| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US study says a nuclear Iran would aid more terror |
| 2004-09-15 |
| 14 Sep 2004 23:35:31 GMT Source: Reuters By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Iran could acquire a nuclear bomb in the next one to four years and would become more willing to aid terrorist groups once it has an atomic capability, according to a U.S. study released on Tuesday. The study by the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center, which was partly funded by the Pentagon, said U.S. talks with Iran on the nuclear issue -- which the Bush administration opposes -- would be "self-defeating." Instead it proposed steps like pressing Israel to freeze its own atomic capability, raise the cost of Iran going nuclear and dissuade other countries from following Tehran. "Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a nuclear bomb, lacks for nothing technologically or materially to produce it and seems dead set on securing the option to do so," said the thinktank's study, headed by Henry Sokolski. "As for the most popular policy options -- to bomb or bribe Iran -- only a handful of analysts and officials are willing to admit publicly how self-defeating these courses of action might be," it added. The study addresses a thorny problem confronting the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Washington accuses Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb, while Tehran insists it is developing a peaceful energy program. After two years of investigation, the IAEA, cannot rule out a secret Iran bomb plan but has no concrete proof, its director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, said on Tuesday. During talks in Vienna this week, Washington urged the IAEA to ratchet up the pressure on Iran by referring the nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council. Secretary of State Colin Powell ruled out direct talks with Tehran, saying in an interview with Reuters "we just don't want to make it a U.S. and Iran issue." As for when Iran might acquire a bomb, Powell said: "I don't think they are days or months away from such a development," suggesting there is still time for diplomacy to work. The report, based on research papers and meetings with experts on Iran, the Middle East and non-proliferation, said if Iran gets the bomb it would pose a heightened threat in three key areas. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Algeria might move to develop their own nuclear options. Oil prices would increase dramatically, forced upward by Iranian threats to freedom of the seas. And "with a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to U.S. and allied actions against it, Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the U.S.," the study said. Because eliminating Iran's nuclear option "may no longer be possible," Washington and its allies must take other steps to curb Tehran once it got the bomb, the study said. These include persuading Israel to initiate a nuclear restraint effort that would close down its Dimona reactor and isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials. It is also recommended that the U.S. offer Russia some sort of compensation for ending its nuclear cooperation with Iran. |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #18 That will be Post-Nuclear Rdio Active crater that was Iran |
| Posted by: Fawad 2004-09-15 10:27:44 PM |
| #17 nuclear Iran would aid more terror Would "glow in the dark" is more like it. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-09-15 10:24:30 PM |
| #16 Should Iran be allowed to construct even one nuclear bomb such a decision will, quite possibly, go down in history as the single worst military blunder of the entire 21st century. However much I disagree with Tom's advocacy of using the nuclear option against Iran, I would sooner see Iran attacked with atomic weapons than to have it become a nuclear power. How anyone can think that Iran would not immediately go about distributing nuclear devices to proxies who plan terrorist attacks upon America is beyond comprehension. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-15 3:42:12 PM |
| #15 Nobody's suggenting another ground war. We are to fear the Iranian people if we strike? The Iranian people can't even topple their own leadership at will. You think they're going to rise up and topple "The Great Satan" just because "The Great Satan" denies nukes to that leadership? Why should Israel strike now? Why not let Iran sink lots of money and resources into the project and then strike? Besides, it will be clearer then that it was necessary. Sort of like Bush playing the hopeless U.N. game before attacking Iraq. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-15 2:25:10 PM |
| #14 No mullahs, no nukes. I don't care which, but one or the other. I don't trust the turbans not to use the bomb if they get it. And if they stay, it's just a matter of time. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 2:00:10 PM |
| #13 I don't think we should assume that any post-mullah regime would not pursue its own nukes program out of sheer nationalist pride. All the more reason to have a long-term containment strategy that relies on crucial powers in Iran's backyard. Russian and Indian support are key here. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-15 12:45:03 PM |
| #12 Reason number (3) is a big factor, and I think is the reason that Michael Ledeen does not advocate the military option, even though he does advocate regime change. (IMHO, regime change via fomenting internal revolution, which is Ledeen's approach, will not work.) |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-09-15 12:38:50 PM |
| #11 A war vs Iran will not happen, even after Bush's re-election. First, our installations abroad have already been attacked, multiple times, by Iran and its proxies, and we did zip. Reagan did zip, Bush 41 did zip, Clinton did zip. Second, we're having enough trouble subduing a neighboring country that's barely a third of Iran's size and that was prior to our invasion far, far weaker. Third, the Iranian people are already clamoring for regime change and are pro-US. Attack their country and of course they'll immediately become as violently anti-US as any ba'athist. If you don't believe this, talk to some Iranian-americans. Fourth, as I understand it the Iranian facilities are far more dispersed and concealed than the Osirak facilities were. If they were an easy target, it's reasonable to expect that Israel would have destroyed them by now-- we've long known of the Iranians' intentions, and the Israelis have long had the means motive and the opportunity to take them out. It's logical to conclude that the only reason that this has not occurred is that it's not practical. Bottom line: I will happily wager any sum to any poster here that the US will not take pre-emptive military action against Iraq post-November, regardless who wins the election. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-15 11:32:58 AM |
| #10 A 7th century Khomeni Islamic mindset........ with nukes, tell me this is not a living nightmare which must not be allowed to manifest...ever. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-09-15 11:05:50 AM |
| #9 US study says a nuclear Iran would aid more terror All the more reason to crush their capabilities at the first available opportunity. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-15 10:42:58 AM |
| #8 V, sorry to hear that, especially the military part. I suspect attitudes may change in proportion to the magnitude of W's victory. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 10:12:16 AM |
| #7 Mrs Davis, no, and I'm not advocating the passive approach either. I'm just reporting the vibes I'm getting living in DC, with relatives and friends in the govt and military grapevines. I would really like Dan Darling to comment on this, since he spent time at AEI with Michael Ledeen. Tom: Yes, I did qualify my statement, "if it isn't already". I meant that they will become even more bold than they are now, and more terrorists will choose to operate from there. |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-09-15 10:04:19 AM |
| #6 "It will then become the HQ for international Islamic terrorism..." V, where have you been? Remember the Americam Embassy hostages, remember Lebanon, remember the ship full of arms for the PA...? We could nuke them for the events of the last 25 years alone. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-15 9:36:09 AM |
| #5 V, Are you assuming a Kerry victory in November? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 9:29:49 AM |
| #4 I fear that neither the US nor Israel will use a military option against Iran, and am pretty certain that is the way things are heading. The result will be that Iran will develop a nuke. It will then become the HQ for international Islamic terrorism for many years to come (if it isn't already), and will become increasingly bellicose towards its Arab neighbors. I suspect that the US finds the idea of deterrence and containment more attractive than war ("sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof"). The idea would be that Iran would be told that a nuke detonating in either the US or Israel would trigger an automatic nuclear strike against Iran. On the other hand, I don't see how a policy of deterrence would do anything to restrain Iran's support for terrorism. |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-09-15 9:19:58 AM |
| #3 tinfoilhadtmode==on One thought I've had repeatedly is that we're waiting for Iran to declare themselves a Nuclear Armed State, then we invade and crush them militarilary. Conventional defeat by the U.S. of a middling-large nuclear armed state. Think about it. (evil grin) Imagine the tinfoilhadtmode==off |
| Posted by: N guard 2004-09-15 9:19:43 AM |
| #2 Cut the funding on that worthless think tank. Israel has issues -- like self-preservation. The IAEA is worthless -- take North Korea for example. Powell is just doin' the Foggy Bottom dance -- it's his job, poor guy. This is a good time for Putin to come to the ranch and be told that his "compensation" will be getting his technicians out alive. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-15 8:59:12 AM |
| #1 eliminating Iran’s nuclear option "may no longer be possible," Washington and its allies must take other steps to curb Tehran once it got the bomb, the study said I don't know how much weight the Non-proliferation Policy Education Center carries, but they are full of shit in my professional opinion. That is very distressing to read written by a bunch of knuckleheads apparently. Last I heard both the US and Israel said they wouldn't tolerate a nuclear Iran. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-09-15 7:48:15 AM |