Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Iran as a nuclear power
Russia had stated earlier that Iran is still a long way from being a nuclear power and now Israel, possibly also keen enough to belittle that possibility says : "Iran is far from attaining the technology threshold and this country is not close to getting it, contrary to statements by its leadership."
If the estimates are correct, it means the US has plenty a time to seek a diplomatic alternative to its sabre-rattling according to Gary Samore, vice-president of US think tank the Council on Foreign Relations.
There are several problems with these sanguine views. Firstly, this kind of optimism has usually underrated the ability of nuclear scientists to think fast with a gun held to their head by a mad dictator and/or a large pot of money proffered by the same. In this sense, scientists are often unlike American politicians who would simply lie as usual in those circumstances. That brings me to the second point. The net result of US Democratic policy has often been a patched-up slow mishmash (e.g. consider the Clinton version of the NHS) - I mean that from the POV of the US Congress, there is a relatively short time to deal with Iran in a diplomatic way, even given a proposed 'favorable' timescale.
The Russians assessed some of the other problems with Iran but probably their timescale was grossly optimistic and the Israelis presumably don't care. The US Republicans now seem even to some of their own voters rather like 'the boy who cried wolf'. This time the wolf may be at the door and bunkerbuster nukes may be the only answer when something has to be done.
The main reasons for Iraq to be (or to apparently prepare to be) a nuclear power seem to be vanity and greed. Do the Iranians really want to go on existing at all ? I think there seem to be too many mad corrupt guys like Bolton and Wolfowitz around for it to happen.
IMO: Cannot we hope for sensible and fully comprehensive UN weapons inspections of Iran ?
If the estimates are correct, it means the US has plenty a time to seek a diplomatic alternative to its sabre-rattling according to Gary Samore, vice-president of US think tank the Council on Foreign Relations.
There are several problems with these sanguine views. Firstly, this kind of optimism has usually underrated the ability of nuclear scientists to think fast with a gun held to their head by a mad dictator and/or a large pot of money proffered by the same. In this sense, scientists are often unlike American politicians who would simply lie as usual in those circumstances. That brings me to the second point. The net result of US Democratic policy has often been a patched-up slow mishmash (e.g. consider the Clinton version of the NHS) - I mean that from the POV of the US Congress, there is a relatively short time to deal with Iran in a diplomatic way, even given a proposed 'favorable' timescale.
The Russians assessed some of the other problems with Iran but probably their timescale was grossly optimistic and the Israelis presumably don't care. The US Republicans now seem even to some of their own voters rather like 'the boy who cried wolf'. This time the wolf may be at the door and bunkerbuster nukes may be the only answer when something has to be done.
The main reasons for Iraq to be (or to apparently prepare to be) a nuclear power seem to be vanity and greed. Do the Iranians really want to go on existing at all ? I think there seem to be too many mad corrupt guys like Bolton and Wolfowitz around for it to happen.
IMO: Cannot we hope for sensible and fully comprehensive UN weapons inspections of Iran ?
# posted by uv : 5:19 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
