Just a MoJo

Updated 2.2.07 @ 18:00GMT

By Patrick Tolbert

With his presidency in the home stretch, Chirac plays both sides of the Iranian nuclear situation.

The president’s last words are usually meant to set the record straight on his official positions. Yet, French President Jacques Chirac’s words leave the international media wondering.

Mr. Chirac officially flip-flopped his position on a nuclear Iran on Thursday. The President’s office released an official statement that directly contradicted an interview he gave on Monday.

According to the statement the President regrets his remarks, “It was an over simplification…It is a formulation that I am taking back.”

Mr. Chirac argues that the reporters were not paying attention to his remarks and they boiled his comments down to a sound byte.

“I spoke quickly and should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on-the-record,” Mr. Chirac said Wednesday.

In an interview Monday, with the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, and Le Nouvel Observateur, Mr. Chirac declared with some certainty that “It’s not very dangerous for Iran to have a nuclear bomb.”

“Je dirais que ce n’est pas tellement dangereux par le fait d’avoir une bombe nucléaire - peut-être une deuxième un peu plus tard, bon… ça n’est pas très dangereux.

I am troubled for several reasons by Mr. Chirac’s flip-flop; primarily I am concerned with France’s willingness to standup against Iran’s proliferate efforts.

Since Muslims represent such a large portion of its minority population, it is important for the government to carefully define its positions on issues dealing with Arab countries, especially a theocracy like Iran.

Secondly, Mr. Chirac knew that the interview was on-the-record. With reporters from three publications in his office, nothing is going to be off-the-record. He argues that he should have thought about what he was sayin; I could be confused but isn’t that standard protocol for heads of state?

Even if Mr. Chirac misspoke, he still publicized his personal opinion that an Iran with one or two nuclear bombs would not pose a danger, because, if it attacked Israel, Tehran would be destroyed immediately.

France v. West

This week’s flip-flop also represents a challenge to the West’s efforts to isolate and punish Iran and other countries for nuclear activities when it is uncertain whether the French will back the efforts to curb proliferation.

It is necessary here to point out that prior to the current War in Iraq, the French were adamant as to the nonexistence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

France’s interior minister and leading candidate in the 2007 presidential race, Nicolas Sarkozy, delivered a Pro-US, Anti-Nuclear Iran speech in late 2006.

“This struggle will be long and uncertain, but a new tragedy is inevitable if we don’t devote all our resources to working together,” he said, referring for the need for France and the United States to be united contra Iran.