Nuclear weapons in Iran much less likely

[jdobbin]

I still say he will not attack Iran. There is no upside to it for him or the US.

I hope you're right. I have no problem keeping pressure on Iran not to build nuclear weapons and by all accounts that pressure seems to be working. However, the talk from Israel and the U.S. today doesn't seem to preclude forces from stopping an enrichment program.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/ira...lear/index.html

adley said U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed because of the new report.

"If we want to avoid a situation where we either have to accept Iran ... with a path to a nuclear weapon, or the possibility of having to use force to stop it, with all the connotations of World War III -- then we need to step up the diplomacy, step up the pressure, to get Iran to stop their so-called civilian uranium enrichment program," he said. "That's our policy going forward -- no change."

Britain on Tuesday also called for continued pressure on Iran.

"The report confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and it also shows that the sanctions program and international pressure were having some effect," a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak echoed Bush's comments Tuesday.

"Iran is a main threat to the world and Israel," Barak said. "The entire world and the state of Israel should prepare to deal with this threat and thwart it."

[Sulaco]

I hope you're right. I have no problem keeping pressure on Iran not to build nuclear weapons and by all accounts that pressure seems to be working. However, the talk from Israel and the U.S. today doesn't seem to preclude forces from stopping an enrichment program.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/ira...lear/index.html

I know this may be hard to square - it is high-minded strategy after all but...

The pressure includes the threat of war.

That threat must be credible.

Generally that means you better be ready to carry it out and you can show that.

Nope - in retrospect that was easy.

[jdobbin]

I know this may be hard to square - it is high-minded strategy after all but...

The pressure includes the threat of war.

That threat must be credible.

I think the threat of war with Bush amounts to more than a threat. He has a record of carrying his threats out and making the data fit the criteria for attack if necessary.

In other words, attack first, explain later has been the standard operation in years past.

Edited December 5, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

I think it's funny that those who are all over the US security report saying that Iran has stopped it's nuclear weapons programme are some of the same ones who were szying that Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons or that american intelligence was bad.

Ah what ever turns yer crank I suppose.....as long as they have no ability to arm I really don't care how they get that way.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it's funny that those who are all over the US security report saying that Iran has stopped it's nuclear weapons programme are some of the same ones who were szying that Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons or that american intelligence was bad.

Indeed....or that the same American intelligence wonks were reporting WMD threats out of Iraq since the mid 90's. So I guess we get to pick and choose the reports to fit our political leanings.

[Guest coot]

So I guess we get to pick and choose the reports to fit our political leanings.

That has clearly been proven time and again.

[DogOnPorch]

Iran already has tried and true ICBMs.

http://www.astronautix.com/country/iran.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/missile.htm

It really doesn't matter if they are or aren't building an atomic weapon at the moment. They have the blueprints for a weapon...that's money in the bank.

There's also Iran's chemical and biological weapons programs...we don't hear much about those two. Not as "sexy", I suppose.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htm

---------------------------------------------------

Survival kit contents, check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

---Major T. J. "King" Kong (Dr Strangelove)

[buffycat]

I don't think this latest NIE report will make any difference whatsoever. The sights are clearly set and neither Israel or the US seem able to think clearly of the very real repercussions of any pre-emptive military strike.

Those here who seem to outright reject the role that Israel plays in this drumming for war are missing a very key ingredient. There have been to date far more calls for outright attack against Iran coming from the right in Israel than even the neoconservatives which riddle the ranks in the US Admin. Here is a typical example of such an article about those infamous 'think tanks' screaming out for war. I haven't found an American source commenting on this yet.

Keep in mind that Iran is really NO threat to the US, outside of perhaps cutting off oil resources, or dropping the dollar and establishing their own oil Bourse. (This has been spoken of, but seems to have been shelved for the time being). On the other hand, Iran 'may' post a small threat to Israel but IMO, not in the way in which it is heralded in the propaganda machines of the bureaucracy and media - not it won't be a 'wiped off the map' scenario, though it could be a slow negative influence via funding of supposed terror organisations - who if we are to be totally objective - are not much different that the funding of 'freedom fighters' the various Western Interests. An outright attack on Israel is suicide for Iran - she is not stupid.

Also, keep in mind that Iran does have economic relations with both Russia and China (both currently being vilified to the nth degree in our msm and admins). It is clear, and has been stated by both - that an outright military attack against Iran by the US/Israel would be considered and attack against them as well. IOW - by taking the road of war, via a pre-emptive attack, we would be engaging both Russia and China in various ways. Both lands could pound the last nail into the coffin of the US - without any military action - they could crush the already depressed American economy by various economic means (ie dumping outright their dollar holdings). Not a good scenario.

Here is an excerpt from the above article:

06:04 03/12/2007

Study: U.S., Israel should begin planning strike on Iran nuclear sites

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Iran, U.S., Israel, nuclear

Israel and the United States should begin an intense dialogue on ways to deal with Iran's nuclear plans and should examine ways to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a new study published by an influential Washington think tank.

"The report, by a former deputy head of the National Security Council, Chuck Freilich, says Israel and the U.S. should discuss nuclear-crisis scenarios between Israel and Iran. The report, entitled "Speaking About the Unspeakable," was released over the weekend by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

~~snip~~

According to Freilich, a lack of symmetry exists between the U.S. and Israel on the Iranian threat, although both use similar rhetoric toward it. From Israel's perspective, Iran presents a potential existential threat, so its nuclear plans must be stopped at almost any price. In contrast, the U.S. is disturbed by the implications of nuclear weapons in Iran but does not see it as an existential threat.

~~snip~~

Freilich says Israel would prefer that the U.S. attack Iran. He notes that if Israel believes it can successfully attack Iran, Israel fears that the U.S. would veto the plan, so Israel would not unveil the scheme ahead of time. The U.S. would also keep secret from Israel any intention of attacking Iran.

[M.Dancer]

yet.

Keep in mind that Iran is really NO threat to the US, outside of perhaps cutting off oil resources, or dropping the dollar and establishing their own oil Bourse.

Please. If Iran somehow managed to cut off the oil supply from the Persian Gulf, the effects would be catastrophic not so much for the US whose oil comes mainly from elsewhere, but to Europe and elsewhere.

Such an act would be an act of war in any book.

[DogOnPorch]

Keep in mind that Iran is really NO threat to the US, outside of perhaps cutting off oil resources...

As mentioned..Iran already has missiles that work just fine. They're working on one that can launch a satellite. If a nation can do that, it can also drop a warhead in your bathtub.

http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/Iran/IranianSat.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/iran/launch.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution.

---Dr Wernher von Braun

[GostHacked]

And BuffyCat do you have any links?

I have one for her.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/05/s...d-he-know-when/

Sy talks about if Israel goes in, so does the US.

[myata]

Or they would if they could, but with Iraq hot potato still in their hands, I deeply doubt that. Looks like just some more of tough talk to hide the expected "oops" with another bs WMD scare. Mostly for internal US consumption too. I wouldn't be too worried.

Edited December 5, 2007 by myata

[Higgly]

Indeed....or that the same American intelligence wonks were reporting WMD threats out of Iraq since the mid 90's. So I guess we get to pick and choose the reports to fit our political leanings.

US intelligence was distorted by political pressure. The Wikipedia entry for George Tenet is revealing...

According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context. (Tenet indicated that the comment was made pursuant to a discussion about how to convince the American people to support invading Iraq, and that, in his opinion, the best way to convince the people would be by explaining the dangers posed by Iraq's WMD i.e., the public relations sale of the war via the WMD, according to Tenet, would be a "slam dunk").[14] The search following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S., British and international forces yielded no stockpiles of WMDs, however.

What is remarkable about this discussion is that Bush no longer has a leg to stand on and yet keeps saying the same thing. Any intelligent observer would ask, "What is your evidence?" Here is a man with no evidence. His best investigative people have said so publicly. The BBC interview I quoted in a previous post seems to indicate that neither do the Israelis.

And yet, there are people here - the mullahs of MapleLeafWeb, who continue to defend this indefensible position.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Higgly

[Wilber]

Please. If Iran somehow managed to cut off the oil supply from the Persian Gulf, the effects would be catastrophic not so much for the US whose oil comes mainly from elsewhere, but to Europe and elsewhere.

Such an act would be an act of war in any book.

No problem with getting a coalition of the willing in that event. Iran would have a lot more to worry about than just the US and Israelis..

[DogOnPorch]

Looks like just some more of tough talk to hide the expected "oops" with another bs WMD scare.

Again...Iran has ICBMs already...and a vigorous chemical/biological weapons program. Why aren't we scared?

The search following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S., British and international forces yielded no stockpiles of WMDs, however.

Now Higgly can't read my responses since he has blocked me for some reason...but I'll point out a few things regarding WMD in Iraq.

1) Iraq apparently possesed 4500 tons of VX nerve agent that was never found. They couldn't destroy it...you need a special facility like the US one on Johnston Island in the middle of the Pacific. So...where is it???

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/2000/usa-001130.htm

For those unfamiliar, VX nerve agent is an area denial weapon (officially a WMD)...it persists in all climate conditions and is next to impossible to clean-up. Even at half strength...which happens after being 'on the shelf' for a while, this chemical is still much more deadly than any other type of nerve agent/gas. Read more about VX nerve agent here.

It's about here that eyes glaze over and brains shut off. But, again...where is it? We've never found anything more than a few old gas shells from the Iran Iraq war.

2) Saddam had a ministry whose job was simply to hide activities from prying eyes. This included spy satellites apparently whose orbital paths were tracked in detail. An analogy I use is that if I wanted to hide ten 18 wheeler trucks/trailers in British Columbia, you'd never find them, given I had the resourses to make them "invisible".

3) Iraq already had satellite launch capability when US/UK troops invaded. They launched an incredible 48 tons into LEO on December 5, 1989 (the entire 3rd stage), opening a number eyes in the west immediately. For comparison...the US's first satellite was Explorer I...weighing in at 31lbs.

---------------------------------------------------------------

We can continue to try and clean up the gutters all over the world and spend all of our resources looking at just the dirty spots and trying to make them clean. Or we can lift our eyes up and look into the skies and move forward in an evolutionary way.

---Astronaut Edwin Eugene "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr

[Higgly]

Please. If Iran somehow managed to cut off the oil supply from the Persian Gulf, the effects would be catastrophic not so much for the US whose oil comes mainly from elsewhere, but to Europe and elsewhere.

Such an act would be an act of war in any book.

For centuries, Iran has shown a remarkable lack of interest in invading its neighbours. My guess is that, were Iran to do such a thing, it would be in response to an act of war.

This is a very ancient and well-developed culture. We're talking Zoroastrians here, not some tin-pot country the British and French put together with a bloody telegram.

[myata]

Again...Iran has ICBMs already...and a vigorous chemical/biological weapons program. Why aren't we scared?

I don't like to be scared, for once. Especially if someone wants me scared so much.

In any case, when was the last time Iran attacked another country? And when was the last time US did? If you want to be scared of something, better base your feares on some rational thinking.

[M.Dancer]

For centuries, Iran has shown a remarkable lack of interest in invading its neighbours.

Kind of hard to invade you neighbours when they are already under your boot....

Like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Safavid...7;1722_(AD).PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#The_birt...E2.80.931920.29

You know, it is because of our relationship with Iran we call it the Persian Gulf, like the Iranians....the Arabs certainly don't call it that.....

Edited December 5, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Higgly]

I don't like to be scared, for once. Especially if someone wants me scared so much.

In any case, when was the last time Iran attacked another country? And when was the last time US did? If you want to be scared of something, better base your feares on some rational thinking.

Ezackly.

[Higgly]

Kind of hard to invade you neighbours when they are already under your boot....

Like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Safavid...7;1722_(AD).PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#The_birt...E2.80.931920.29

You know, it is because of our relationship with Iran we call it the Persian Guld, like the Iranians....the Arabs certainly don't call it that.....

So if Iran exerts its influence over its neighbours, that's a no-no, but if the US exerts its influence over its... well shall we say...brothers of the earth, no problem?

[M.Dancer]

So if Iran exerts its influence over its neighbours, that's a no-no, but if the US exerts its influence over its... well shall we say...brothers of the earth, no problem?

Exerts? I believe the word you are looking for his total absolute control. It was afterall a bloody empire.....

Oh...and by the way, the last time the Iranians attacked another country was 1941, 1980s 2004 on going........

[DogOnPorch]

I don't like to be scared, for once. Especially if someone wants me scared so much.

In any case, when was the last time Iran attacked another country? And when was the last time US did? If you want to be scared of something, better base your feares on some rational thinking.

So I should be afraid of the United States launching a chemical weapons attack or worse on Canada? Who's thinking rationally?

Any ideas on what happened to Iraq's VX nerve agent stocks? Or would you prefer to just think they were just a figment of our collective imagination?

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/06/98062301_npo.html

------------------------------------------------

Al Gore: To my left, you'll recognize Gary Gygax, inventor of Dungeons & Dragons.

Gary Gygax: Greetings...it's a...

[rolls dice]

Gary Gygax: ... pleasure to meet you.

---Futurama

[Higgly]

Exerts? I believe the word you are looking for his total absolute control. It was afterall a bloody empire.....

Oh...and by the way, the last time the Iranians attacked another country was 1941, 1980s 2004 on going........

Total absolute control. Jeez. They must be the only ones.

Can you cite references for those attacks?

If you are leaning on the Iran/Iraq war for the 1980s, Iraq attacked first and the Iranians were defending themselves. Millions died on both sides in that war and it has barely registered on the western consciousness. We tend to assume here that we are the centre of the universe. We need to get over ourselves.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Higgly

[M.Dancer]

If you are leaning on the Iran/Iraq war for the 1980s, Iraq attacked first and the Iranians were defending themselves. Millions died on both sides in that war and it has barely registered on the western consciousness. We tend to assume here that we are the centre of the universe. We need to get over ourselves.

I oopsed the 1941...

During the Iran Iraq war, Iran attacked something in the vicinity of 500+ foreign flagged oil carriers, merchant and neutral shipping killing over 400 civilians.......something which would be considered an act war.....since then Iranian Gaurds have aided and abetted attacks agianst Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Higgly]

I oopsed the 1941...

During the Iran Iraq war, Iran attacked something in the vicinity of 500+ foreign flagged oil carriers, merchant and neutral shipping killing over 400 civilians.......something which would be considered an act war.....since then Iranian Gaurds have aided and abetted attacks agianst Iraq and Afghanistan.

OK fine. First of all anybody who sent oil tankers into the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war was not listening to their insurance agent. I am sympathetic to the 400 civilians who died, but if you can get over your revulsion to Robert Fisk, you might want to read his accounts of this war. This was a nation fighting for its life and responding to what is essentially an unprovoked attack.

As for the rest, you are viewing Iraq and Afghanistan through Dick Cheney's glasses. How can you say that the US is justified to put toops in these countries and Iran is not?