A new U.S. report concluded that Iran stopped development of a nuclear weapon in 2003, but still remains a threat.
"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes. "
"We have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate," he told reporters at the White House. "In the words of the NIE, quote, Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."
"Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the fact that Iran was several years away from nuclear weapons capability meant "the international community has a significant window of opportunity in which to act to avoid the stark choice between going to war or accepting a nuclear Iran."
It seems really hopeful that there is time to find out about Iran's enriched uranium plants, and also time to decide what a smart plan for dealing with this situation because Iran won't really be a threat for the next few years. We can only hope that with the government has learned from the Iraq war and won't enter into a war without really thinking through the coincidences, and making sure the country is truly a threat.
Do you think that Iran will turn into another Iraq?... Or will we repeat history(as often happens), and make another brash decision, which enters us into war? Is Iran a big enough threat to us that we need to seriously consider entering before they become a bigger threat?
Link to article: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have two opinions so lets try this out.
1.) Get in there. This may sound weird but better to get in sooner than later. If we don't the idea of them posing such a threat to the entire world makes the United States and other major countries defenseless to Iran's wills. They may not try and bomb us, but can you imagine what would happen if they bombed a country that we were allies with? Not only would the world's economy plummet, but thousands of lives would be lost. Now to attack the realist, invading Iran and losing thousands of lives may seem awful, and I my heart would go out to the soldiers, but if that means that Iran does not bomb a nation it seems well worth it to me.
2.) I think a country with a bomb does not make a huge difference. Anyone can ask Yak and he will tell you that the Soviet's did not launch those missiles. Unless the people of the nation our flat out stupid, they have to know that if they bomb a nation they are going to die in counterattacks. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". If they bomb us, we bomb them!
So the right answer seems to stop them now, why not?
I think stopping Iran early is a good idea, but I don't think we should take the 'better safe than sorry' approach right now since it's an unnecessary risk. For one thing, they don't even have nuclear weapons yet and everything seems to suggest it'll take them years to actually get the capability. And like Landis said, even if they did have the bombs, would they really attack? So I think we should just wait and see what iran does, instead of risking soldiers' lives. The US can stop Iran if it becomes obvious they are making bombs.
Also, seeing how the war in Iraq turned out, would the next president really be willing to start another conflict if there wasn't definite proof of weapons of mass destruction?
I have suspicions that Iran stopped making a nuclear weapon. I think it's best to assume that they do have at least one stashed away somewhere. That's not to say I think we should invade and bomb them to smithereens, but we should definitely be careful.
I really hope the Iran doesn't turn into another Iraq (obviously), but I think it has a smaller chance of happening. Since we just went through the huge, messed up issue with Iraq (and we still aren't finished), it's very fresh in everyone's minds so people will be more inclined to take a stand against stupid politicians. And hopefully America will wise up a little bit. Sometimes people don't wise up- like, you'd think we'd have learning some stuff from the Holocaust, but there was still a genocide in Rwanda- but, like I said, since the incident is so fresh in everybody's minds, there's more chance of us doing better this time around.
Ryan --
Warmonger! Please see the forest for the trees. The news here is that Iran's nuclear program is LESS developed than previously advertised by the administration. This makes attacking Iran less necessary and basically unacceptable from an international relations standpoint. It looks like Bush & Co. have been choosing not to release this information. Don't fall for the propaganda.
The latest sources I'm reading suggest that Israel is not keen on the US bombing Iran. These are all anonymous sources being reported 2nd hand, but they underscore the reality that the range of debate about Middle East policy is more mature in Israel than amongst the neoconservative crowd in the US.
I do not think that attacking Iran right now is the best thing to do – in fact, I think it isn’t the best thing to do right now by far. That being said, I feel extremely strongly about several things:
1) Matt – you say that we should “wait and see” what happens – lets wait to see if Iran gets bombs in a couple years, if they are serious about using them, etc... To me, that is an incredibly short-sighted and unfortunate opinion. While yes, you in San Mateo in the great US have the luxury of time – Israel, the next door neighbors of Iran, aren’t so lucky – they can’t wait to see what is a real threat and what isn’t. If a country in close proximity to the US claimed they wanted to wipe the US of the face of the earth – I guarantee you that you would not be so quick to dismiss the threat and have the “lets wait and see” mentality. Israel, on the other hand, can not wait to see what is real and what isn’t – it’s a matter of survival for them – unlike a random guessing game for you. I urge you not be so quick when it comes to dismissing the importance of threats.
Now, you may ask, “that’s Israel’s problem, not ours.” Now that would be an even bigger mistake. With neocon influence in our government (esp. with conservative Christians, such as Bush), the likeliness that we do act preemptively is much higher than you would think – just look at Iraq (and at Ryan – no insult – it’s a legit political platform to hold). Also, Israel is one of the most useful allies to the US, especially in the Middle East. When Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear power plant, the Intl. community went up in a who-ha, yet privately you better believe that everyone was wiping the sweat from their brows. And they do all of this without the help of US troops – ever. So no, we can’t just let Israel deal with it – if you need a reason to help others, they are an invaluable ally.
Now, Silton – you argue, as do many, that Iran won’t have bombs ready for a long, long time – like 3 years – and thus Israel isn’t in a threat, and thus the US doesn’t even have to be worried about supporting Israel, since they have no reason to fight Iran. While yes, Iran will not have nuclear weapons – and probably won’t for some while – look at Hezbollah and the Lebanon War. No WMD’s, yet still a war. Iran and other countries don’t need WMD’s to be dangerous – I think that that has become a small box that we use to decide if a country is dangerous – WMD or not. Iran is a still a very big threat to Israel – they DO supply Hezbollah and other terrorists with weapons, they DO fund terrorists, and they DO believe Israel should be wiped off of the face of the earth. I believe it is foolish to contend whether or not Iran truly is a threat – it is. They are also a threat to the Intl. community – funding Intl. terrorists. And whether or not Israel thinks that it is a big enough threat to fight over it – debatable – yet, not unrealistic (they did so in the Lebanon War).
I’m not urging for the US to fight Iran – we won’t, there is just too much negative public interest there. However, we must do something – or we are simply sitting on our hands until something does happen. I really wonder how people can urge for non-action – its an eerie reminder of so many genocides and wars – such as the Holocaust. We don’t have to fight Iran – economics sanctions are working – that a big reason why Iran’s program have slowed down. If we step up sanctions, really hold Iran’s toes to the fire, then I believe we will be able to stop Iran’s efforts of WMD’s completely. We have done a bit of this already – and Iranian banks have been closing, etc… and Russia stopped helping Iran until they pay their debts. To sum it up, yes, Iran continue to be a threat, and lets step up non-military pressure, such as sanctions, etc…
Post a Comment