Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

Israel vs Iran: the regional blowback

Paul Rogers. Open Democracy, 11 November 2011.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/israel-vs-iran-regional-blowback

Excerpt:

The near-unavoidable reality is that out of confrontation Iran will soon acquire a limited nuclear arsenal. This is because even a limited bombing of Iran will create a new dynamic where Iran is at the centre of the post-attack region; will have several new options to impose costs on its opponents; and will go full-tilt for its own deterrent.

If You Want Peace, Stop Clamoring for War

Kelsey Hartigan. Democracy Arsenal, 10 November 2011.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2011/11/if-you-want-peace-stop-clamoring-for-war.html

Excerpt:

If Romney believes that he can waltz into the Oval Office, give a few rough and tough speeches and suddenly Iran will open its doors to IAEA inspectors, well, he’s in for a rude awakening.

Belligerent rhetoric won’t solve the situation with Iran. In fact, most experts will tell you that it will make it worse. Threats of military action, or worse, actual military action, will only play into the hands of Iran’s hardliners…If a U.S. military presence was going to convince Iran to cooperate, I would have thought it would have happened by now.

10 Factors That May Lead to War With Iran

Brian Phillips. AntiWar.com, 9 November 2011.
http://original.antiwar.com/bphillips/2011/11/08/10-factors-that-may-lead-to-war-with-iran/

The Possibility of Global Zero: An Interview with Ambassador Richard Burt

Page van der Linden. Daily Kos, 14 February 2010.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/14/836829/-The-Possibility-of-Global-Zero:-An-Interview-with-Ambassador-Richard-Burt

A nuclear watchdog’s parting shots: A conversation with Mohamed ElBaradei

Joby Warrick. Washington Post, 06 December 2009.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402607.html

Excerpt:

There is no military solution. . . If a country is bombed, you give them every reason — with the support of everybody in the country and outside the country — to go for nuclear weapons, and nobody can even blame them.

Misunderstanding the Problem: Iran and Israel

Galrahn. Information Dissemination, 03 October 2009.
http://defensealt.org/He2SyU

Excerpt:

When I see the story saying “President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections,” I read it as not only protecting Israel’s right to have nuclear weapons, but Israel seeking assurances in writing that they have the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary… perhaps on a well protected nuclear facility.

After all, if Israel is willing to accept the risk of attacking Iran knowing full well a few conventional bombs could very easily cost the United States its strategic objectives in both Afghanistan and Iraq, efforts paid for with 8 years of American blood; Israel will make damn sure they destroy what they intend to in an attack on Iran. This whole issue is about whether Israel assesses that Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel. If the defensive purpose of nuclear weapons is to defend a country from being attacked with nuclear weapons, and defending Israel from potential Iranian nuclear weapon use against Israel is the issue here, then I think Israel use of nuclear weapons must be considered as part of the calculus.

Disbelieve Israel would go nuclear all you want, but Israels short, modern history is one of Israel consistently taking enormous risks, both politically and militarily. It is the rule rather than the exception, something we should not forget; particularly considering that the new buried and concealed nuclear site everyone is discussing is in Qom – a Shi’a Islam holy city.

An Extended Deterrence Regime to Counter Iranian Nuclear Weapons: Issues and Options

Richard L. Kugler. National Defense University, September 2009.
http://defensealt.org/Hcdxwe

Oil and U.S. National Security in the Persian Gulf: An “Over-the-Horizon” Strategy

Eugene Gholz and Daryl G. Press. presented at America and the World, a Tobin Project Conference at Airlie, 14-16 November 2008. Hosted on the Commonwealth Institute website.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/08Gholz&Press.pdf

Excerpt:

… an “over-the-horizon” approach would protect vital US oil interests without incurring the serious costs of the current strategy. It would counter the traditional military threats to Gulf oil interests as effectively as the current strategy, and it would do a better job mitigating the more serious future threats in the Gulf: terrorism against oil infrastructure and domestic instability within oil-producing countries. Furthermore, an over-the-horizon approach would bring US policy in line with American values.