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 ...
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.
Couldn't we just blow 'em up?
These EPIC people are like roaches.
WTF??
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).
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.
This thread is just too depressing.
I seriously doubt Israel will tolerate a nuclear armed Iran.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
Ping!
Why don't you ask them?
Then again, maybe the world will have to live *without* a nuclear Iran.
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.