I would say that what is dangerous about this situation [scil., Iranian uranium enrichment] is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb - having one, maybe a second one a little later, well, that's not very dangerous.

Solo Jack,
signaling that France has decided Europe can live with a nuclear Iran
January 29, 2007 (IHT)

Jack recently gave two back-to-back interviews to reporters from three publications. The first on January 29 in which he "drifted" into the comfort zone of a nuclear armed Iran and meditated on razing Tehran. The second on January 30 in which Jack, presumably sober and alert, recalled the same reporters to read from an approved script -- that is, to retract key statements from the previous day's interview. Alas, Jack had spoken on the record and there was to be no discreet retraction but a public one -- a retraction as telling as the remarks retracted.

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 Teheran. ... 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.

We doubt the Tehranians will find Jack's toss-off threat meaningless. And rightly so as razing Tehran is at the heart of deterrence. Unlike Jack, in the event of a nuclear attack we find it takes quite a bit of sting out of deterrence to negotiate the response. Also, nuclear attack has an unmistakeable signature providing an attacked nation plenteous "good reason" to consider itself attacked.

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 [scil., of using civilian technology for bomb-making], 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. ... I don't want to name any countries naturally, even though I did so yesterday, I shouldn't have done so.

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. ... I cannot imagine this. I cannot imagine this. [Iran nuking Israel] 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.

Jack introduced this fantastic super detecto-destructo-technology in the first interview. But no country has supported Jack's claim. Who could? No such technology exists that can produce Jack's guaranteed results. Please note, Jack puts the onus of guaranteed results on America, with France only making an appearance among a huddle of "certain Europeans".

CHIRAC SCRAMBLES TO LIMIT FALLOUT FROM IRAN COMMENT
Paris 'Cannot Accept' Atom Arms In Iran

February 1, 2007 (IHT) - The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly magazine, differed vastly from stated French policy and what Chirac has often said. On Tuesday, Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée Palace to retract many of his remarks.

The president's office denounced the publication of his comments as a "shameful campaign" and accused American media of "using any excuse to engage in France-bashing."

In France, is anything ever not America's fault? Jack has mispokened, rather clumsily. Irresponsibly, stupidly. It is reported by three international publications. Yet it is the bad old Americans who are to blame that Jack is a donkey. Pfft.

Less than three months before Chirac's second term runs out, even some French diplomats voiced concern that the president could make unilateral diplomatic overtures to Tehran in an attempt to strengthen his legacy.

... Despite the statement from the Élysée Palace, Le Monde called Chirac's remarks on Iran a "radical turnaround which comes at a bad moment" and argued that they also risked diminishing France's credibility on the international stage.

"When the international community will reconvene in New York and again threaten Iran, people will question how credible the French position is," the daily said in an editorial on Thursday.

The answer, of course, is not very credible at all. But had Jack said not a word the French position would be not one jot more credible.

Other than smirks in Iran, reactions to Jack's greenlighting Iran weaponizing uranium were varied.

Jacques Chirac said things that many experts are saying around the world, even in the United States; that is to say, that a country that possesses the bomb does not use it and automatically enters the system of deterrence and doesn't take absurd risks.

Hubert Vedrine,
former French foreign minister
(it was he who coined the lexically equivalent
but minacious-sounding sobriquet, "hyperpower")
February 2, 2007 (IHT/LCI television)

Ah, yes, Jack, you see, Jack is in the experts' corner. If we follow M. Vedrine's novel reasoning it is better that everyone have a bomb, the better to bustle them into a "system of deterrence". Having the bomb is a better safeguard than not having the bomb and being tormented by the desire to have one. That apparently is the expert position. Well, now for some credible responses.

It is not a sentiment I share and from what I understand, the French president doesn't share it anymore either.

Margaret Beckett,
British Foreign Secretary

It sounds a bit to me like he was joking around. ... It's hard for me to believe Chirac really believes that Iran or other countries ought to be able to have their own nuclear weapons just as long as they don't proliferate.

Jin Linbo,
Northeast Asian affairs specialist
at China Institute for International Studies in Beijing

Why has he said such irresponsible things?

Shi Yinhong,
professor of international relations
at People's University, Beijing

The Chinese having come round reluctantly to sanctioning Iran must feel a little mystified by France, a little pissed.

I understand that Jacques Chirac is retracting his words.

François Hollande,
Le Premier secrétaire du Parti Socialiste and pillow-pal and co-progenitor
of PS presidential candidate and ace globetrotter
Ségolène Royal

PFFT (What is this?): Just rambling 2½ | Not to worry, America will nuke Tehran 2½ | Pay no attention to France 5 | Rayonnement français 0