Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

World may have to live with nuclear Iran -US study
ABC News ^ | Oct 13, 2005 | Reuters

Posted on 10/13/2005 4:53:03 PM PDT by F14 Pilot

Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and the United States may find it less costly to deter a nuclear-armed Iran than to dismantle its weapons program, according to two U.S.-funded researchers who advise the Pentagon.

"Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice," concluded the report by Judith Yaphe and Air Force Col. Charles Lutes, which was released on Thursday.

The potential for rolling back Iran's program, once it produces a nuclear weapon, "is lower than preventing it in the first place and the costs of rollback may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran," they said.

The two analysts are senior fellows at the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, which does policy research for the Defense Department.

European powers Britain, France and Germany, with U.S. support, have pursued so-far failed negotiations aimed at persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear activities.

U.S. intelligence says Iran could produce a weapon in about a decade. Tehran insist its aim is peaceful nuclear energy.

European and American officials have long acknowledged privately that thwarting Iran's ambitions is a long shot and the new report reinforces that view.

In a 2001 report, Yaphe, a Mideast expert and former CIA analyst, judged Iran as determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

Nothing in the intervening four years has diverted Tehran from the "systematic pursuit of nuclear technology that could contribute to a weapons program," the new report concluded.

'VIRTUAL NUCLEAR POWER'

The report says most Iran experts believe the Islamic republic would choose to become a "virtual nuclear power," meaning it would not test but would be able to assemble a weapon quickly from prefabricated components.

To U.S. ally Israel, "a nuclear-armed Iran is a clear and.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allies; army; britain; bush; cia; defense; energy; epic; eu3; europe; france; germany; iaea; intel; iran; irannukes; islam; israel; judithyaphe; mideast; military; muslims; nuclear; nukes; pentagon; radical; russia; study; terrorism; uk; un; university; usa; usaf; wmd; yaphe

1 posted on 10/13/2005 4:53:27 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

We'll have to live with a nuclear Iran until they use the bomb. And then we will obliterate them.


2 posted on 10/13/2005 4:54:08 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
The potential for rolling back Iran's program, once it produces a nuclear weapon, "is lower than preventing it in the first place and the costs of rollback may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran," they said

Huh? Who's on first?

3 posted on 10/13/2005 4:56:47 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

These liberals protect our enemies with impunity.

We could end the game in one day. 1000 moabs and 10 diamond tip bunker busting nukes...

And....NO NATIONBUILDING THIS TIME!


4 posted on 10/13/2005 4:56:47 PM PDT by samadams2000 (Nothing fills the void of a passing hurricane better than government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Maybe somebody is waiting for the Israelis to do the deed. They do occasionally show they have some stones, at least.


5 posted on 10/13/2005 4:57:02 PM PDT by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and the United States may find it less costly to deter a nuclear-armed Iran than to dismantle its weapons program, according to two U.S.-funded researchers who advise the Pentagon.

Hmmmmm... I wonder which American cities they considered in their study as being cheaper to let be nuked than stopping Iran now? I sure hope they are right. < /sarcasm >

6 posted on 10/13/2005 4:58:17 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac

Israel can kiss Tel Aviv, and the state of Israel, goodbye if the Iranians ever get a nuke.


7 posted on 10/13/2005 4:59:35 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Israel will not live with a nuclear Iran. The Israeli Air Force will see to it.


8 posted on 10/13/2005 5:00:38 PM PDT by Astronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

NY and Boston, LA is just too far for the camels.


9 posted on 10/13/2005 5:01:33 PM PDT by pipecorp (Let's have a CRUSADE! , the muslims have already started. 1700 replies and not a single post!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
the United States may find it less costly to deter a nuclear-armed Iran than to dismantle its weapons program

I wonder whether this cost analysis includes the cost of a nuked city: (a) Tel Aviv, (b) a European city, (c) New York or Washington.

10 posted on 10/13/2005 5:01:55 PM PDT by omega4412 (Multiculturalism kills -- NYC/DC/PA, Madrid, London...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Calling Porter Goss!! Calling Porter Goss!!! Loose CIA lib alert!!!!

Profile: Judith Yaphe

Positions that Judith Yaphe has held:
Analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency
Iraq expert at the National Defense University

Quotes
Quote, Early February 2003
“You're left to just hear the nouns, and put them together. It doesn't take me yet to the point where I can say I've seen evidence which convinces me that Saddam Hussein supports al-Qaeda.” [Washington Post, 2/6/03]

Quote, April 2003
“[The Office of the Secretary of Defense] has no interest in what I do. They've brought in their own stable of people from AEI, and the people at the State Department who worked with the Iraqi exiles are being kept from Garner.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=judith_yaphe



11 posted on 10/13/2005 5:03:03 PM PDT by frithguild (If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Enchante; the Real fifi; ravingnutter
"Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice," concluded the report by Judith Yaphe and Air Force Col. Charles Lutes, which was released on Thursday.

EPIC: Education for Peace in Iraq Center: The 2003 Iraq Forum

A SHORT HISTORY of WESTERN IMPERIALISM in IRAQ Judith Yaphe, PhD is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University. She is a specialist in Middle Eastern political analysis with special focus on security issues. She is the author of two books, The Strategic Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran and The Middle East in 2015 and has written a number of articles on Iraq in RUSI International Security Review , Human Rights and Governance in the Middle East, Middle East Policy and The Washington Quarterly. She received a BA with Honors in History from Moravian College and a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern History from the University of Illinois. Yaphe was the recipient of the Intelligence Medal of Commendation during the second Gulf War.

SNIP

Evening Public Lecture: A State of the Movement Address

EVENING KEYNOTE LECTURE

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an outreach ministry in inner city Washington D.C.

Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV served as a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 until 1998. From 1988 to 1991, Ambassador Wilson served in Baghdad as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy. As acting Ambassador during "Desert Shield," he was responsible for the negotiations that resulted in the release of several hundred American hostages. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before the launching of "Desert Storm." Ambassador Wilson graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1972. He has been decorated as a Commander in the Order of the Equatorial Star by the Government of Gabon and as an Admiral in the El Paso Navy by the El Paso County Commissioners. He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children.

12 posted on 10/13/2005 5:03:27 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The "cost" anlysis of the "experts" is wrong.

Consider the cost of ONE nuclear tipped, Shahab 3, launched from a freighter off the USA, and detonated at a height of about 300 km.

The EMP damage would absolutely desasting to the ENTIRE continental United States.


13 posted on 10/13/2005 5:05:48 PM PDT by msf92497 (The most dangerous place to be is in a "mothers" womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

ROLLBACK?

Somebody been blowing smoke up their butt.

ROLLBACK?

Like India? Pakistan? You name them?

Idioten.


14 posted on 10/13/2005 5:05:54 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msf92497

Oops

DEVASTATING...


15 posted on 10/13/2005 5:06:20 PM PDT by msf92497 (The most dangerous place to be is in a "mothers" womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
World may have to live with nuclear Iran -US study

Sounds like a study done by Jimmy Karter advocates. Jimmy loved to tell America that high taxes, high unemployment, fuel shortages, and being bullied by little pissant countries was just the way of the future and that we would all just have to live with it because nothing can be done.

16 posted on 10/13/2005 5:07:05 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity ("Sharpei diem - Seize the wrinkled dog.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Iran is a country hostile to the US, and to US interests in the Middle East. Like Syria, they never miss a chance to infiltrate insurgents into Iraq.

We don't have to live with anything.

17 posted on 10/13/2005 5:09:03 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I don't think we should wait.

The blackmail will start right out of the box and there are way too many copperheads, quislings and appeasers in the west for it to not work.

Plus, they could deploy a weapon via terror cell surrogates and deny any involvement. The usual lefty traitors in Congress and the media in the U.S. would never permit a counter strike -- even if our intelligence people were certain the bomb came from Iran.
18 posted on 10/13/2005 5:10:09 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

"They also warned that if Washington sought to change the government in Tehran — as it did in Iraq — there is an "extremely high risk that the Iranian regime would use its nuclear weapon in a last-ditch effort to save itself."

Not if they don't have one.


19 posted on 10/13/2005 5:17:39 PM PDT by nuconvert (No More Axis of Evil by Christmas ! TLR) [there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

This whole argument seems more like Euroweenies than America, although it comes from ABC. The premise that we must accept an unacceptable situation so that we can discuss it further until endless dialgoue ensues is just plain "appeasement" by another name, and, as such is the heart of the continuous, historical failures of Europeans. The American left, having found no other allies, have thrown their lot in with the Euros in assuming that confrontaiton is the worst case scenerio..."appeasement at all costs."


20 posted on 10/13/2005 5:18:31 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
To U.S. ally Israel, "a nuclear-armed Iran is a clear and present danger" and most Israeli strategists "do not question if Israel should seek to remove Iranian nuclear facilities," only how or when it should be done, the report said.

The speech of our leader regarding this matter is like shifting sands. Our President has been too cryptic in this war.

In his last speech regarding this war, he was willing to allow that the non-muslim world is at war with radical Islam. But then he quickly disarmed the power and truth of that declaration by mis-quoting the Quran about how much of a sin it is to murder innocents. He does not mention (he may not know) that infidels are not consider innocents. Indeed, the killing of muslims if in the spreading of Islam or for the cause of jihad is not actually killing them...it is only sending them to Paradise.

Many of you may disagree, but we are at war with an enemy which has sworn war against us...and our own leaders will not tell us the truth.

The left (secular-humanists) make no bones about their anti-American sentiment. And conservative American leadership is failing to speak out clearly as to the threat we face.

Such a vacuum of leadership is unnerving. Will the person to step up to the plate be a genuine leader for the cause of what is right...or will he/she be another Hitler? One more evil human that rises to fill the void created by the cowardice of good men and women.

21 posted on 10/13/2005 5:20:50 PM PDT by Dark Skies (" For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " Matthew 6:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Couldn't we just blow 'em up?


22 posted on 10/13/2005 5:24:50 PM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

These EPIC people are like roaches.


23 posted on 10/13/2005 5:29:03 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Any strategic analyst worth their salt must consider the consequences of failure for each potential course of action. You don't cancel your home owners insurance because you think you will collect less in claims over the next 20 years than you will pay in premiums. Risk management doesn't work that way, and in a nuclear world we can't afford to let them strike first. The government in Iran (not the population) has announced publicly their desire to see us all die ("Death to America"). We would be complete idiots to gamble on their sincerity.
24 posted on 10/13/2005 5:30:01 PM PDT by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Isn't Iran part of the Axis of Evil? Why would we let part of the Axis go nuclear, knowing full well it would give them to Hezbollah or any other Islamo-fascist group in the area willing to take out an Israeli or American city? Did we allow Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany to go nuclear?

WTF??

25 posted on 10/13/2005 6:19:20 PM PDT by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

Strategically, it would be very, very destablizing to have a nuke in a government so rabidly anti-US and tied to terror groups as Iran.

However, direct US options are greatly limited, so some analysts are basically hoping (or praying) that their government changes before the nuke is finished.

In any case, it is hard for US to provide leadership with the President being weakened as he is by both sides of political spectrum (stratfor has more on this latter point today).


26 posted on 10/13/2005 6:28:04 PM PDT by Wiseghy (Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will. Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
A SHORT HISTORY of WESTERN IMPERIALISM in IRAQ Judith Yaphe, PhD is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

For those who may be familiar with it, the National Defense College is is organized under the authority of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's home for example to the National War College.

"A SHORT HISTORY of WESTERN IMPERIALISM in IRAQ."

Well, "Iraq" is a product of French and British “Imperialism” - that’s how we ended up with a bunch of Kurds, Turkmen, Shities and Sunni all conglomerated into an attempt at a unitary "state" - if yoy write about the political history of Iraq prior to the 1960s that’s what you are writing about, and if you are writing about Iraqi history since then, you are writing largely about Iraqi reactions to that experience.

Some here may not like the conclusion of this study, But IMO it's a Good Thing that such points of view are put forward even if policy makers my ultimately decide to fault the judgment behind them - for example one the reasons we we so ill prepared after our initial success in Iraq was that many policy makers had been trying very hard not to listen to such concerns, and as a result didn't plan for the results of this history on a "what if" basis.

27 posted on 10/13/2005 6:29:56 PM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

This thread is just too depressing.


28 posted on 10/13/2005 7:31:19 PM PDT by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

I seriously doubt Israel will tolerate a nuclear armed Iran.


29 posted on 10/13/2005 8:03:17 PM PDT by The Great RJ (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas
For those who may be familiar with it, the National Defense College is is organized under the authority of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's home for example to the National War College.

I'm familiar with the National Defense University and with its Institute for National Strategic Studies, which is only representative of one affiliate of the university and which produced the study in question. I'm also familiar with Judith Yaphe and the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, which makes me curious why ABC is highlighting this particular study's conclusions over those of studies which may express other opinions.

Well, "Iraq" is a product of French and British “Imperialism” - that’s how we ended up with a bunch of Kurds, Turkmen, Shities and Sunni all conglomerated into an attempt at a unitary "state" - if yoy write about the political history of Iraq prior to the 1960s that’s what you are writing about, and if you are writing about Iraqi history since then, you are writing largely about Iraqi reactions to that experience.

A summary of imperialism in Iraq would need to include consideration of the roles of the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Empire rather than focusing exclusively on "Western Imperialism" (and the treatment of the latter topic would also need to include discussion of Imperial Germany). But the content of Dr. Yaphe's lecture is actually less a historical overview than a series of policy recommendations arguing from historical analogies, so its title is somewhat misleading.

30 posted on 10/13/2005 8:31:31 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Well, clearly tolerating Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon is the default policy; that is, if we don't do anything other than we have been, that's what we'll end up with. That scenario (and I suspect it is at least five years off, but it will come) is essentially the Cold War writ small, but it will not be a Mutual Assured Destruction because there won't be anything "mutual" about it - one bomb goes off in New York and massive retaliation results before we bother to find out where it came from. Those were, after all, Cold War rules. That was the brink on which we were all living, and how quickly the world has forgotten!

This, of course, will serve as Israel's policy as well, as it very likely currently does. There will be a regional arms race, to be sure. Europe doesn't seem to mind this very much, or perhaps its strategists haven't thought it through, but if Israel is to survive it must be capable of massive retaliation. And its targets will be legion.

There is no discernable will in Europe to rectify this situation by force and the Iranians know it. There is a distinct tendency to depend first on the U.S., and then on Israel, to do the dirtywork, but that may not even be tactically feasible at this point (and to a degree we have European dithering to thank for it). And so stalemate - the Iranians continue to make bombs and so, for our defense and Israel's very survival, must we and the Israelis.

The Brits now possess a very credible counterstrike capability. The French somewhat less so, and more to the point, have shown the world that they haven't the spine to use it, and hence it is essentially useless and expensive even where it is possessed. Germany will be forced to cut free some of her social spending and construct nuclear weapons. Does that send a chill up anyone's spine? Countries unfortunate enough not to be able to afford their own counterstrike capability will have to depend on someone else - this used to the the United States's role in the Cold War. It isn't now.

I don't think this picture is necessarily alarmist or even particularly overblown. There was a brief interregnum in 1945/6 during which the United States had sole possession of nuclear weapons. That died with the first mushroom cloud over the Soviet Union. This interregnum, during which the world has forgotten the half-century of nuclear terror, may be coming to a similar end.

31 posted on 10/13/2005 8:42:48 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

ABC News?

No thanks. I suppose I could fact check every single statement in the article to see how much of it is lies and spin, but then what's the point of even reading it in the first place?

Still, thanks for posting it. Always nice to know what the enemy is thinking, namely ABC.


32 posted on 10/14/2005 1:37:00 AM PDT by jeffers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot

"U.S. ally Israel....."

Israel is not a US ally. Why does the media insist on printing this nonsense. Israel has no alliance with the US. When Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc. attacked Israel, did the US declare war against them?? No. There is no treaty of alliance. Why don't they just refer to Israel as a friend?


33 posted on 10/14/2005 1:47:19 AM PDT by HuronMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salem; SJackson; Esther Ruth; IAF ThunderPilot; Bombardier; Alexander Rubin; Sabramerican; ...

Ping!


34 posted on 10/14/2005 5:33:40 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (Not a nickel, not a dime, no more money for Hamastine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HuronMan

Why don't you ask them?


35 posted on 10/14/2005 7:34:33 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Convert from ECUSA; Berosus; blam; Ernest_at_the_Beach; FairOpinion; ValerieUSA

Then again, maybe the world will have to live *without* a nuclear Iran.


36 posted on 10/14/2005 10:31:25 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Sunday, August 14, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson