Xtra News Community 2
March 29, 2024, 01:07:51 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

“Let Iran have the bomb” says American professor

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: “Let Iran have the bomb” says American professor  (Read 118 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32232


Having fun in the hills!


« on: July 16, 2012, 08:55:05 pm »


Let Iran have the bomb: US professor Kenneth Waltz

A LEADING US foreign policy expert has suggested Iran should be
allowed to develop atomic weapons amid growing frustration at
the failure of efforts to persuade it to halt its nuclear program.


By CHRISTINA LAMB in Washington - The Times | Monday, July 16, 2012

KENNETH WALTZ, a professor at Columbia University in New York and at the University of California at Berkeley, has long advocated the view nuclear weapons bring stability to the world, acting as a deterrent to war.

But eyebrows were raised when his provocative essay — "Why Iran should get the bomb" — appeared as the cover story in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, long seen as an influential establishment journal.

This week the US congress will vote to tighten dramatically economic sanctions on Iran amid growing impatience at the failure of President Barack Obama's administration to halt Tehran's nuclear program.

A leaked Pentagon assessment has warned Iran continued to "make large strides" and could be just three years from testing an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking US soil. "The threat from Iran is real," John Boehner, the Republican House Speaker, said.

Professor Waltz insists that "the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated" and argues allowing Iran to go nuclear "would probably be the best possible result; the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East".

He claims Iran's leaders are not irrational, as often portrayed, and that far from being emboldened they would be less bellicose if they acquired nuclear weapons for fear of sparking a nuclear conflict.

Professor Waltz cited as an example long-time enemies India and Pakistan, which fought three wars prior to acquiring the bomb but had "both become more cautious since going nuclear".

He also rejected the argument that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons a regional arms race would follow, with Saudi Arabia seeking the bomb. When Israel acquired its bomb in the 1960s, he said, it did not trigger an escalation even though it was at war with many neighbours.

It is a view with few supporters in Washington.

"If Ken Waltz were a democracy activist living in Tehran or a mother of three living in Tel Aviv or Abu Dhabi he'd probably think differently about the prudence of an Iranian bomb," said Karim Sadjadpour, Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "He has the luxury of theorising from thousands of miles away."

Michael Singh, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, another foreign policy think tank, pointed out that the Saudis had said explicitly they would pursue a nuclear weapons program if Iran acquired one.

He also rejected the South Asian example, pointing out that the bomb, far from having restrained Pakistan, appeared to have emboldened it to support terror attacks in India.

Although Iran has repeatedly declared that its nuclear program is peaceful and it has no intention of producing nuclear weapons, it is enriching uranium to higher levels.

Most experts believe Iran has not yet made a decision on whether to go ahead and is 12-18 months away from a bomb were it to decide to pursue that option.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/let-iran-have-the-bomb-us-professor-kenneth-waltz/story-fnb64oi6-1226426642715
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Newtown-Fella
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2012, 10:02:40 pm »

what they havent got them already ..... ?
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32232


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2012, 04:33:28 am »


From the Washington Post....

Report: US military attack on Iran would shake
regime but also risk all-out Mideast war


By ROBERT BURNS - Associated Press | Thursday, September 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — U.S. military strikes on Iran would shake the regime’s political control and damage its ability to launch counterstrikes, but the Iranians probably would manage to retaliate, directly and through surrogates, in ways that risked igniting all-out war in the Middle East, according to an assessment of an attack’s costs and benefits.

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran’s most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay — not stop — the Islamic republic’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

“You can’t kill intellectual power,” said retired Army Lieutenant General Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran’s nuclear program would require a military operation — including a land occupation — more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

An advance copy of the report was provided to the Associated Press.

The assessment emerges against the backdrop of escalating tensions between Israel and the U.S. over when a military strike on Iran might be required. The Israelis worry that Iran is moving more quickly toward a nuclear capability than the United States believes. The U.S. has not ruled out attacking but has sought to persuade Israel to give diplomacy more time.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a mortal threat, citing Iran’s persistent calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, its development of missiles capable of striking Israel and Iranian support for Arab militant groups.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

An oft-stated argument against striking Iran is that it would add to a perception of the U.S. as anti-Muslim — a perception linked to the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and hardened by Internet-based video excerpts of an anti-Muslim film that may have fueled Tuesday’s deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic office in Libya.

“Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike — by the Israelis or U.S. — on Iran,” retired Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

The report was compiled and endorsed by more than 30 former diplomats, retired admirals and generals and others who said their main purpose was to provide clarity about the potential use of military force against Iran. They reached no overall conclusion and offered no recommendations.

“The report is intended to have what we call an informing influence and hopefully something of a calming influence, but that’s something readers will have to answer for themselves,” said Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who has held informal contacts with Iranian officials as recently as the past few months.

Kearney said the assessment was meant to stimulate thinking in the U.S. about the objectives of a military attack on Iran beyond the obvious goal of hitting key components of Iran’s nuclear program. “Clearly there is some (U.S.) ability to do destruction, which will cause some delay, but what occurs after that?” he said in an interview.

Other endorsers of the report include Brent Scowcroft, who was President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, former Senators Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel and two retired chiefs of U.S. Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni and navy Admiral William J. Fallon.

The analysis includes stark assertions about one of the most volatile and complex issues facing the U.S. in a presidential election year. President Barack Obama’s failure to get Iran to negotiate acceptable limits on its nuclear program is cited by his opponents as emblematic of a misguided and weak foreign policy.

The report said the Obama administration’s stated objective — shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for up to four years Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.

“We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation,” it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran’s motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks “and redress the humiliation of being attacked.”

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran’s influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

“Given Iran’s large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined,” the report said.

The U.S. had as many as 170,000 troops in Iraq at the height of the 2003-10 war, and U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan peaked last year at 100,000. Eleven years into the Afghan war the U.S. still has about 74,000 troops there.

Early drafts of the report were coordinated by the nonpartisan Iran Project, a private group funded in part by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropy that promotes peace and democracy. The final version includes contributions from others with national security expertise. It is based on publicly available documents, including unclassified intelligence reports.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-us-military-attack-on-iran-would-shake-regime-but-also-risk-all-out-mideast-war/2012/09/12/85308458-fd4b-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_singlePage.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32232


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2013, 02:18:06 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Most Iranian lawmakers back nuclear speedup if U.S. adds sanctions

By RAMIN MOSTAGHIM | 9:34AM PST - Sunday, December 29, 2013

Two-thirds of the members of Iran's parliament are in favor of restarting the country's heavy-water nuclear facility at Arak, shown above in a file photo, if the U.S. Congress adopts new sanctions against Iran. — Photo: Hamid Foroutan/AFP/Getty Images.
Two-thirds of the members of Iran's parliament are in favor of restarting the country's heavy-water nuclear facility at Arak, shown
above in a file photo, if the U.S. Congress adopts new sanctions against Iran. — Photo: Hamid Foroutan/AFP/Getty Images.


TEHRAN More than two-thirds of the Iranian parliament has signed on to a bill that would accelerate Iran’s nuclear program if Congress adopts new sanctions legislation, official news agencies said.

The bill would direct Iran’s nuclear agency to enrich uranium to 60%, close to the 90% needed for the material to be used as nuclear bomb fuel. It is currently enriched to a maximum of 20%.

The legislation also calls for the start-up of Iran’s partially built Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor.

The Mehr news agency said Sunday that support for the measure in parliament has risen from 100 lawmakers last week to more than 200. The proposal would still need approval from the parliament’s governing board.

Iranian lawmakers have described the bill as retaliation for legislation introduced in the Senate this month that would impose tough new sanctions on Iran in six months if it fails to cooperate with upcoming international negotiations aimed at setting limits for its nuclear program. Many countries fear that, despite its denials, Iran is seeking a nuclear-weapons capability.

Iranian lawmakers originally described the bill as retaliation for the Obama administration’s recent blacklisting of a group of Iranian organizations and individuals in enforcement of past sanctions.

The lawmakers view both U.S. moves as violations of the preliminary nuclear deal signed November 24th, temporarily freezing some aspects of Iran's nuclear program.

The White House has mounted an intense lobbying campaign to halt the Senate legislation, which officials argue would undermine the diplomatic effort and could set off a “march to war.” The sanctions advocates, who include Democrats such as Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No.3 Democrat, contend “standby” sanctions are needed to prevent Iran from dragging its feet.

Also on Sunday, senior Iranian nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi warned that Iran would halt cooperation with the preliminary nuclear deal if any sanctions legislation is adopted by Congress.

“Implementation of the Geneva deal will be stopped, no doubt,” Araqchi said, according to the Iranian Student News Agency.


http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-iran-parliament-nuclear-sanctions-20131229,0,4436778.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 16 queries.