RRD: I wish to preface this post by noting that I believe that if Tehran’s nuclear program is not stopped that we face a potential nuclear holocaust . That said,how that threat is neutralized, whether through sabotage,or through a overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran by it’s people,or through a military strike,is another question. I do not believe that the matter is as simple as immediate war on the one hand, or ”containment” on the other. Containment & deterrence are not terribly effective when you are dealing with apocalyptic medievalists. But Tehran’s nuclear program was delayed for months to years by sabotage. Whether we have reached a point where we must face a stark choice between bombing Tehran’s nuclear facilities or “learning to live with” nuclear armed maniacs is unclear to me. Certainly the leaks on Israel’s cyberwarfare program by this administration have moved us closer to that point. War is not a lark or a game,& it should only be undertaken as a last resort,but if it does in fact come down to a war initiated by the U.S. against a non-nuclear armed Tehran ,or a war initiated by nuclear armed religious fanatics it would be suicide ( for the U.S. & Iran & Israel) for us to choose the latter. The Iranian people are held hostage by the maniacs who rule their country,but their situation will not be improved if their dictators unleash a nuclear holocaust in the middle east. My purpose in posting this is not to call for war,but to make the case that if we exhaust all other options,we must preserve the option of a military strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities. More arguments: The argument against Military action (even as a last resort) : No Rush to War – NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/opinion/no-rush-to-war.html?_r=0 The argument for Military action as a last resort: The Price of Inaction An Analysis of Energy and Economic Effects of a Nuclear Iran Bipartisan Policy Center http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/price-of-inaction HT to for the source: The Costs of Inaction on Iran « Commentary Magazine http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/the-costs-of-inaction-on-iran-study-nuclear-oil-gas-prices/ Background: List of links on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Threat and Mahdism (the doctrine of the Twelfth Imam) | Glory to man in the highest https://gloryofman.wordpress.com/list-of-links-on-the-islamic-republic-of-irans-nuclear-threat-and-mahdism-the-doctrine-of-the-twelfth-imam/
Tag Archives: Iran Nuclear
Should we launch a military strike to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon as a last resort?
m.guardian.co.uk Ex-Revolutionary Guards general reveals dissent within elite Iranian force #
Justice probe nets Iran nuclear procurement ring – The Washington Post
…..”While U.S. officials have prosecuted similar cases in recent years, the new indictment is considered unusual because the suspects’ shopping list involved so many highly specialized metals and parts known to be sought by Iran for its nuclear program. Among them was maraging steel, a type of high -strength metal used to make advanced gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
“This case confirms Iran’s persistence in seeking high -tech goods for its centrifuge program in Europe and the United States,” said David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector who has studied Iran’s nuclear procurement efforts for more than a decade. “Iran remains dependent on foreign supply for many vital goods for its centrifuge program.”
The indictment, returned on Thursday by a grand jury in Washington, names as co -conspirators Paviz Khaki, an Iranian citizen, and Zhongcheng Yi, a Chinese man described as a director of a Chinese company that allegedly facilitated clandestine efforts by Iran to acquire technology and parts. Khaki was arrested in May by authorities in the Philippines following a joint investigation, and Yi is still being sought, court documents said. Two other alleged participants in the scheme were indicted but not named .”….
After an Israeli Strike on Iran :: Daniel Pipes
…”Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy,…. provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in “Beyond Worst -Case Analysis: Iran’s Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike.”…
RRD:I am less sanguine than Pipes and Eisenstadt,and Knights.However ,I am less sanguine for precisely the same reason that would lead me to support a strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities as a last resort:I think that deterrence will not work.
That said,Pipes is correct when he notes the peculiar ”reasoning” of some who argue that Israel & the U.S. can ”live with” a nuclear armed Tehran:A Tehran with a nuclear bomb is deterrable,a Tehran without one will go berserk if struck.
Why the supposedly “rational” & ”non-nuclear seeking” Mullahs would wage a all out war over their being denied a ”peaceful” nuclear program is never adequately explained.
There are no good options here.
Only different levels & types of dangers.
A note:In case the above was unclear,I believe a military strike may be necessary as a LAST RESORT,should efforts at sabotage fail.
Let me add that I am speaking of a military strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities,NOT a ground invasion,which I oppose.
Preventing a Nuclear Iran :: Middle East Forum A briefing by Michael Rubin March 19, 2012
”This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL”
..”Michael Rubin, a former editor of the Middle East Quarterly , is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School. He formerly served as a political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and has written extensively about Iranian history and politics. He is the author of Into the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami’s Iran (2001) and the co -author of Eternal Iran (2005). On March 19, Rubin addressed the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia about the efficacy of sanctions on Iran as well as the prospect and logistics of an Israeli strike.
Can sanctions against the Iranian regime be effective? Michael Rubin addressed this question by citing Tehran’s former nuclear negotiator, who revealed that previous suspensions of Iranian nuclear enrichment had merely been temporary ploys aimed at ameliorating international pressure and preventing a UN consensus on sanctions. Rubin argued that Iran’s bleak current economic outlook is due not to sanctions but to the regime’s mismanagement of the economy.
Whether sanctions can cause the regime to change tack is a different story. Twice before, Tehran has staked out very firm positions only to ultimately reverse course: in 1981, when fifty-two American hostages were released after 444 days in captivity—the reason for which, Rubin explained, is a topic of much debate—and in 1988, when Ayatollah Khomeini accepted a ceasefire to end the Iran-Iraq War. Khomeini admitted that the ceasefire was like “drinking a poisoned chalice” but that eight years of bitter stalemate and the desolation of the Iranian economy left him no choice.
What measures can be imposed today that would force Iran to again drink the proverbial poisoned chalice? Rubin suggested that broader, rather than targeted, sanctions would be a good start. It may be necessary to cause some “pain for ordinary people,” he noted, “if our goal is to start a grassroots movement.”
Rubin voiced reservations about taking the diplomatic route. With only ten percent of the Revolutionary Guards (IRG)’s revenues coming from the government, the force has effectively “gone rogue.” Even if a deal was struck with the Iranian regime, the IRG—with its control over the country’s main cargo airport, many of the customs gates at the Imam Khomeini International Airport, and, most likely, a nuclear weapons program—would still pose a grave physical and ideological obstacle. For this reason, a policy of deterrence doesn’t sit well with Israel or America. Moreover, were the regime to be defeated, the potential for the IRG to launch missiles simply out of spite, as did Gaddafi’s forces at Misrata when defeat became imminent, suggests that containment isn’t a viable option either.
The question is, therefore, whether Israel could pull off an air strike on Iran. Even if the Jewish state succeeded in striking under a veil of secrecy, this would quickly disappear once the pilots delivered their payloads, and they would still have to travel about 700 miles before exiting Iranian airspace. Thus, Iranian control centers and air defenses would also need to be eliminated, requiring an operation of such magnitude that an Israeli attack would be both improbable and ineffective.
Against this backdrop, Rubin emphasized the importance of distinguishing the Iranian people from the regime, citing a poll that suggests that only 25 percent of Iranians favor the clerical system, while 75 percent have given up on it. With little faith in the efficacy of the aforementioned options, Rubin proposed that we leverage and embolden this majority, push for regime change, and ask ourselves: how can we empower the Iranian people?”….
Summary account by Alex Berman.
Iran Ahead of Upcoming Nuclear Talks: Majlis Member: We Can Manufacture Bomb, But We Won’t; ‘Kayhan’: The U.S. Has Capitulated
…..”The most important question that has faced and is still facing the Americans is… when will Iran take the decisions that the U.S. expects it [to take on the nuclear issue]?… Examining an entire decade of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, one can characterize it as a record of [instances in which] the U.S. adapted its “red line” to the Iranian [stance]. The Americans always started out with an extreme [position] and ended up with a nominal one…
“Initially, in the matter of the Iranian nuclear program, the Americans demanded a complete freeze of enrichment activity and all related activities. Then… [they agreed] that Iran would enrich [uranium] but would not expand its [nuclear] facilities. Then, the mechanism of the [uranium] swap was suggested, which tacitly accepted [the existence of] Iran’s enrichment program and was merely aimed at removing the enriched material from Iran on some pretext or other. The [suggestion] currently on the table, which is probably the most important issue that will concern the Americans in the upcoming talks, does not include any of these demands. The Obama administration wants to replace all its [previous] demands with a demand to ‘stabilize the uranium [enrichment] level’ – that is, [it wants] Iran to stop enriching [uranium] to 20% at the Fordow [nuclear plant] and be content with 5% enrichment at Natanz.
“Regardless of Iran’s response to this demand, the [pertinent] question is what we can infer from the thrust of the changes in [the American] positions. If we plot [these changes] on a graph, it will show an amazing downward plunge… The American administration… always sets large goals [for itself], and makes a huge fuss over them, but, once it realizes that they cannot be implemented, quietly adapts them [to reality] and replaces them with other, humbler, goals, while continuing to make a fuss. We see that, in this process, the [Americans’] main solutions for the controversy quietly faded away. Originally, the controversy was precisely over the issue of 5% enrichment – recall the Tehran Declaration [issued after the May 17, 2010 meeting of Iranian, Brazilian and Turkish leaders in Iran].[iv] But now it seems that everyone in the West understands that this era is over, [so] they are suggesting ideas that quietly accept the assumption that this key issue [of uranium enrichment] is resolved.”…..
More disingenuous Iran leaks from the administration concerning Tehran’s nuclear ambitions #irannuclear #jcot
RRD:The Supreme Leader refers to Israel as a “cancer”,Tehran hides its “peaceful” nuclear program for years,and the wife of a Iranian nuclear scientist is on record as saying that her husband’s goal in life
was the destruction of Israel.(fn1)
And yet the Washington Post publishes this adorable nugget:
….”The expanded espionage effort has confirmed the consensus view expressed by the U.S. intelligence community in a controversial estimate released publicly in 2007. That estimate concluded that while Iran remains resolutely committed to assembling key building blocks for a nuclear weapons program, particularly enriched uranium, the nation’s leaders have opted for now against taking the crucial final step: designing a nuclear warhead.
“It isn’t the absence of evidence, it’s the evidence of an absence,” said one former intelligence official briefed on the findings. “Certain things are not being done.”….
U.S. intelligence gains in Iran seen as boost to confidence – The Washington Post
RRD:Which ”former intelligence official”?Blank out.Which things are not being done?Blank out.How long would it take for these unnamed “things” to be done,if Tehran choose to do them?Are there any countervailing arguments?
Oddly,while The Washington Post has no qualms about disclosing the nature and number of our drone missions,the name of the group studying Iran (and the approximate number of analysts),and a list of countries where our Officers are operating,The Washington Post does not wish to name the “former intelligence official briefed on the findings”,so that we may evaluate his/her’s motive,credibility,expertise etc.
But I guess the public doesn’t have the “right to know” that.
Nor are we told about those intelligence analysts who disagree with the alleged “consensus”.(Either about those analysts who think that Tehran is more dangerous,or about those who think that Tehran is less dangerous.)
But I guess the public doesn’t have the ”right to know” that,either.
Aren’t you glad that we have ”gatekeepers”,like the Washington Post ,to ensure that we get only the information that we ”need” to come to the ”right” (government approved)conclusion.
Wife of #Iranian nuclear scientist says Husband’s goal was destruction of #Israel #iranelections #freeiran – Americans for Freedom in Iran
Administration Iran Leakfest Means Obama’s Tough Stance is Just Talk « Commentary Magazine
Why Did the Administration Leak the Israel-Azerbaijan Story? « Commentary Magazine
”Topics planned for today’s show: U.S. Warns Iran against striking Israel…Oh, wait. While credit rating downgrades spread across Europe like wildfire, the U.S. nears its own debt ceiling — again! Flagging interest in repealing Obamacare, and why that’s unacceptable
…... And more.”