Experts: Danger of Nuclear-Armed Iran Hyped

[Joanne98]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/12/5177/

Experts: Danger of Nuclear-Armed Iran Hyped
by Warren P. Strobel

WASHINGTON - A hostile country led by anti-American ideologues appears close to developing its first nuclear weapon and, as a U.S. election approaches, the president and his advisers debate a pre-emptive military strike. Newspaper columnists demand action to stop the nuclear peril.

The country was China, the year was 1963 and the president was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Now it is Iran that is said to may be bent on acquiring nuclear arms, and President Bush who has declared that “unacceptable.” Some U.S. officials and outside commentators are again pushing for a pre-emptive attack.

But the White House and its partisans may be inflating the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, say experts on the Persian Gulf and nuclear deterrence. While there are dangers, they acknowledge, Iran appears to want a nuclear weapon for the same reason other countries do: to protect itself.

Bush, by contrast, has suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could bring about World War III. The president and his top aides, along with hawkish commentators, have suggested that Iran might launch a first strike on Israel or the United States, or hand nuclear weapons to terrorist groups Tehran supports.

There is “only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those (Iranian nuclear) facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether, or allow them to go nuclear,” Norman Podhoretz, a foreign policy adviser to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, said last month.

“Would I like Iran to have a nuclear bomb? No,” said Robert Jervis, a Columbia University professor of international politics who has written widely on nuclear deterrence. But, “the fears (voiced) by the administration and a fair number of sensible people as well, just are exaggerated. The idea that this will really make a big difference, I think is foolish.”

Even some commentators in Israel, whose leaders see themselves in Iran’s crosshairs, present a more nuanced view of the potential threat than the White House does.

An Iranian nuclear bomb could present Israel “with the real potential for an existential threat,” Ephraim Kam of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv wrote in February.

But Kam noted that Israel has its own unacknowledged nuclear deterrent - estimated at 100 to 200 warheads - larger than anything Iran could marshal for years to come.

Despite Iran’s “messianic religious motivations,” he wrote, “it is highly doubtful that Tehran would want to risk an Israeli nuclear response” by attempting a first strike.

Moreover, Iran, which says its nuclear research is aimed at generating electric power, is not thought to be close to having a nuclear weapon. In the worst-case scenario, it could have enough highly enriched uranium, a basic weapon ingredient in weapons, in two to three years.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to report next week on whether Iran has cleared up questions about its past nuclear work. The IAEA’s judgment will influence whether the U.N. Security Council imposes new sanctions on Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment.

Bush administration officials insist that Iran is different from other countries that have sought and acquired nuclear weapons.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/12/5177/

[orpupilofnature57]

1. The evil elf & tweety will be serving that gruel all week ,a preempt..

to more Constitutional Customizing I'll bet.

[DCKit]

2. Same old song and dance....

Hopefully, Dumbya will confuse "Iran" and "Iraq" often enough that even the Bushtards will recognize the same speeches from five years ago.