The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Iranian Nuclear Crisis

Text Size

Drudge has a sirens blaring headline screaming, "Iran Nuke 'This Year,'" though after reading the story he links to, it turns out the headline is unsurprisingly exaggerating things. The article cites a new report from the Institute for Strategic Studies concluding that "During 2009, Iran will probably reach the point at which it has produced the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb," however it cautions that, "being able to enrich uranium is not the same as having a nuclear weapon." Still, the report further undermines the controversial U.S. National Intellegence Estimate that said Iran had halted it's nuclear program six years ago.

Whatever the timeline, this issue will almost definitely be coming to a head within Barack Obama's first term. Right now, Likud's Benyamin Netanyahu is the favorite to become Israel's new prime minister after next month's elections, and in an op-ed in yesterday's Jerusalem Post, he wrote, "the outcome of one issue will prove more important to Obama's presidency than all others: Will his administration succeed in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?" To Israelis, the threat of a nuclear Iran is existential in a way that their conflict with Hamas or Hezbollah is not (though of course both groups operate through money and weapons they receive from Iran). No Israeli prime minister would allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons without taking action to stop it, and this is especially true if Netanyahu does go on to win.

Obama, famously, promised during the campaign to conduct face-to-face talks with the leader of Iran without preconditions, yet now in office, his new U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said they would be willing to engage in lower level direct talks only if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program. As Abe Greenwald pointed out, this is no different than the Bush administration policy. But a continuation of the Bush administration policy won't work, because Obama won't have the luxury of time.

View all comments (5) | Leave a comment

Thomas| 1.27.09 @ 12:49PM

Do not be lulled into a false sense of security concerning the timeline for Iranian nuclear development. A lot more is going on with this nation than nuclear enrichment.

In the last year, Iran has significantly strengthened its military forces, including anti-ship missile emplacements along the Straits of Hormuz. This makes it possible for Iran to close the Persian Gulf to most shipping for an unknown time, if they choose. In just the last few months, Iran has deployed anti-ship missiles and troops to Eritrea, making it possible for them to close the Red Sea in the same manner.

As for nuclear devices, there has been speculation that Iran may have obtained missile warheads from N. Korea. As all Iranian missiles are patterned after those of N. Korea, it is entirely possible for Korean warheads to be mounted upon Iranian missiles. And let us not discount the possibility of Russian nuclear munitions finding their way into Iranian arsenals.

Just this week, a shipment of Iranian arms was stopped enroute to Egypt, ostensibly for trans-shipment to Hamas in Gaza. Funding of international terrorist organizations, sch as Hamas, Hezbollah, et al. continues; possibly with monetary assistance from such countries as Venezuela.

Do not fixate upon Iranian nuclear enrichment. They are busy as beavers developing a solid strategic advantage in the Middle East.

Patriot| 1.27.09 @ 4:05PM

Iran does not have the capability to enrich uranium to the level (95%) that is required to make a bomb -- this according to U.N. inspectors. They are presently enriching to 3%, which is sufficient to run a nuclear power plant. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement and is abiding by it (U.S. and Israel are not). Any action, military or otherwise, that seeks to stop them from doing what they are legally cleared to do would be seen as an act of war. Iran is well allied with both Russia and China -- primarily with respect to energy sales -- and an attack on Iran could inflame either or both Russia and Iran against America. Our gullibility in this blatant propaganda onslaught initiated by unrepentant Neo-con terrorists, may well end up with us all dead in a World War Three. We must make a serious attempt to wake up from our brainwashing -- before it kills us. Clearly, psychopaths controlling Israel are ready and able -- and willing if you believe their public announcements -- to end life on earth as we know it, if they feel they need to to "protect" themselves from Iran. Like I said, they are completely NUTS, and it is time for the leadership of the U. S. to declare its independence from this band of psychos. But don't hold your breath; if Obama had intended to change any of this, he wouldn't have been installed to begin with.

Make out wills, stock up on food, and say your prayers: an attack on Iran will not look ANYTHING like the mass murder campaign against helpless Iraq. Many many Americans will suffer and die if "we" (U. S. leadership) makes this mistake.

Red Phillips| 1.27.09 @ 8:11PM

Good grief! Are we really supposed to believe the Institute for Strategic Studies over the U.S. NIE? Past failures seem to never deter the neocons. The War to overthrow the next Hitler Saddam didn’t work out quite according to plans, but no matter. They have other next Hitlers to slay. Attacking Iran would be the dumbest move in the history of dumb moves, not to mention grossly immoral. I liked the neocons better when they were just demonizing real conservatives. Now they are trying to get us all killed.