just one crazy act. So, there’s a huge difference between democratic nations owning nuclear weapons, as we see in India -- India’s not a danger -- and countries like Iran and Syria, where one person can actually launch an attack against another country.

Host: Gordon Chang, how serious is the threat that’s been raised that a country like Iran or Syria could also then proliferate beyond onto non-state actors?

Chang: Iran certainly has links to Hezbollah and Hamas, and so, there is the risk, especially if the Iranian leadership feels that they can get away with it. And in a case like that, where a nuclear weapon is detonated by a non-state actor, Iran may be able to avoid responsibility. So, therefore, I think that it is a real concern to all of us at this point.

Host: Dan Ephron, we only have a few seconds left, but is there the possibility of deterrence if you have non-state actors with their hands on these weapons?

Ephron: Two problems with deterrents. One is that very thing. It’s leakage of the bomb from Iran, so you don’t have a return address if a group like Hezbollah gets its hands on a bomb from Iran. And the other is the question, how rational is the leadership in Iran? Some people believe rational enough, but perhaps there are signs that point to something else.

Host: I’m afraid that’s going to have to be the last word for today. We’re out of time. But I’d like to thank my guests, Dan Ephron of Newsweek magazine and, from the Reform Party of Syria, Farid Ghadry, and, joining us by phone, from Bedminster in New Jersey, Gordon Chang, author of the book “Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World.” Before we go, I’d like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For “On the Line,” I’m Eric Felten.