We need to discuss somewhere the question of why regional powers want nuclear weapons and how they would use them or, in the case of Israel, have actually used them.

It is not like US-UK-RF-USSR deterrence.

That began as counter-value "strategic bombing", lurched on and off towards counterforce "warfighting", and ended up as "de-capitation".

That is all now winding down towards some stable mix of conventional and nuclear, mostly defensive, forces. I don't know what, exactly, for we have not had that discussion in public or even in un-classified professional and academic circles. There was a little talk in the US of a replacement warhead, but it seems to have been mostly pork-promotion.

The Neo-Cons were pushing for a first-strike capability to disarm Iran. I do not know what the Obama administration is bargaining with the former Soviet Union and Israel over. I just hope the neo-cons have been thoroughly excluded. But, then, I do not need to know. I am too old. Others will have to deal with this.

Which gets us to what China, India, and Pakistan have, as well as what Iran probably wants ..., namely the way to avoid conventional military defeat by blackmailing the US-UK-RF or Russia. And, whether the US in Afghanistan is "all-in", "all-out", or "muddling through", China, India, Iran, and Pakistan will still be fighting a proxy war there.

And, we can count on non-state actors, like al-Q'aida, wanting to get another sort of nuclear capablity from that or any established state. In their hands it would be an offensive capability.

One reason to go-slow, build-confidence, and buy-time among states is that I doubt anybody knows what using nuclear weapons -- detonating a device or running some missiles out into battery -- would result in next.

And, some, like al-Q'aida or any other apocolyptic regime, including Likudnik Israel, might not care.

So, what is the nuclear danger today?

The "Rogue Captain" or "Clever Briefer" from my day, some "Apocolyptic Preacher" from the future or a "dry drunk" from the recent past?

I liked Cirincione's column as well only because it seemed a bit more reasoned than the hysterical stuff we always read about Iran. However, I think towards the end of his piece, he rejoins the hysteria cabal when he writes that "while Israel's possession of nuclear weapons has not spurred other countries in the area to develop their own, over the past three years a dozen states in the Middle East, including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Libya (again), have begun civilian nuclear programs."

Uuummm, how does Cirincione know why these countries began developing civilian nuclear programs? This is not exactly the kind of information countries broadcast. And why does he attribute that to Iran's nuclear ambitions, but does not attribute Iran's nuclear ambitions to the Israelis nukes?
And also if these countries started their nuclear programs because of Iran's program, then they should have started in the eighties because as Cirincione acknowledges, Iran's nuclear program actually started under the Shah, a US ally with the help of the US, the Germans and the French.

I think this idea of presenting Iran's desire for nukes as threatening to the region when Israel's nukes are not should be relinquished because it simply has no basis. The reality is, nobody knows what a country's leaders are capable of in a moment of deep crisis as Harry Truman found out on August 6, 1945.

This is actually just another warmongering drumbeat by WaPo. Even though it sounds reasonable it's full of BS. It's simply a back-door way to foster eventual aggression against Iran because Iran somehow threatens others. The US has to look look like it exhausted all alternatives before it reverts to force, as with Iraq.

1. There is no "secret nuclear facility in Iran." The US has said that it has known for years about the ongoing construction of a facility near Qum, and Iran recently reported its existence to the UN prior to the US "discovering" it.

2. The apparent agreement to allow U.N. weapons inspectors and to ship some uranium out of the country is bogus. Iran needs some uranium enriched to a higher level than their ongoing process at Natanz, and not only wants but need to ship a relatively small quantity of fuel abroad for higher enrichment, for medical purposes or something, but still less than weapons grade. The IAEA will monitor it just as it has been monitoring Iran's ongoing enrichment program, and as it has been invited to do when Qum becomes operational. As an NPT signatory Iran follows all the rules.

3. Regarding Iran's capability to make a nuclear weapon,the "experts" cited in the article are un-named but probably include David Albright who has been on a continuing mission to discredit Iran based on lies and innuendo. These un-named "experts" have supposedly said that Iran has the technical ability to make a crude nuclear device within one to three years. I wonder if these "experts" might also report, if asked, that a couple dozen other non-nuclear countries might also have this expertise?

4. Joseph Cirincione says that there is no evidence that Iran's leaders have decided to fabricate nuclear weapons -- but neglects to report that in fact Iran's leaders have emphatically and repeatedly denied that they have and need or desire to do so. Why the negative slant on facts, Joseph?

5. Then Cirincione gets to his full-on warmongering. Iran could kick out U.N. inspectors, abandon the NPT, etc. etc.
Quite a fanciful scenario without any basis in fact. No un-named experts on this one.

6. Cirincione ends with the biggest whopper of all, that other Middle East states are not concerned about Israel's two hundred nuclear weapons, built by a non-monitored, non-signer of the NPT, they are concerned about Iran's fully monitored nuclear power program. Again, he doesn't even cite un-named experts for this one. Where's the evidence?

So the take-home bottom line in this article is that Iran is a threat to world peace. I say that articles like this are a threat to world peace.

I found the Cirincione article not only well informed but refreshingly objective and devoid of ideological biases that impede realistic assessments. Despite some comments above, I saw nothing suggestive of war-mongering; in fact, quite the opposite, the article pointed out that a mix of incentives and penalties are the best hope for avoiding a nuclear-armed Iran and a consequent arms race that would further add to Middle East instability, and that the goal must therefore be to persuade Iran that abandoning its nuclear weapons ambitions is in its interest, rather than trying to force it to comply.

Whether these efforts will succeed can't be predicted, but they are efforts that deserve to be undertaken with vigor, and with the expectation that the path to success will be long and tortuous.

At this point, Don and others, I see the discussion as becoming repetitive. In my view, the almost universal concern among the nations mentioned, and others, regarding the dangers of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, is easily confirmable by reading all comments these nations have made, rather than cherry-picked excerpts. The evidence underlying this concern is compelling and has already been summarized.

In any case, I've already stated why I believe that claims denying the reality of Iran's intentions are not going to be taken seriously, and readers can go back and review the comments.

As a practical matter, the world is now going to address the perceived threat, and disagreements will relate to the best means of addressing it, rather than whether it exists. Some of the disagreements about the pace of these efforts and the timing of possible sanctions relate to commercial ties with Iran existing among the participants, including Russia as a prime example. Ultimately, they all recognize that the threat must be dealt with within a reasonable timeframe.

I hope to be receptive to new information, not already presented, that throws additional light on the topic, and again I recommend the Cirincione article on the Iranian weapons issue for its thorough review of the issue. However, to the extent that future comments reiterate what has already been said, I believe readers will be turned off.

This discussion may have gone off track by focusing specifically on Russian concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, because all the great powers have expressed concerns in one way or another, disagreeing on the means of addressing the threat - negotiations vs. sanctions. The Russian statements by Medvedev and Putin that sanctions against Iran may become "inevitable" (Medvedev) but that negotiations rather than sanctions should be attempted "at this point" (Putin) are reinforced by Medvedev’s comment about the second Iranian nuclear site at Qom as a cause of "serious concern" - http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0926/p02s05-usfp.html

I take these as assertions by the Russians that concerns about Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability should be seriously addressed, but readers should decide for themselves.

It may be useful, now that this thread has accumulated about 30 comments, to refer again to the perceptive Washington Post article on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions by Joseph Cirincione, at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503476_pf.html

My experience has been that after a glut of repetitive comments, readers often prefer to review the original material to form their own judgments, rather than trying to referee TPM arguments. Most of the main points made by the arguers appear in the first few comments, and what follows is largely repetition. I believe most readers will consider themselves capable of judging Cirincione’s piece in that context.

The larger issue of the implications of a nuclear armed Iran - for the region and for the capacity of the international community to forestall future nuclear weapons development elsewhere - may deserve a separate post of its own.

The obvious question, of course, is why is the US picking on Iran, a country which has complied with its nuclear treaty obligations and not threatened anyone?

Iran's critics charge that country with building secret facilities which really weren't secret and with having technology -- having technology! It's a crime to have technology now!

Its critics, and I obviously include Cirincione here, because his piece did include these ridiculous criticisms, also concoct fanciful what-if scenarios about Iran kicking out the UN inspectors that are fully monitoring Iran's nuclear activities, and couple this fairy tale that ME states are concerned about Iran's certified non-nuclear weapon program but not concerned about Arab enemy Israel's 200 nuclear weapons. Unbelievable.

And then some Iran critics take this even further to say they are concerned about Iran's ambitions. We covered that, those "ambitions." There are enough problems in the world right now without getting exercised about some nation's concocted "ambitions."

Finally, to answer the first question, all of this attention on Iran has been a feature of US foreign policy, beginning over fifty years ago, to reduce Iran's hegemony in the Middle East. It is a large, populous, advanced Islamic (Shi'ite) country in the center of Southwest Asia, an area where the US wants to be the big dog and Iran won't submit. That's all there is to it, and this nuclear concern is simply a concocted issue that worked with Iraq and may work again.

Cirincione may be counseling a little patience, but he includes enough bogus claims in his piece to form the basis for future aggression against a country that hasn't done anything to anybody, nor does it threaten anybody.
.

Thank you very much for sharing . m2ts files converter from m2ts converter