Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 09/15/2004 View Tue 09/14/2004 View Mon 09/13/2004 View Sun 09/12/2004 View Sat 09/11/2004 View Fri 09/10/2004 View Thu 09/09/2004
1
2004-09-15 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US study says a nuclear Iran would aid more terror
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-15 6:34:56 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#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||   2004-09-15 7:48:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 8:59:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#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 panic Hysteria cold sweat filled diapers reaction of other nuclear and wanna-be nuclear armed states. All the money and effort, and yet there is still no protection from the evil bushhitler chaney haliburton conspiracy! Bwahahaha.
tinfoilhadtmode==off
Posted by N guard 2004-09-15 9:19:43 AM||   2004-09-15 9:19:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 9:19:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 V, Are you assuming a Kerry victory in November?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 9:29:49 AM||   2004-09-15 9:29:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 9:36:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 10:04:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 10:12:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 10:42:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 11:05:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 11:32:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 12:38:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 12:45:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 2:00:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 2:25:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 3:42:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-09-15 10:24:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 That will be Post-Nuclear Rdio Active crater that was Iran
Posted by Fawad 2004-09-15 10:27:44 PM||   2004-09-15 10:27:44 PM|| Front Page Top

22:07 Anonymous6474
22:07 Anonymous6474
08:51 Anonymous6463
08:51 Anonymous6463
07:53 Silk
02:04 JFM
00:53 lex
00:33 Super Hose
00:08 Zarathustra
00:06 Zarathustra
23:46 Laurence of the Rats
23:45 Brutus
23:45 Anonymous6478
23:37 Brutus
23:25 Laurence of the Rats
23:24 Capt America
23:17 Capt America
23:16 CrazyFool
23:15 smn
23:07 Phil Fraering
23:00 Anonymous6476
23:00 Anonymous6476
22:51 smn
22:47 Bomb-a-rama









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com