ISS: Teheran could have nukes in '09

[Yoink 7]

JPost.com » Iran news » Article

Jan 27, 2009 17:25 | Updated Jan 27, 2009 20:59

IISS: Teheran could have nukes in '09

By ELANA KIRSH

Print Subscribe Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

E-mail Toolbar

Share article:

What's this?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Iran will most likely have produced enough enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb by the end of 2009, according to a paper released Tuesday by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He clarified, however that before the uranium could be used for a nuclear weapon, it would have to be further enriched.

Fitzpatrick said that this reality brings up "the question of whether military action is needed in the absence of progress in diplomacy."

The London-based institute's report, titled "The Adelphi Paper" assessed that the Iranian nuclear threat "can only be solved if Iran makes a strategic decision not to seek a nuclear weapons capability."

"Based on Iran's past diplomacy, it can be expected to neither accept nor reject proposed restrictions, but rather to shunt them aside through non-responsive counter-proposals and endless negotiation and filibuster," Fitzpatrick surmised.

In the IISS report, Fitzpatrick concluded that the best way to minimize the threat from the Iranian Republic would be to reinforce the "cooperation or isolation" line. "If Iran continues to defy the [uN] Security Council, its enrichment program can be constrained and delayed by export controls, sanctions, financial pressure, interdiction and other means of exploiting Iran's vulnerabilities," said the report.

Echoing sentiments expressed by US President Barack Obama overnight Monday, Fitzpatrick said that, "The West, in particular the United States, should seek to engage Iran."

Meanwhile, another IISS statement released Tuesday advised Israel to find common ground with "moderate Arab states" to garner support for its battles against terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah.

"Israel's strategic goal should be to find a way by which it can develop greater legitimacy for itself among moderate Arab states, which could then offer fuller support to Israel in whatever ongoing battles it may have with non-state actors such as Hamas and Hizbullah," the statement said.

The statement also opined that upcoming Knesset elections and the settling-in period to follow would slow the process of reaching a peace agreement in the Middle East.

Addressing the Palestinian political sphere, the statement assessed that Operation Cast Lead in Gaza had raised Hamas's position of power, and caused "the proportionate decline in the reputation among Palestinians of Fatah." It added, however, that the change in the balance of power was likely temporary.

The statement noted that although Israeli deterrence may have been marginally restored by the IDF's operation, Hamas continued to pose a threat to Israeli security. "Moderate Arab states that see Hamas as a threat and as an Iranian proxy are placed in a difficult position," it added.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Will it take Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel to wake up the masses? Actually, it'll probably make a lot of bigots here happy.

[Peikko 1,575]

Another flash of wit from the redoubtable Mr Strike.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Will it take Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel to wake up the masses? Actually, it'll probably make a lot of bigots here happy.

You know that's right.

[Peikko 1,575]

So then, name one of these 'bigots' who wishes for the destruction of Israel, preferably by nuclear strike?

[Yoink 7]

The world will wake up when Iran tests one or proves they have a functional one.

It ain't a Islamic/Israel thing... it ain't a Middle-Eastern thing.... it is a worldwide issue when governments wage proxy war against all nations and posses nuclear weapons while stating the desire to "wipe" nations off the world map..

[alienlovechild 75]

Will it take Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel to wake up the masses?

It's ok. Obama said he's got Israel's back. Barack. . . .Barack. . . where did go?

Off riding his unicorn on a rainbow headed for a pickup game of basketball.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Will it take Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel to wake up the masses?

It's ok. Obama said he's got Israel's back. Barack. . . .Barack. . . where did go?

Off riding his unicorn on a rainbow headed for a pickup game of basketball.

[Peikko 1,575]

JPost.com » Iran news » Article

Jan 27, 2009 17:25 | Updated Jan 27, 2009 20:59

IISS: Teheran could have nukes in '09

By ELANA KIRSH

Print Subscribe Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

E-mail Toolbar

Share article:

What's this?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Iran will most likely have produced enough enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb by the end of 2009, according to a paper released Tuesday by Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He clarified, however that before the uranium could be used for a nuclear weapon, it would have to be further enriched.

Fitzpatrick said that this reality brings up "the question of whether military action is needed in the absence of progress in diplomacy."

The London-based institute's report, titled "The Adelphi Paper" assessed that the Iranian nuclear threat "can only be solved if Iran makes a strategic decision not to seek a nuclear weapons capability."

"Based on Iran's past diplomacy, it can be expected to neither accept nor reject proposed restrictions, but rather to shunt them aside through non-responsive counter-proposals and endless negotiation and filibuster," Fitzpatrick surmised.

In the IISS report, Fitzpatrick concluded that the best way to minimize the threat from the Iranian Republic would be to reinforce the "cooperation or isolation" line. "If Iran continues to defy the [uN] Security Council, its enrichment program can be constrained and delayed by export controls, sanctions, financial pressure, interdiction and other means of exploiting Iran's vulnerabilities," said the report.

Echoing sentiments expressed by US President Barack Obama overnight Monday, Fitzpatrick said that, "The West, in particular the United States, should seek to engage Iran."

Meanwhile, another IISS statement released Tuesday advised Israel to find common ground with "moderate Arab states" to garner support for its battles against terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah.

"Israel's strategic goal should be to find a way by which it can develop greater legitimacy for itself among moderate Arab states, which could then offer fuller support to Israel in whatever ongoing battles it may have with non-state actors such as Hamas and Hizbullah," the statement said.

The statement also opined that upcoming Knesset elections and the settling-in period to follow would slow the process of reaching a peace agreement in the Middle East.

Addressing the Palestinian political sphere, the statement assessed that Operation Cast Lead in Gaza had raised Hamas's position of power, and caused "the proportionate decline in the reputation among Palestinians of Fatah." It added, however, that the change in the balance of power was likely temporary.

The statement noted that although Israeli deterrence may have been marginally restored by the IDF's operation, Hamas continued to pose a threat to Israeli security. "Moderate Arab states that see Hamas as a threat and as an Iranian proxy are placed in a difficult position," it added.

Will it take Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel to wake up the masses?

It's ok. Obama said he's got Israel's back. Barack. . . .Barack. . . where did go?

Off riding his unicorn on a rainbow headed for a pickup game of basketball.

You did read the article before commenting?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well we aren't going to war with Iran anytime soon, so a nuclear armed Tehran is something we're going to have to get used to.

That'll probably disappoint some of the psycho warmongers on here. Have to settle for getting their vicarious sexual thrills from 24.

[alienlovechild 75]

You did read the article before commenting?

This part?

In the IISS report, Fitzpatrick concluded that the best way to minimize the threat from the Iranian Republic would be to reinforce the "cooperation or isolation" line. "If Iran continues to defy the [uN] Security Council, its enrichment program can be constrained and delayed by export controls, sanctions, financial pressure, interdiction and other means of exploiting Iran's vulnerabilities," said the report.

Sanctions have been in place since 1979 and they are only slowing Iranian nuke development. It's not stopping it.

Well we aren't going to war with Iran anytime soon, so a nuclear armed Tehran is something we're going to have to get used to.

Iraq was bombed by the Israelis and it did put the Iraqi nuke program back for a long time. There was no war at the time. It's not a question whether the region can live with a nuclear armed Iran but if Iran can restrain itself from a knockout pre-emptive first strike on Israel, for example. Iran's has a enemies list longer than Nixon's so who knows how'll they'll act in a future showdown. It's not a TV show.

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

[sara..... 371]

Well we aren't going to war with Iran anytime soon, so a nuclear armed Tehran is something we're going to have to get used to.

That'll probably disappoint some of the psycho warmongers on here. Have to settle for getting their vicarious sexual thrills from 24.

seems to me we went to war with a country not to long ago because we THOUGHT they had nuclear war capabilities, and we never touched the country that we KNEW had them

maybe im stupid but seems we never touch the countries that arm them self......i think if Iran has it then they are pretty safe from us attacking them.................

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well we aren't going to war with Iran anytime soon, so a nuclear armed Tehran is something we're going to have to get used to.

That'll probably disappoint some of the psycho warmongers on here. Have to settle for getting their vicarious sexual thrills from 24.

seems to me we went to war with a country not to long ago because we THOUGHT they had nuclear war capabilities, and we never touched the country that we KNEW had them

maybe im stupid but seems we never touch the countries that arm them self......i think if Iran has it then they are pretty safe from us attacking them.................

Well... I didn't (ever) believe the guff about WMD in Iraq, and I don't think the administration did either - but they sold it on the basis of immediate threat because they knew that was the only way they could justify it.

The only political point of having nuclear weapons is as a means of deterrent.