Only military action will halt Iran's nuclear push

[genieroze]

Patience can kill

Be Our Guest

Only military action will halt Iran's nuclear push

By LOUIS RENE BERES

From the start, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been perfectly clear about one thing: He has absolutely no plans to comply with international law and stop the rush to arm his country with nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council has given Iran until Thursday - tomorrow - to suspend uranium enrichment. Completely ignoring this mandate at every turn, Ahmadinejad's latest response has been to call for a debate with President Bush on world affairs.

The silliness of that offer is trumped only by the weakness, to date, of the United Nations' reaction. The toughest proposal before the UN is to force serious sanctions upon Iran. But anyone who understands the Iranian regime knows that sanctions will have no real effect on the pace of Iranian nuclearization. Sanctions won't work on this oil-rich nation that obviously has no need for peaceful nuclear energy and that still displays an all-consuming drive to acquire nuclear weapons.

This leads to an unavoidable conclusion: if Iran stalls instead of dealing - and all indications are that this is exactly what they are going to do - the world is wasting time with anything short of a military strike aimed at Iran's growing nuclear infrastructure.

Otherwise, we will be complicit in welcoming Ahmadinejad's regime into the nuclear club. Exactly how soon that will happen, no one knows - but no one who cares about the region's security should be content to wait and find out.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/447721p-376936c.html

look who wrote it

"Beres is professor of political science at Purdue University and is chair of Project Daniel, a group advising Israel's prime minister on nuclear matters."

[havocmom]

1. Paraphrasing the lines the junta used to sell invasion of Iraq

Lies and propaganda.

And a lot of people understand that point. Oct surprise, anyone?

[Taxloss]

2. It's simply not true that only military action can stop Iran.

There are any number of peaceful ways the regime can be deterred from obtaining a nuclear arsenal, but the fact is that if Iran really wants nukes, the military option is as unlikely to work as any other.

However, I don't blame an Israeli nuclear adviser for being dead-set against Iran getting the bomb, and hawkish! He is, however, wrong.

[classysassy]

11. Only Isreal can have nukes in the middle east

what kind of crap is that,if the arab states and Iran had nukes it would deter,Isreal from attacking any arab or muslim state they please.

[rodeodance]

3. not good.

[bowens43]

4. These freakin idiots just don't get it.

[yurbud]

10. they get it. These are excuses not reasons. The reason is oil.

nukes is the excuse.

[orwell]

5. Iran wants...

...what we and many other nations already have, a nuclear arsenal to deter outside aggression. They see it as a matter of national survival, the same way we do. I don't agree with the whole concept for either them or us, but I understand why they do.

After all, if its good enough for us...

[Sir Jeffrey]

6. My god...

is this the kind of attention to detail they teach at Princeton?

"From the start, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been perfectly clear about one thing: He has absolutely no plans to comply with international law and stop the rush to arm his country with nuclear weapons."

Does he have evidence that nobody else on earth does? Iran is NOT PURSUING NUKES!

Also, Iran is legally ENTITLED under intetrnational law, as a signatory of an international treaty, to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The current western position is contrary to international law.

BTW I love it when US citizens and pseudo-intellectuals decry the violation of international law when the US and Israel are the absolute worst violators of international law since WWII. But that is moot because Iran isn't even violating international law.

"Let's stop kidding ourselves. Iran must be stopped immediately from acquiring atomic arms, and this can only be accomplished through what international law calls "anticipatory self-defense."

Anticipatory self-defense is recognized under a very strict standard of "preemption". What this pseudo-intellectual is arguing is "preventative war", which was declared "the supreme international crime" at Nuremburg. Either he doesn't know this distinction, which means he is too stupid to comment on issues like this, or he knows this distinction and is lying. Either way, giving this guy a big microphone is a joke.

"Yes, it's true that, given the terrible mess in Iraq, many are queasy about such terms. But we must not shy away from tomorrow's threat because of mistakes we may have made yesterday."

Water under the bridge, eh?

"I acknowledge that even the most successful act of military preemption against Iran would result in large numbers of civilian casualties (because of the deliberate Iranian policy of placing military assets in the midst of civilian populations)."

My favorite quote. Let me paraphrase:

"How dare the Iranian city planners lay out their cities in a manner that inconveniences western bombing runs."

Good thing this guy has a good degree. If he had to rely on his intellect and attention to detail, he'd be mowing my lawn.

[teryang]

7. Obviously has no need for peaceful nuclear power?

And who decided this? This at bottom is the fear of Israel. The fact is Iran wants peaceful nuclear power to diversify their energy grid. By having that power they have more hydrocarbons to export. The additional electricity makes development of other economic sectors possible. By exporting more, they accumulate more currency reserves and national power.

They might actually remain a sovereign state, not subject to threats or intimidation from the west. They might also develope a more effective military capable of defeating invaders. They don't need nuclear arms. China and Russia are not going to allow an outside power like the US obtain control of Iranian territory or resources, nor will they stand by and do nothing while Israel or the US attacks.

[genieroze]

8. My own opinion is Israel wants us to attack Iran for them.

[Boo Boo]

9. Would Ahmadinejad be President if we hadn't invaded Iraq and

made sure Iran knew they were next on the list?

The biggest problem the ruling Mullahs of Iran used to have was internal dissent and pressure to liberalize. Now, their biggest problem is Ahmadinejad. That freak goes to bed at night and dreams of being The War President. Then he'll be able to give the Mullahs the finger just like Bush gives Congress the finger. We attack Iran, and that guy will go from being a figurehead president to running the show.

He wants us to attack Iran.

[yurbud]

12. they rallied around their right wing loonies just as we did after 9/11