Copenhagen and Iran

What could possibly be the connection between Copenhagen and Iran? The
answer is nuclear weapons.
Recently we saw an adaptation on TV of a brilliant play entitled
"Copenhagen" by Michael Frayn that we saw in London several years ago. This
is about a meeting that took place in 1941, with Denmark under German
occupation, between Niels Bohr the Danish (half Jewish) father of atomic
theory and Werner Heisenberg, the Head of the Nazi German Nuclear Program,
and Bohr's former student and assistant. Both were brilliant physicists,
and the question is, why did Heisenberg go to the trouble of visiting Bohr
in the middle of the war? What was the reason, what was his purpose?
Before we enter into this question, what has this all to do with Iran? Well
Iran is the country considered most likely to develop atomic weapons
independently of any outside monitoring and control, apart from N. Korea.
The overall question is if Hitler or the Iranian Mullahs had a nuclear
weapon and an ability to deliver it would they do so. In both cases I have
no hesitation in answering "yes." The situations are of course somewhat
different, Hitler was already engaged in fighting a war, Iran is currently
not. But, the Mullahs regard themselves as being in a permanent war with
the West. What's more to the point, would they, in both cases, use such a
weapon against the Jews, or the Jewish State. The answer unfortunately has
to be unhesitatingly "absolutely."
So while we would have no hesitation in supporting Bohr in evading helping
his German friend with any information that could facilitate the development
of a German A-bomb, many Jews and others seem quite disinterested in the
case of Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Its as if the liberal Jewish
attitude of "live and let live" is extended to Iran's claim that it has the
right like all other nations to develop nuclear power. Its as if many
people seem prepared to take this attitude at face value. But, what if they
are wrong, what if this time (and it seems to be the case in view of Iranian
statements) there really are WMD being developed in Iran, and they do have
the means to deliver them, against Israel and against US forces in Iraq.
Iran perceives itself surrounded, not only by Israel and US forces in Iraq
and Afghanistan, but also by war-like Arabs. It sees itself as the world
center of Shia Islam and of revolutionary Islamism. After all, the former
Iran-Iraq war lasted 8 years and caused the deaths of 500,000 Iranians (as
well as a similar number of Iraqis). By using Israel and the US as excuses,
Iran can develop nuclear weapons surreptitiously, and everyone in the Muslim
world will understand why. Even though at present the Sunni Arabs in Iraq
are killing Shia Arabs with great abandon in order to try to bring about a
civil war and overthrow the US-sponsored Iraqi Government. So an Iranian
nuclear weapon may not be primarily of interest to Iran to attack Israel,
but you can't be too careful in view of the threats. Why is it that we
perceive a clear threat if Hitler had obtained a nuclear weapon, but some of
us are ambivalent about Iran. I can see no real difference in the danger
from either source.
Now, what was it that Heisenberg wanted from Bohr, and we can assume he made
the dangerous journey because he wanted something. Although Bohr's wife
Margarethe was present for most of the meeting, and we have her written
account, she was not present for the crucial 10 minutes when Bohr and
Heisenberg decided to go for a walk, and Bohr came back very angry and
Heisenberg left immediately. We will never know what was actually said
then, but there are three main possibilities, 1. Heisenberg asked Bohr if he
knew what progress the US was making in its development of the A-bomb; 2.
Heisenberg told Bohr that he was deliberately preventing the development of
a German A-bomb so that Hitler could not get his hands on it, and that he
did this so that Bohr would pass the information on to the Americans
(although it might not have been true) and 3. That he revealed to Bohr that
the Germans had encountered a technical problem and he asked Bohr's help in
solving it.
In any case, Bohr presumably refused to be drawn out and abruptly stopped
the conversation, returned to the house and asked Heisenberg to leave. After
the war it was found that the Germans had made a mistake in their
calculations and had over-estimated the amount of U-235 required for a
self-sustaining chain reaction (i.e. a bomb) by a factor of 20, therefore
they considered the development of an A-bomb virtually impossible, while at
the same time they knew that the Americans were in the process of doing just
that, with the help of their German Jewish atomic physicists. It may have
been this that Heisenberg wanted to discuss with his old mentor Bohr, but
under the circumstances Bohr refused to do so, perhaps realizing the mistake
that they had made and not wanting to reveal the truth.
With regard to Iran we are now in a very different situation. At present it
looks as if the EU representatives have finally drawn a blank with Iran, and
it's case may be referred to the UN Security Council. However, there it is
likely to be blocked by both Russia and China, that want to preserve their
investments in the Iranian nuclear industry. An Israeli expert recently
stated that it will take Iran between 1-5 years to actually develop a
deliverable bomb, not long, but enough time to give us a breather, and hope
that they don't pursue it, so that we don't have to take direct action
against them.