You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
U.S. Study Says a Nuclear Iran Would Aid More Terror
2004-09-15
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
Tue Sep 14, 2004 07:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON (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.
Just wait and see how "self-defeating these courses of action might be" once Iran has nuclear weapons. Dolts!
Oh, but enough about John Edwards!
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 since as everyone knows it's about to run out of oil. After two years of investigation, the IAEA, cannot rule out a secret Iran bomb plan but has no concrete proof, its village idiot director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, said on Tuesday. During a twelve course haute cuisine dinner with vintage French wines before 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 fail utterly 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 purchase 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.
Yet these dire possibilities still do not provide the least motivation to impose any threat of military action. Morons!
Y'urp-peons are hoping they'll be nuked last.
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.
I say, brilliant Holmes. How do you do it?
Yeah, let's force the threatened party to disarm, that'll stop the bully. Classic PC enabling behavior.
It is also recommended that the U.S. offer Russia some sort of compensation for ending its nuclear cooperation with Iran.
If Russia cannot disengage with Iran, they deserve every new atrocity coming their way. I pity the children who will bear the brunt of it.
You'd think Vlad would be thinking about the consequences of his actions, wouldn't you.
Posted by:Zenster

#2  Because eliminating Iran’s nuclear option "may no longer be possible,"

Really? I imagine that two or three hundred well placed nuclear weapons from the US strategic arsenal would end Iran's nuclear abilities for at least a century or three.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats   2004-09-15 11:25:13 PM  

#1  "we just don’t want to make it a U.S. and Iran issue. -- RealPolik for, "we just don't want to make it a U.S. and Iran issue, until after November 3, when we start kicking some serious tail"
Posted by: Capt America   2004-09-15 3:19:38 AM  

00:00