The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Warfare > Nuclear/Biological/Chemical

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:02 PM
sfc_darrel sfc_darrel is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Indian Springs, Nevada
Posts: 1,521
Distinctions
Contributor 
Exclamation In Their Own Words: Making Sense of the International Community's Nuclear Deadline wi

In Their Own Words: Making Sense of the International Community's Nuclear Deadline with Iran

By Max Mealy
July 20, 2009

This is the first in a series of PolicyWatches that will evaluate how the international community's Iran policy choices are being affected by Iranian nuclear progress and developments in Iran's domestic political scene since the June 12 presidential elections.

After nearly a month of international focus on the civil unrest in Iran following the June 12 presidential elections, the G8 summit in Italy brought renewed global attention to Iran's nuclear program; the summit's leaders promised to reassess international outreach to Iran at the September G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. The following statements from U.S., European, and Israeli government officials on the status of Iran's nuclear program highlight the differing interpretations of Iran's nuclear deadline.

From The United States

• "We face a real-time challenge on nuclear proliferation in Iran.... And we're deeply troubled by the proliferation risks Iran's nuclear program poses to the world. We've offered Iran a path towards assuming its rightful place in the world. But with that right comes responsibilities. We hope Iran will make the choice to fulfill them, and we will take stock of Iran's progress when we see each other this September at the G20 meeting."

-- President Barack Obama, at the G8 summit, L'Aquila, Italy, July 10, 2009. Read his remarks.

• "My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there's a good faith effort to resolve differences."

-- President Barack Obama after meeting with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, May 18, 2009. Read his remarks.

• "A foreign intelligence agency and some UN officials estimated that Iran could reconfigure its centrifuge cascades and produce enough weapons-grade material for a bomb within six months."

-- Iran: Where We Are Today, a report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, May 4, 2009. Download the report.

• "We think they do [have enough fissile material to build a bomb], quite frankly. And Iran having a nuclear weapon I've believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world."

-- Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during an interview with CNN, March 1, 2009. Read the transcript.

• "[Iran is] not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time."

-- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during an interview with Meet the Press, March 1, 2009. Read the transcript.

• "We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.... We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."

-- National Intelligence Estimate: Iran -- Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, November 2007. Download the report.

• "Oh, I don't think it ever passes the point of no return. I don't think we're at the point of no return with the North Koreans, and they've tested.... I think at any time reasonable people in a government can decide that they've gone down the wrong course and should change course."

-- Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice during an interview with Agence France Presse, December 11, 2006. Download the transcript.

From Europe

• "We have made an effort to agree not to strengthen the sanctions immediately in order to get everyone on board, and those who were more reticent on the sanctions pledged to say: 'OK, Pittsburgh [location of the G20 summit in September] is when the decision will be made.'"

-- French president Nicholas Sarkozy during a press conference at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, July 8, 2009. Read his remarks.

From Israel

• "The term "no-return" is misleading. Even if Iran has fissionable material for one bomb, it is still at a low grade of enrichment. And if it wants to conduct a test, it will not have even one bomb. It follows that Iran is not yet nuclear and not yet operational. Serious obstacles still lie in the way. The international community still has enough time to make it stop of its own volition."

-- Uzi Arad, national security advisor to Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, during an interview with Haaretz, July 11, 2009. Read the interview.

• "If the project has no technical glitches, and if Iran's program does not malfunction in any way, they will have a bomb to launch by 2014."

-- Maj. Gen. Meir Dagan, director of Mossad, remarks to the Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee, June 16, 2009. Read the article.

• "Iran is extremely troubling because of its speed. It has missiles which could reach Israel. The Iranian clock precedes the international dialogue clock ... by the end of the year Iran will have enough fissile material for a first nuclear bomb."

-- Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz, head of the research division of Military Intelligence, to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, June 1, 2009. Read the article.

• "If they continue at the same pace unabated, they will have enough low-enriched uranium for one device by the end of this year or the beginning of next year.... Once they have this breakout capacity, and if, under a certain scenario, they decide to enrich to a higher degree of enrichment and weaponize them, they can have a first device by the end of 2010, perhaps the beginning of 2011 "

-- Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog, chief of staff to the Israeli minister of defense, during an address to The Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, May 7, 2009. Download the transcript.

• "It is important that dialogue with Iran be limited in time, and if after three months it is clear the Iranians are prevaricating and not halting their nuclear program, the international community must take active steps."

-- Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, as reported in Haaretz, May 6, 2009. Read the article.

• "It would take an extraordinary effort to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and 2009 is the last year in which that may be achieved."

-- Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and director of the Israeli National Security Council, as reported in Ynetnews, August 5, 2008. Read the article.

• "Today, the Iranians are one to two years away from building a nuclear bomb."

-- Maj. Gen. (ret.) Isaac Ben-Israel, Knesset member and former general in the Israel Air Force, during an interview with Der Spiegel, July 1, 2008. Read the interview.

• "They have their timetable and are making the effort, and according to Israeli intelligence they are going to have nuclear weapons in a very short time. Whether it is in 2009 or at the end of 2008 is less important, but they are definitely going to have it within a very short period of time."

-- Aaron Abramovich, director-general of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during an address to the thirty-fourth Annual Israel Leadership Mission, February 19, 2008. Read the transcript.

• "The crucial moment is not the day of the bomb. The crucial moment is the day in which Iran will master ... the knowledge of enrichment."

[Interviewer: And how long is that?]

"A few months from now."

-- Tzipi Livni, former Israeli foreign minister, during an interview with CNN, September 17, 2006. Read the transcript.

• "The issue of Iran is a very serious one. And the question is not when, technically, they will be in possession of [a] nuclear bomb. The question is when will they cross the technological line that will allow them at any given time, within six or eight months, to have [a] nuclear bomb? And this technological threshold is nearer than we anticipated.... It can be measured by months rather than years."

-- Ehud Olmert, Israeli prime minister, during an interview with CNN on May 21, 2006. Read the transcript.

• "Iran is very close to the point of no return, which means the enrichment of uranium.... "

-- Gen. Shaul Mofaz, Israeli defense minister, as reported in the Guardian, January 27, 2005. Read the article.

Next Steps

Expectations surrounding the September G20 summit will undoubtedly influence future statements by U.S., European, and Israeli officials, add to the sense of urgency driving U.S. nuclear diplomacy toward Iran, and test Israel's willingness to give the international community time to use diplomacy to bring about a change in Iran's nuclear program.

Max Mealy is a research intern at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...05.php?CID=309
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 08-03-2009, 11:38 AM
sfc_darrel sfc_darrel is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Indian Springs, Nevada
Posts: 1,521
Distinctions
Contributor 
Exclamation

Waiting to See
Obama has stopped worrying and learned to accept the Iranian bomb.

By Anne Bayefsky


Pres. Barack Obama has decided to let Iran acquire nuclear arms. Unless Israel acts in self-defense against the president’s wishes, the world’s most dangerous regime will command the world’s most dangerous weapon.

Notwithstanding the White House’s misinformation campaign to the contrary, the evidence of the president’s agenda is incontrovertible.

Number one. Obama knows that the U.N. will not prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb. In June 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency first reported that Iran was breaching its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Six years and five minimalist Security Council resolutions later, the adoption of serious sanctions by the council remains a non-starter. Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said in early July that more sanctions would be “counter-productive.” The Tehran Times reported on July 28 that the Iranian nuclear plant at Bushehr — built by Russia’s nuclear-power corporation and completed in March — will be operational by the end of September. The latest development in burgeoning Chinese-Iranian ties was an Iranian July 13 announcement that China has agreed to invest $40 billion to increase Iran’s gasoline-refining capacity — a move that would hardly be an incentive to buy into new sanctions.

Number two. Heavy-duty sanctions imposed beyond the U.N. would require a serious and prompt push by the E-3 — France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. But Germany has other priorities. In May, the Iranians were able to coo, “around 50 German firms have their own branch offices in Iran and more than 12,000 firms have trade representatives in the country. . . . With some $5.5 billion annual trade, Germany is Iran’s major European trading partner and the third worldwide.” Not surprisingly, on July 2, German chancellor Angela Merkel championed “keeping open the possibility of talks on Iran’s nuclear program.” British foreign secretary David Miliband described the EU hurry-up-and-wait preference while in Washington on July 29: “I think it’s very important to say that on the important nuclear question, the ball is in Iran’s court. And as soon as the new government is formed in Tehran, we look forward to that government addressing . . . the clear package that was put to Iran some 15 or 16 months ago.”

Number three. President Obama himself is refusing to back strong, immediate sanctions in response to Iran’s umpteen violations of the NPT and human rights. On the contrary, after the July 10 G-8 meeting, he declared: “This notion that we were trying to get sanctions . . . is not accurate.”Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated on July 27 that sanctions are still not on Obama’s agenda. All he could say was that “if the engagement process is not successful, the United States is prepared to press for significant additional sanctions.”

Number four. Obama’s only concrete plan for dealing with what even Gates has called “the greatest current threat to global security” is more talk. Without an end date. On May 18, Obama declared that deadlines would be “artificial.” This is how he explained the snail’s pace: “My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction. . . . That doesn’t mean every issue would be resolved by that point.” On July 10, the president said: “We will take stock of Iran’s progress when we see each other this September at the G20 meeting.” On July 27 in Israel, Gates explained it this way: “I think that the president is certainly anticipating or hoping for some kind of response this fall, perhaps by the time of the U.N. General Assembly.” So here’s the Obama plan: Maybe by the end of the year he will have some idea sort of where he is going, and in the meantime he is keeping his fingers crossed and looking forward to stock-taking.

Worse, the potential year-end review of the yakkety-yak policy was based on the premise that the yakking had already started. On May 18, the president maintained that the Iranian “elections will be completed in June, and we are hopeful that, at that point, there is going to be a serious process of engagement.” Two months of silence later, on July 23, Secretary Clinton admitted: “Well, we haven’t had any response. So we’ve certainly reached out. We’ve made it clear that that’s what we would be willing to do even now.”

Clinton has spun Iranian dithering not as an abysmal American miscalculation of Iranian interests but as a result of the mullahs’ being too busy. While in Bangkok on July 22 and 23 she pontificated: “The door is open to what we would like to see as a one-on-one engagement with Iran. But they are so preoccupied right now.” And again: “The internal debates going on within Iran have made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to pursue any diplomatic engagement. . . . I don’t think that they have any capacity to make that kind of decision right now.” Yes, brutal suppression takes time — but somehow, finding the hours and capacity for enriching uranium hasn’t been a problem.

Number five. No amount of butchery by Iran’s government has had any effect on Obama’s enthusiasm for breaking bread with the regime. Widely denounced show trials for more than 100 people began August 1. Agence France-Presse reported August 1 that 2,000 people had initially been arrested and 250 remain behind bars. U.S. and U.K. papers reported on July 29 that Tehran hospitals registered 34 bodies of protesters on June 20 alone, while 150 corpses have been counted in hospitals. New stories of torture surface regularly, with the New York Times reporting on July 28 that “some prisoners say they watched fellow detainees being beaten to death by guards in overcrowded, stinking holding pens.”

So while Iranians are still taking to the streets to reject the regime’s legitimacy — chanting “Neda isn’t dead, the regime is” in response to the shooting death of civilian Neda Agha-Soltan — Obama’s overtures are sending the opposite message. On June 15 he said: “We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us.” On June 23 he reiterated: “There is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected. . . . We don’t know how they’re going to respond yet, and that’s what we’re waiting to see.” Evidently, it never occurs to Obama that what makes his desired interlocutors criminals also decimates their capacity to conduct genuine dialogue, let alone keep any promises made.

Number six. With nothing moving “in the right direction” — no genuine dialogue, no legitimate counterpart, no hope of a tough U.N. resolution, no strong sanctions in place or in sight — Obama has attempted to take military action off the table for both Israel and the United States. On July 7, CNN asked the president if the U.S. had given Israel a green light for a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear sites, to which he responded, “absolutely not.” Last week Obama followed up by dispatching to Jerusalem a parade of emissaries instructed to make the same point — carrying no shame about bullying a democratic ally on a matter of its life and death.

As for U.S. action, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak prompted Defense Secretary Gates on July 27 to keep “all options on the table.” Gates’s non-response to the plea said it all. On July 16 Gates, speaking in oblique terms about the military option, declared: “If something is done to prevent them [Iran] from getting one, the consequences of that are . . . very bad” — as bad or worse, he intimated, as the consequences of Iran actually getting the bomb. His reasoning was unlikely to have soothed Israelis: “Iran’s going to have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to the people in their region a lot sooner than they’re going to have the capability to deliver them to us.”

Number seven. In late July while in Thailand, Secretary Clinton spelled out a promise of a U.S. defense shield that would accompany the Iranian acquisition of a nuclear bomb. “We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region. . . . [Iran] won’t be able to intimidate and dominate, as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon.” Discussing plans for a post-Iranian nuclear world at this juncture would not occur if the administration’s policy were to prevent it from happening, period.

Number eight. The Iranians know a blowhard when they see one. As columnist Amir Taheri notes, an Iranian newspaper with close ties to the government editorialized on July 26 that Obama doesn’t have the stomach for a major confrontation with Iran: “The Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. . . . They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran. . . . Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.” In other words, Iran has called Obama’s bluff.

Iran is not the only one with Obama’s number. Israel, Russia, China, France, Germany, and Great Britain all know. This president has accepted a nuclear-armed Iran. Obama can label it anything he likes: “waiting to see,” “hoping for a response,” “taking stock,” “remaining ready to engage,” standing by until the “preoccupation” with oppression ends, “pressing” others to allow “additional sanctions.” But it all amounts to the same thing.

Unless Israel exercises its right of self-defense and decides to risk the wrath of President Obama as the lesser of two evils, there will be an Iranian nuclear bomb. Courtesy of Barack Obama.

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...k5MTJjMDkxMDI=
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US unit to leave Baghdad ahead of June 30 deadline David Iraqi Freedom 0 05-20-2009 05:20 PM
No sense of decency? Gimpy Political Debate 8 01-20-2009 08:03 PM
North Korea misses nuke declaration deadline David General Posts 1 12-31-2007 04:42 PM
China & Russia Call For Deadline BLUEHAWK Political Debate 0 07-07-2005 02:06 AM
Marines Put Militias On Deadline in Najaf thedrifter Marines 0 09-11-2003 05:13 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.