| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran Would Accelerate Nuke Program if Attacked; Says it Can't be Disuaded from Development |
| 2005-02-06 |
| Iran would both retaliate and accelerate its drive to master nuclear technology if the United States or Israel attacked its atomic facilities, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator warned on Sunday. Hassan Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, also told Reuters there was nothing the West could offer Tehran that would persuade it to scrap a nuclear program which Washington fears may be used to make bombs. Asked about a possible attack by the United States or Israel, which have both said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, Rohani said: "If such an attack (against Iran's atomic facilities) takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our (nuclear) fuel cycle." Speaking in a rare interview, Rohani said Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed. And so on, ad infinitum "But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk ... They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks," the mid-ranking cleric added. "We're protected by Allan!" Rohani said even the removal of U.S. sanctions on Iran or security guarantees from Washington would not be enough to tempt Tehran to give up its nuclear drive. "Uranium enrichment is Iran's right, based on the NPT's (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's) article four ... I do not think anyone in Iran would exchange or swap this right for anything else." EU diplomats have voiced frustration at Iran's refusal to give way on what it calls its "red line" -- developing a full nuclear fuel cycle -- saying Tehran's stance is "unacceptable." Rohani complained the EU talks, due to resume in Geneva this week, have yet to result in anything concrete thus far. "Our expectations were higher. We believe the Europeans should be more serious," he said. Rohani said Iran would review progress in the talks in mid-March before taking any decision on whether to resume uranium enrichment which it froze in November. "If we witness considerable progress in the talks our patience will increase, if we observe no progress, it will shorten our patience. But, as I have said before, the period of (enrichment) suspension is limited to some months, not a year." EU diplomats in Vienna have told Reuters Iran is breaking the spirit of its agreement to freeze enrichment by conducting quality control checks of enrichment centrifuge parts. But Rohani insisted Iran was sticking to the deal it made with the EU in Paris last November. "We are fully committed to whatever we have agreed with the Europeans ... I can tell you that we have not contradicted the Paris agreement at all," he said. Could Iran's playing of the EU-3 for suckers be any more obvious? |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #38 phil_b, you may be right in many cases, but most of those would apply to non democratic, dictatorial states. The borders of Iraq were drawn as artificially as can be. Maybe you can have the Kurds seceeding but separating the Sunnis from the Shiites (which is not so much a ethnical thing) would prove difficult. In some cases it makes sense but in many the seceeding creates more problems than it solves. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-06 11:57:31 PM |
| #37 TGA, I would argue that allowing groups to seceed from existing states is the single biggest thing we could do to make this world a better place. Making borders sacrosanct was intended to stop interstate wars but became a screen for repression of minorities (internal wars) and not infrequently majorities as in the case of Iraq. The list is a long one. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-06 11:37:07 PM |
| #36 phil_b---243 dams and they don't even fix Bam. The MMs are spending the Iranian people's wealth on expensive toys like U235 concentration, Reactors, and missiles. They have a f**ked up new airport, etc etc. We and the Iranian opposition need to expose and exploit this mindless waste of resources by the MMs. Sorta like negative campaigning with truth instead of repeated lies, like a certain party we know... |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-06 10:57:04 PM |
| #35 Once again you make the mistake of assuming that only the US has the ability to initiate a conflict. Iran sits astride our line of communication into the SWA AOR. I agree that IF we are prepared for a 10 division push into Iraq we can make the Iranians respect our airpower. But, do not confuse them for the enemy we invaded two years ago. Iran is not a weakened Iraq. They DO have WMD and would employ it. Iran and North Korea came to a mutual strategic agreement in 1994 to support each other in a time of conflict. What is the best scenario to defeat the US? Divide our forces - will the NKors miss the opportunity to force the issue as well? |
| Posted by: JP 2005-02-06 10:53:28 PM |
| #34 Stop It! You guys are just trying to cheer me up... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-06 9:28:17 PM |
| #33 It would be a validation test of MOABs and the new Just in Time delivery... |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-06 9:24:52 PM |
| #32 Gotta agree -- they may be able to put 10 divisions on their border, but the moment they crossed into Iraq, they would be toast. Their supply lines would be cut, their troops would be trying to move while B-52s freely move overhead, and they'd not just be facing the US military, but pissed-off Iraqis in front of them and pissed-off Iranians behind them. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-06 9:22:31 PM |
| #31 Indeed. The last thing Iran would hear is: MAKE OUR DAY! |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-06 9:08:55 PM |
| #30 While I recognize your point - assuming we always have the offensive is arrogant... A 10 Division move toward Iraq would be fertilizer in 2-3 hrs. That WW-II mindset will not survive longer in a WW-IV theater. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-06 9:06:35 PM |
| #29 Beware pre-emptive action by Iran. Recent military manuevers by Iran revealed the capacity to move 10 divisions to their western border in good order. They watch our actions in Iraq and learn our limitations (tactical limitations). Are we in the same place that Israel was shortly before the Yom Kippur War? Flush with success and underestimating our enemies? Strategically Iran has no idea what we can do to them. They wish for a tactical conflict which we are not prepared for. The Iranian population hates the mullahs, but will not take matters into their own hands. It is dangerous to make any assumptions. |
| Posted by: JP 2005-02-06 9:01:57 PM |
| #28 phil_b, I don't think that we want fragments in this region, what we want are stable democratic states. Let's not forget that the big Asian player is China. We need some counterbalance. Iran and India are the two countries that can provide that. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-06 8:27:56 PM |
| #27 Robert Crawford, the better the evidence, the easier joint action on Iran will be. A lot of money and many lives are on stake. I think we still have the necessary time to get the best evidence. .com, Only one :-) |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-06 8:23:37 PM |
| #26 "Oh, and I think I have an idea about the next President of the United States now." Gosh. I simply cannot imagine, for the life of me, who you could possibly be talking about. Oh, dear, I'm going to be awake wondering about it all night long... :-) |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-02-06 8:23:32 PM |
| #25 FWIIW I think Iran will go the same route as Yugoslavia - fragment along ethnic lines. I see many parallels. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-06 8:23:23 PM |
| #24 (That first "by" should be "but", of course.) |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-06 8:18:59 PM |
| #23 I knew it! A natural born tease! How many guesses do we get? Lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-06 8:18:34 PM |
| #22 The sentence should read, we can't deny Iran the right to develop a peaceful nuclear enregy program as long as it plays by the international rules it signed. If Iran refuses to comply with these rules it could very well forfeit its right to nuclear energy which it developed with the help of the West. Fair enough. By by all the evidence we have, Iran has already violated those rules. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-06 8:17:52 PM |
| #21 Robert Crawford, to answer your question first: The sentence should read, we can't deny Iran the right to develop a peaceful nuclear enregy program as long as it plays by the international rules it signed. If Iran refuses to comply with these rules it could very well forfeit its right to nuclear energy which it developed with the help of the West. Mrs Davis: I think that in fall 2002/winter 2003 a lot of things went wrong and Powell is not entirely innocent. He was certainly lacking precision and - may I add - conviction, when it came to explaining the current Bush politics. Quite a few things to comment on that but I'll desist. As for the future dealing with Iran, they should not only focus on eliminating the nuclear threat from Iran but on making sure that this country develops into a strong stabilizing democratic force in the Persian Gulf. Iran will be the most important power in the region: It has the ressources and the people for it. So the best solution would be to achieve regime change by empowering the progressive forces. This is in the interest of both the U.S. and Europe. Destroying the Iranian infrastructure would not be the best option and should only be considered if other means fail. Most Iranians hate the mullahs but they also love their country. Many people think that without Saddam's attack on Iran the mullahs would have been ousted in the 80s already. Many Iranians who cheered for the mullahs in 1979 already felt betrayed by them in 1981. Oh, and I think I have an idea about the next President of the United States now. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-06 8:16:03 PM |
| #20 the American-Iranians I work with have travelled back to the homeland and report it is rife with hate for the mullahs. The MM's support came from the uneducated lower classes, susceptible to the mullah's "revolutionary" jingo. They now see things have gotten worse, not better, for all but the Mullahs.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-06 7:49:57 PM |
| #19 SPoD, Iran has a particular infrastructure exposure. That is well suited to progressive escalation. Here's a clue. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-06 7:33:47 PM |
| #18 Iran is not thinking clearly. They think all we would attack is their Nuclear program. We in fact may not attck that all. We may go after things even more dear to them. I also think the MMs may not grasp the fact we can destroy their entire civil infrastructure and potential to derive income from their natural resources without ever setting foot in their country.We can do it in a very short time. The wars they have seen us fight have restrained uses of military power. If we decide to act it may well be in a totally unrestrained way. We will do that because we will be acting alone. When one acts alone they can be unrestrained. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-06 7:17:10 PM |
| #17 TGA, Glad to hear it and I know the direction you laid out reflects your perspective. But didn't Powell believe he had the Europeans on board at the UN when he started after Iraq? This time I hope the ball gets left in the European corner to push through the UN. Then we'll know their true colors. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-06 7:13:09 PM |
| #16 Beautiful, TGA. Your logic on the missiles certainly makes a case that no one can ignore. Of course, I agree - Bush & Co are waiting in the wings, though I doubt they'r resting, lol! Perhaps it's a classic good cop / bad cop game playing out. I hope the two are allied against the perp when the final hand is played. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-06 7:02:25 PM |
| #15 I'd like to challenge one prevalent assumption in the MSM that bombimg would alienate the Iranian population. After Belgrade was bombed I didn't see an outbreak of Serbian anti-Amercanism. IMHO Serbia has become noticeably more pro-American. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-06 6:56:04 PM |
| #14 Were there flys on the wall recently? LOL Good to have you commenting on this, TGA. My take is similar. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-02-06 6:53:06 PM |
| #13 Thank you, TGA, that was interesting. I don't know why I didn't get that angle about the missiles before (if no nukes, then why are the mullahs developing long range missiles?), but now that you lay it out so clearly, it's obvious. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-02-06 6:52:29 PM |
| #12 We cannot deny Iran the peaceful development of nuclear energy. Why? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-06 6:52:18 PM |
| #11 The recent days have been very exciting and educating for me. Iran is definitely overplaying its card and may be in for a rude awakening. The Europeans are slowly but certainly running out of patience. The United States are playing it smart right now... let the mullahs sink themselves. Europeans are very hung up on International Law and Iran is breaking it. Iran signed the Non-Proliferation-Treaty. In order to get international help in developing a peaceful nuclear energy program, the Shah signed away Iran's right to develop nuclear arms. The mullahs have no choice in that matter: Pacta Sunt Servanda (treaties have to be kept and cannot be reneged just because government changes). We cannot deny Iran the peaceful development of nuclear energy. But we have the right to ensure by inspections that this program remains peaceful. Any steps the Iranians take to provoke doubts in that matter can and must be met with extra scrutiny. This is our right and we will enforce it. Iran claims that it doesn't develop nuclear arms, yet does everything to raise doubts. Let's put the threats against Israel aside for a while. The most important reason to suspect foul play by the Iranians is not the nuclear program (of which we haven't sufficient info yet) but its missile program, which doesn't get the public exposure it deserves. It simply makes no sense to develop missiles that can reach targets 3000km away (which means European capitals) without simultaneously developing warheads that carry WMDs. A long range missile without WMD makes no sense. Against which target could it be directed? The destructions would be minor compared to the enormous costs the development of these missiles entail. You wouldn't stock them with biological agents because those, if you were crazy enough, can be delivered easily in a suitcase. Chemical warheads fired 3000 km far don't make much sense either. Sure they would kill a few thousand people but provoke a devastating response. The only reason to develop these missiles is to stock them with nuclear warheads. We can't stop the Iranians (at least according to International Law) to develop these missiles. But since the Iranians can't provide a satisfying explanation for the fact that they are spending so much money on developing them without a nuclear purpose, we can very much accuse them of foul play and insist on even more stringent controls of the nuclear program. The Iranians think that this is negotiable. As a matter of fact, it is not. If Iran gets away with breaking the Non Proliferation Treaty, everyone will and we'll get the blue screen of death. And that is why America will act militarily, if it comes to that. European politicians should make no effort to convince Iran otherwise. Iraq may not have gone as smoothly as predicted, but that doesn't mean anything if America believes its vital security threatened. And Iran is slowly but certainly reaching that point of no return. I believe that Bush will involve the UNSC, if just to give it a chance to redeem itself. Should the UNSC fail to act (due to Chinese and Russian vetos), we can as well dismantle it entirely. It would simply and truly be irrelevant then. In order to achieve results with Iran, we should slap every politician speaking out against military action. Military action may never come but if you wilfully throw away the ace don't expect to win the poker game. Condi Rice had the right comment on military action. It's not on the agenda. Right Now. (Call again next week) |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-06 6:39:15 PM |
| #10 Will we, or won't we? Can we, or can't we? Not much point in arguing, since whatever will be, will be. And unlike Iraq, very little of what we do will be known in advance. Until I decided that Rantburg suited me more, I used to hang out at dailypundit.com, Bill Quick's website. Month after long month during late 2002 and early 2003, Bill would post items nearly every day on the general theme, "Bush is chicken! He's NEVER going to invade Iraq! It's all just a lot of talk!" And then we invaded Iraq. I'm inclined to trust Bush. We will prevail. The waiting sure is a bitch, though... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-02-06 6:24:38 PM |
| #9 JM - Well, I'm glad you don't skip me, but I am very puzzled by your thoughts. Have you looked at this (obviously the newer, more limited plans, aren't up there, lol) - if not, you might be surprised by Pike's take - the countdown being one thing that is striking. I have a soft spot for the Persian people - mainly because I know several who live in the US. Sadly, for me, none are recent emigrants. As for their very youthful population and desire for modern democracy, that's very clear, but unfocused. I do not want to be forced into alienating them, but timing may not permit anything more than explaining our reasons why and proceeding. I would prefer that we do the strike, if a nuke facility hit is all we have. The Israelis are already blindly hated - for the usual knee-jerk indoctrination reasons. The key difference at this moment in time is Bush. He's determined, means what he says, and follows through methodically. Looking back at the Iraq War should provide everyone with a clear picture of how he works. He checked off every box along the way, leaving no room for rational opposition. The fly in the ointment was the WMD intel failure - otherwise, he did everything by the book. Congress, UN, direct appeals and warnings, action. I see the same process occurring now. The very same. And I trust him. So. Anyway, we'll see if he continues. E3 fails, Go to IAEA. That fails, go to UNSC. Probably vetoed there, but with threats to strike Israel and many other stupidly transparent Mad Mullah mistakes, he's got clear casus belli and a black brush for China, Russia, and France vetoes. I think we go with the best we can manage when the clock runs out. Sorry for being so windy - both times, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-06 6:12:36 PM |
| #8 JM, don't fall into the trap of believing that it's only military action if we roll a few divisions across the border or drop a dozen JDAMs. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-02-06 6:01:17 PM |
| #7 .com you most certainly are not one of the posters' that I skip, quite the contrary I'm usually interested in what you have to say. However, I do believe what I've posted, there is no doubt that we've covered every single possible scenario regarding th use of force with Iran. I happen to believe that there isn't anyway aside from an Iranian first strike that we will do anything. Don't confuse what I think will happen with what I want to happen. I would have glassed that whole friggin mess on 9/12. I hope you're right but, I just don't see how we can pull it off, not militarily but politically. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2005-02-06 5:54:42 PM |
| #6 JM, do you believe what you posted? There are plans being updated as rapidly as new data comes in and is assimilated, prioritized for every aspect deemed essential and all lesser items addressable by the resources available. The working list of objectives is rejustified and the resources reverified with every rev update. Few things are as intense for the people assigned than a developing war plan under the microscope of the skittish civilians in the chain of command. I'd wager that the very strong civilian desire to collaborate with the Persians (overthrow vs strikes) is at center stage of the planning. How involved we are with the dissent groups, their reliability, dedication, numbers, capabilities, resourcefulness, access, geographic location, needs, and what we can do to improve the entire range is probably second only to hard GPS coordinates for the nuke facilities - especially bottlenecks / chokepoints in the process, regards focus. I would not doubt that Bush's SOTU speech opened the doors a bit - and bumped up the pressure on all the intel, clandestine, and military agencies tasked. As always, it comes down to the time available. We do have some luxuries at our disposal that would've made Moose's Generals positively green with envy, such as tech advantages and resources. I am amazed by how little faith there is in our capabilities and determination. This isn't Kennedy or Johnson, this is Bush. Oh, and Israel can't afford to fail to act, can they? I would say they have a fairly capable planning and military prowess, wouldn't you? Doom & Gloom. I must be one of those posters you skip over - I sure don't share your outlook. We shall see, eh? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-06 5:36:49 PM |
| #5 Guys, have some pity on those poor Pentagon Generals who have to plan the logistics and support. I am reminded of General Schlieffen, who gave the German General Staff a major homework assignment on Christmas Eve morning. Then, probably senior Colonel, later to be General Ludendorff, managed to complete his before the day was through. Schlieffen rewarded his hard work and initiative by giving him a new assignment, even more challenging, lest he not be idle on Christmas Day. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-06 4:51:51 PM |
| #4 Good point Tom, what makes the Mullahs think that the U.S/Israel will leave anything behind to "accelerate" further nuclear development. Overnight storage of their turban, every night, in the freezer may promote logical thinking. Riiiiight!! |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-02-06 3:27:12 PM |
| #3 There is no reason to attack yet. Soon, but not yet. The Eurocrats are fools, but they are fools who are buying us advantageous delays to stabilize things in Iraq, regroup, gather more intelligence, etc. Rohani presumes that we may strike nuclear facilities and leave retaliatory capability intact -- he's not too bright either. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-02-06 2:17:09 PM |
| #2 The Mullahs' are going nuclear and the US is going to do exactly squat about it. We are pinning our hopes on internal strife in Iran and EU negotiations? That is a bad bet. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2005-02-06 2:05:42 PM |
| #1 Lol! Well, the answer depends, BD... If you're a Eurocrat, there's still room for negotiating - from a 5-Star hotel... If you're anyone else, anyone on Planet Earth, this sorta sums it up, methinks. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-06 1:37:33 PM |