[RMN] Israel says ... Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon - CSMonitor.com] [1 Attachment]]

--------

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/452210

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer
posted January 19, 2012 at 11:57 am EST

The war drums on Iran continue to beat onward. Hawkish editorials and
opinion pieces adopt the style and content of articles from a decade ago,
in which a Middle Eastern country run by a "madman" was on the brink of
obtaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that would almost
certainly be used to threaten the security of the world.

The older articles were about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction
that Saddam Hussein almost certainly had (except he didn't). The current
crop are about Iran. Front and center is an op-ed by Mark Helprin in the
Wall Street Journal yesterday titled "The mortal threat from Iran." He
writes that the "primitive religious fanatics" who rule Iran don't think
rationally about their own nation's interests, and that, absent a US
attack soon, "Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an
existential necessity."

Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute in California,
even echoes Condoleezza Rice's January 2003 warning that the smoking gun
of an Iraqi nuclear program could be a "mushroom cloud." He writes: "We
cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500 pounds or
less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue."

RELATED: Iran nuclear program: 5 key sites

To be sure, Iraq and Iran are not the same; Iran is indeed enriching
uranium, a key component of a nuclear weapon. But the fear-mongering
sounds the same. What today's arguments about Iran ignore, however – much
as the arguments in favor of the Iraq war ignored – was the position of
the US intelligence community that Iran is not currently building a
nuclear weapon. The US position appears to be that Iran is seeking the
ability to build a weapon, without actually taking that final step.

Two weekends ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "Are they trying to
develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a
nuclear capability and that's what concerns us and our red line to Iran
is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."

And it's not just the US assessment. Israel's liberal newspaper Haaretz
reported yesterday that "Iran has not yet decided whether to make a
nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials
will present later this week to [visiting] Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman
of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
poured cold water on speculation that his country is planning a unilateral
attack against Iran. "This entire thing is very far off. I don't want to
provide estimates [but] it's certainly not urgent," he said.

To be sure, there are concerns. US, European, and Israeli officials
suspect that Iran is concealing much of its nuclear work, which it insists
is for peaceful purposes only, and that weapons-related work that they
don't know about could be taking place. The head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told the Financial Times' German
edition yesterday: "What we know suggests the development of nuclear
weapons," according to a Reuters translation.

War with Iran? A briefing.

But the flow of recent statements has been mostly in the opposite
direction. Concern? Yes. Redoubled efforts to use sanctions to force more
light onto Iran's nuclear activities? Yes, absolutely. Hair-on-fire panic?
No.

The tone from private-sector analysts is something else, however. One of
the latest examples is from Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, writing in
Foreign Affairs. They even quote former Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld's line about "known unknowns," (that is, things that Saddam
Hussein might be hiding) being a cause to consider going to war with Iraq
in February 2002.

They write that in the case of Iran, the "known unknowns" are "troubling,"
and go on to outline a case for a broad US war to bring down the Islamic
Republic. Having asserted that US airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear
sites would probably fail in ending the program, they write: "Given the
likely fallout from even a limited military strike, the question the
United States should ask itself is, Why not take the next step? After all,
Iran's nuclear program is a symptom of a larger illness – the
revolutionary fundamentalist regime in Tehran."

They then suggest that a broad US air campaign against Iran would be
popular with Iranians. "It is sometimes said that a strike would lead the
population to rally around the regime. In fact, given the unpopularity of
the government, it seems more likely that the population would see the
regime's inability to forestall the attacks as evidence that the emperor
has no clothes and is leading the country into needlessly desperate
straits. If anything, Iranian nationalism and pride would stoke even more
anger at the current regime."

That flies in the face of Iranian history and what most Iranians –
including members of the Green Movement – say about how the population
would respond to war. While there is clearly great discontent with the
regime, and many millions of Iranians would like to throw off clerical
rule, the history of Iran suggests that war would probably result in an
uptick in support for the regime, confronted as it would be by a hostile
foreign power. When Saddam Hussein gambled that Iran was weak in the wake
of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and went to war, the result was a rallying
of support for the fledgling Iranian regime and a ruinous war that helped
the country's new theocrats consolidate their power.

For now, the war talk looks set to go on. But with Iranian parliamentary
elections scheduled for March – a chance for the opposition to perhaps
show its political strength, or another occasion for Iran's rulers to fix
the results, as happened in the 2009 presidential reelection – the chances
of action soon are vanishingly slim. Diplomats and leaders, from President
Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back awhile
and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start than to
get out of.

Follow Dan Murphy on Twitter.

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

New Members 2

Visit Your Group
Visit our main page!!
http://www.rumormillnews.com/

Come join the FUN!
CGI - Common Grounds Independent Media 
Everyone can post!!
RMN READER'S Forum -
http://www.rayelan.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.