IRAN-Deja vu all over again?

by JWdaughter 318 Replies latest social current

  • leavingwt

    NY Times: Report Says Iran Has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb

    Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.

    The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.

    But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States.

    Two years ago, American intelligence agencies published a detailed report concluding that Tehran halted its efforts to design a nuclear weapon in 2003. But in recent months, Britain has joined France, Germany and Israel in disputing that conclusion, saying the work has been resumed.

    A senior American official said last week that the United States was now re-evaluating its 2007 conclusions.

    The atomic agency’s report also presents evidence that beyond improving upon bomb-making information gathered from rogue nuclear experts around the world, Iran has done extensive research and testing on how to fashion the components of a weapon. It does not say how far that work has progressed.

    The report, titled “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” was produced in consultation with a range of nuclear weapons experts inside and outside the agency. It draws a picture of a complex program, run by Iran’s Ministry of Defense, “aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab 3 missile system,” Iran’s medium-range missile, which can strike the Middle East and parts of Europe. The program, according to the report, apparently began in early 2002.

  • leavingwt

    Newsweek: Containing a Nuclear Iran

  • leavingwt

    GOP Senator Graham: 'Take Military Action Before They Get a Weapon'

    On Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that military action against Iran -- while a "last resort" -- is a possibility, and perhaps an eventual necessity.

    If sanctions fail, and Iran's going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, every Sunni Arab state that could would want a nuclear weapon. Israel would be more imperiled. The world would change dramatically for the worse. And if we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities, we should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float.

    That's a "last resort," Graham said again, before adding that the U.S. should "take military action before they get a weapon."

    Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) seemed to agree. "It's an all-or-nothing deal," Chambliss said, explaining that Iran's nuclear capability can't be wiped out with an air strike. "A full-out military strike is what it would take."

    To be fair, neither Senator was calling for immediate military action against Iran. Both called for sanctions first, while also casting some dispersion on ongoing multilateral negotiations.

    "Just continuing the dialogue with them and threatening them with sanctions, if the President's gonna take that attitude, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere," Chambliss said.

    Instead, Graham said, the United States should impose sanctions now, and dial them back if and when Iran meets U.S. inspection demands. "Let's have 'Iran Week' in the Senate and get something done," he said.

    Even Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), also appearing on Fox News Sunday, was willing to discuss the possibility of military action against Iran -- though said sanctions come first.

    "We are on a path to a nuclear Iran which is an unacceptable course," he said. "If we are gonna avoid a very painful dilemma of either having to live with that or taking military action to prevent that, which may ultimately be a choice we have to face, we need to act now on the financial and economic side."

    Bayh continued: "We've gotta have firm deadlines, the sooner the better, and real consequences if those deadlines aren't met."

  • leavingwt

    UK Times: Israel Names Russians Helping Iran Build Nuclear Bomb

  • llbh

    LWT this article illustrates my belief that Iran will avoid a conflict over nuclear weapons if at all possible.

    Why is it that the articles you quote are by and large from the right wing of the UK press, though by the standards of US they are more closely aligned to the Democrats?

    Israel, and Netanyahu in particular,has a well rehearsed agenda on this subject, and that has to be borne in mind when listening to their (admittedly important) viewpoint.

    Regards David

  • leavingwt


    Interesting article in the Independent.


  • leavingwt

    Rice: U.S. in 'Intense Negotiations with Iran'

    Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said on Meet the Press this morning that the United States is in the midst of "intense negotiations" with Iran -- but refused to comment on the accuracy of a New York Timesreport that Iran already has the knowledge necessary to make a working atom bomb.

    "Right now we are in a period of intense negotiation," Rice said. "It's not an infinite period. It's a very finite period."

    Rice characterized Iran's meeting with world powers last week as "a constructive beginning," but also emphasized that "it was only a beginning."

    Now, she said, the onus is "squarely on Iran."

    Either they give up their nuclear weapons program conclusively to our satisfaction, or they will face additional pressure.

    What might that pressure be? Sanctions, Rice said, "economic or otherwise," that are enforced either unilaterally by the U.S., in concert by the U.S. and European partners, or multilaterally through the U.N. Security Council.

    NBC's David Gregory and Rice had a rather testy exchange about the possibility of sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, with Gregory questioning that if this was truly a "war of necessity," why hasn't President Obama already agreed to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for more troops.

    "There's no decision more serious, David, than putting more Americans into harm's way," Rice said. "The President will do what is necessary to keep Americans safe. But he's gonna do it after a thoughtful and thorough analysis."

    Is the President holding back on more troops because of political pressure from the left?

    "Absolutely not," Rice said.

    Gregory also asked about the President's trip last week to Copenhagen to make a final pitch for Chicago's failed bid for the 2016 Olympics. Was it a mistake to go?

    "It's never a mistake for the President of the United States to be willing to fight and compete on behalf of our country," Rice said, adding that "he would do it again in a nanosecond."

    Rice continued: "The day I'll get concerned is when we have a President in the White House who refuses to fight for the United States and compete because he's concerned about pundits or political criticism."

  • leavingwt

    Pew: Most Would Use Force to Stop Iranian Nukes

    There is broad willingness across the political spectrum to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) and two-thirds of independents (66%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action. Fewer Democrats (51%) express this view; still, only about three-in-ten Democrats (31%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means Tehran may develop nuclear weapons.

  • BurnTheShips

    To allow Iran to go nuclear will lead to an arms race in the ME. The Saudis don't have nukes, but guess who funded Pakistan's program? They will go nuclear in turn. There is a strong chance of a generalized ME war with a nuclear Iran. It may be more expensive to do nothing.


  • Spook

    Options are limited:

    1. Allow them to get the bomb.

    2. Persuade them to forego or postepone getting the bomb.

    3. Prevent them from getting the bomb.


    Just remember that with #1 we will have no future room for #2 or #3.

Share this