This drawing by David Klein captures the nuclear negotiations between Britain, France, and Germany on one side and Iran on the other. (I hate the term "cartoon" for drawings that aren't intended for humor.)
Leon de Winter is right in his analysis of the failure of soft power when it comes to disarming Iran, and his final paragraph is especially chilling.
And yet Britain's Jack Straw, France's Philippe Douste-Blazy (and his predecessor, Dominique de Villepin) and Germany's Joschka Fischer (and his successor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier) talked on, clinging to a postmodern European belief in a world where any conflict can be resolved with enough reason and mutual understanding. The Troika offered the mullahs economic carrots and alternative sources of nuclear power--as if energy had anything to do with it--while Iran did what any football team does when it's ahead: It played for time. This it used very well to push ahead with its clandestine nuclear program.Did the Troika know that Iran knew that Europe was weak? Of course. Europe's posturing was empty from the start. The only weapon that the EU was willing to consider, as a last result, was an economic boycott that would harm Europe's commercial interests more than Iran's. ...
Thanks to European illusions about soft power, the free world has two options left on Iran: disaster or catastrophe. America and Israel will bleed for Europe's lack of conviction.
Which illustrates why countries don't have "allies", they have interests. Allies are other countries with the same interests as yours in a given context. Unfortunately, America often ends up standing alone.
From what I understand, centrifuges are kind of bulky and hard to move. If the international community were to agree that they should be demolished, then it seems almost trivial to enforce that decision with a coalition force. You could drop pamphlets saying, "This building will be destroyed very soon. Please evacuate." Then, there are actually quite a few options to demolish the building.
This is the sort of thing that should be debated peacefully. And when the debate is done, then the conclusion should be agreeable to most of the people represented (in this case, that's all of humanity).
If a city council were to decide that a building on US soil should be condemned, and a state court were to view an appeal and agree with the city council, then the actual demolition would be ordinary. Use a wrecking ball or explosives -- it doesn't matter.
Likewise, I think that the regulation of Uranium enrichment is a reasonable function of the IAEA, and the final appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the UN. For the demolition, one could use the American or Russian military -- does it really matter?
Of course, the above concept needs to take into account the amount of Uranium that is in the plant now. Who knows how much unenriched fuel they may have, or at what point it becomes a danger for the surrounding community? Hopefully someone out there could figure out the right methods and tools to do the job without making a mess (materially speaking).
Daniel, two problems: First, you have to find the centrifuge. Second, you have to reach it. I doubt that Iran leaves their centrifuges lying out in the desert somewhere. With as many petrodollars as that government controls, I would expect the centrifuges to be under lots of reinforced concrete, and with lots of dummy facilities. Taking those out would be no small task.
Also, we don't know exactly how much of the stuff they've already made, so by the time the UN agrees on anything, destroying the centrifuge may be pointless.