Experts: Danger of nuclear-armed Iran may be hyped

[babylonsister]

Ya think?

Experts: Danger of nuclear-armed Iran may be hyped
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007


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."

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21341.html

[leftchick]

1. our top dem candidate hypes as well....

why does she say the exact same thing as cheney about Iran?.....

<snip>

Raw Story reports that Hillary Clinton gave a speech at an event by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC Friday night in which she refused to rule out using miltary force with Iran.

Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/3/1337/72476

[liberalmike27]

2. Hmmm.

You think?

I've said all along that the threat is less than they say it is. Does Kim Jong want to be blown up? Megalomaniacs tend to want to live. The only reason countries want to get nukes is so "WE" will leave them alone. Why do you think there is such desperation to keep nukes out of the hands of our enemies? We have supremacy in conventional weapons, but with Nukes it doesn't matter. Were we to attack someone that had nukes, they could make a horrible mess, one that we could not clean up.

If we really wanted these poor, and more wealthy countries to stop getting nuclear power we need to stop threatening them.