Where is the "Iran must be prevented from acquiring NUKES!" coming from?

[bloom]

http://www.aipac.org/iran/

In their own words:

"For more than a decade, AIPAC has played a leading role in putting Iran's nuclear program at the top of the international agenda."

A summary: http://www.aipac.org/iran/legislative_timeline.html

and on the State Department website:

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/35281.htm

Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons


John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Remarks to the Hudson Institute
Washington, DC
August 17, 2004

I’m very pleased to be here at the Hudson Institute among so many old friends. Today I’d like to speak about Iran, which has concealed a large-scale, covert nuclear weapons program for over eighteen years, and which, therefore, is one of our most fundamental proliferation challenges.

All of Iran’s WMD efforts -- chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles -- pose grave threats to international security. Iran’s pursuit of these deadly weapons, despite its signature on treaties that ban them, marks it as a rogue state, and it will remain so until it completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantles its WMD-related programs.

In response to recent criticism that the Bush Administration has not been attentive enough to the nuclear threats emanating from Iran, let me just say from the very start of his Administration , the President treated Iran as a serious and growing threat to international security, as evidenced by his famous "Axis of Evil" speech. This Administration was at the forefront of warning the international community about the seriousness of Iran’s nuclear weapons program....blah blah blah...

Conclusion

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is moving it further and further down the path toward international isolation. We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or beyond. Without serious, concerted, immediate intervention by the international community, Iran will be well on the road to doing so.

the folks at the Heritage Institute are helping out:

Conclusion

Iran remains a dangerous revolutionary power determined to acquire nuclear weapons. No policy short of war is guaranteed to halt the Iranian nuclear program. The U.S. can frustrate Iran’s nuclear plans and drive up the economic, diplomatic, and political costs of obtaining nuclear weapons by working with other countries to impose targeted sanctions on Iran, contain it, and deter it from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons.

In the end, if Iran threatens U.S. vital national interests, the hard-line government in Tehran should have no doubt that the United States has the capacity and the will to use all the instruments of national power, including military force, to defeat that threat. The United States should be prepared both to preempt and to retaliate against any threats to its citizens and property or those of its allies.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/bg1903.cfm

his site pops up near the top:

Iran's Nuclear Weapons Are Almost Here
by James Dunnigan
May 5, 2004


...Millions of these seagoing shipping containers enter the United States each year. And Iranian Islamic conservatives still consider America the "Great Satan."

... But there's always the "Great Satan." Sending a nuclear weapon to the United States, and setting it off there, would be suicidal (analysis of the debris would likely identify its origins) because of American nuclear retaliation. Alas, there are still some really fanatical Shia clergy in the senior ranks of the Iranian government, who believe they are on a mission from God, and are willing to go to extremes to smite the enemies of Islam.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200455.asp

and then there's Kristol...

And Now Iran
We can't rule out the use of military force.
by William Kristol
01/23/2006, Volume 011, Issue 18


An unrepentant rogue state with a history of sponsoring terrorists seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction...

These are today's headlines about Iran, where the regime is openly pursuing its ambition to become a nuclear power. "But this time diplomacy has to be given a chance to work," the doves coo. "Maybe this time Israel will take care of the problem," some hawks whisper...

...We support serious efforts to help democrats and dissidents in Iran, in the hope that regime change can be achieved without military action from the outside. We support strengthening our covert and intelligence capabilities. And we support holding open the possibility of, and beginning to prepare for, various forms of military action.

...And President Bush and Condoleezza Rice are serious. They are now speaking with new urgency, since the Iranian government is testing us, and its nuclear program could well be getting close to the point of no return... Our adversaries cannot be allowed to believe that, because some of the intelligence on Iraq was bad, or because the insurgency in Iraq has been difficult, we will be at all intimidated from taking the necessary steps against the current regime in Tehran.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/585tdlqf.asp

[bloom]

1. Interesting how many foreign papers are having news about "Iran, Nukes"

compared to US news:

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=http://www.forward.com/articles/7235&hl=en



Tehran stands its ground
Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt - 3 hours ago

Groundhog day in Washington
Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt - 3 hours ago

Avoiding Iraq Fallout with Iran
Aljazeera.com, UK - 15 hours ago

World must unite against Iran on N-issue: Peres
IranMania News, Iran - 17 hours ago

Nuclear proliferation?
PakTribune.com, Pakistan - Jan 18, 2006

Israel Threatens not to Allow Iran's Nuclear Activities
Zaman Online, Turkey - Jan 18, 2006

Israel will not allow Iran to obtain WMD: Olmert
Malayala Manorama, India - Jan 18, 2006

Teherans Strategie, ein Report
Die Zeit, Germany - Jan 18, 2006

Doing nothing in Iran is not an option
Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Jan 17, 2006

Israel vows Iran won't get nuclear weapons
ABC Online, Australia - Jan 17, 2006

Iran can be stopped from obtaining bomb: Israel
IranMania News, Iran - Jan 17, 2006

Israel will not allow Iran to obtain WMD: Olmert
IranMania News, Iran - Jan 17, 2006

Olmert: Hostile nations can't own nukes
Jerusalem Post, Israel - Jan 17, 2006

No need for confrontation on Iran's nuclear program
Jakarta Post, Indonesia - Jan 16, 2006

[Poppyseedman]

2. Do you think Iran should have nukes?

The delusional rhetoric coming out of Iran isn't exactly making me comfortable with the Mullahs having a BIG RED BUTTON to push to make their point about how Israel needs to be relocated somewhere in Europe.

Maybe the the Jews can move back onto the old non existent concentration camps, the ones that Iran says the Holocaust never happened in ????

[bloom]

6. I don't think Iran is a threat to the world or to us...

and I don't think that AIPAC and/or the neocons should be running our foreign policy.

[Poppyseedman]

28. Is a Iran a threat to Israel ?

or is Israel expendable for peace?

[bloom]

35. I think Israel is really good at

propaganda - rather like BushCo. (BushCo. may have gotten some tips from them.)


What if Israel is not doing anything to promote peace with it's neighbors - or is doing the opposite? Do you think the US is required to bail them out?

Or if Israel thinks that Iran is a threat - that we have to go to war whether it is or not?


Will the US be obligated to obliterate every Muslim nation if that is what Israel wants?


Is the US expendable as long as Israel is OK?

[Egalitariat]

39. Israel could wipe the entire Arab* world off the map before lunch tomorrow

They don't need or want our help or permission, and they don't need us to bail them out.

Keeping nukes out of Iran's hands does not help the US nearly as much as it helps Iran.

* I realize Iran is not an Arab nation, but they have the same relationship with Israel as the rest

[bloom]

42. That could be

but it seems like it works better for them if we do it.


And if they didn't want any action from the US - I guess that the AIPAC people could all find different jobs. :shrug:

Actually they are hiring: http://www.aipac.org/jobs/



"AIPAC has done a magnificent job, better than anybody else lobbying in this town. …You have been stunningly effective."
-Former President Bill Clinton

http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html#say

[bpilgrim]

36. is Israel a threat to Iran?

or is Iran expendable for peace?

peace

[High Plains]

46. Israel is a threat to Iran

[LunaC]

31. FYI

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes….No state has successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to an NPT inspection regime.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty

Hope that puts your mind at ease.

[Hardrada]

3. Everyone knows "our" foreign policy is an AIPAC wish list.

Has been for ages. No one wants to talk about it though because they like the AIPAC campaign $$$. I don't see how this can be indefinitely prolonged.

[bloom]

7. It is funny how it isn't talked about

but if you go to their site - you see the agenda of the day.


They recently had some postings - saying Bush wasn't doing enough. It looks like they have been deleted. ( at least I couldn't find them).

[Hardrada]

25. I should check on their site. Good idea.

[bloom]

49. "AIPAC slams Bush's Iran policy"

Pro-Israel lobbying group criticizes Bush administration for reversing stance on Iran's nuclear program, failing to support bringing case before U.N.'s Security Council. New policy is disturbing and dangerous, AIPAC says in letter to Congress

Yitzhak Benhorin
12.25.05

American President George W. Bush's handling of Iran's nuclear program is "disturbing" and dangerous," pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) claimed this week in a letter circulated to supporters on Capitol Hill, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

AIPAC, which clashed with democratic and republican leaders in the past, has until now remained supportive of Bush and his administration, considered to be one of Israel's greatest allies.

However, the pro-Israel lobby set out to target Bush and his strategy, after the president recently reversed his stance on the Iranian issue, and decided to hold off pushing to report Iran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council....

Notably, what apparently prompted AIPAC to release the letter were recent statements by Israeli government officials expressing concern over Bush's handling of the Iranian case.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3189709,00.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Iran Should Absolutely Be Stopped From Having Nukes

How far off that capability is and can we achieve that goal peacefully is the question. For the sake of all I hope we can.

[bloom]

8. I think Kristol may have summed up the goals the best:

"We support serious efforts to help democrats and dissidents in Iran, in the hope that regime change can be achieved without military action from the outside."

IOW - it's all about regime change and us being able to control them (as if the US has the right to control every country on earth).

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. All I Care About Is Them Not Getting Nukes.

I only care that it can hopefully be done peacefully.

[bloom]

13. What do you think about

the PNAC agenda?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Obviously I'm Working Each Day Towards Dismantling Them And The Rest

of this criminal administration.

Two completely different conversations though.

[bloom]

17. Is it?

"Two completely different conversations though."

It seems that Iran's nukes and the US controlling Iran/Middle East are big PNAC agenda items. Several of the things I posted are related to neocons. And this is from the newamericancentury.org site itself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x187091#187241


How do you separate it out?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Cause Even If PNAC Ceased To Exist I Still Don't Want Iran To Have

any goddamn nukes. That's how. I look at it objectively.

[leftchick]

9. I can not help but think of Pakistan

that country will lose its little dictator by coup or assassination sometime soon and leave that country in the hands of hardliners. Then what happens to the nukes in Paki? Do we threaten them as well?

Iran does not have nukes as yet. Threatening force is not diplomacy. And threatening force accelerates nuke plans.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Methinks You May Have Misread Somewhere In The Post

that threatening force was diplomacy or something. Ya know, since what I said was the complete opposite and all.

[leftchick]

20. whoopsies!

I meant to respond to the OP. :blush:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. LOL Don't Sweat It, I Did That One Or Twice Myself

It's all good leftchick :)

[KansDem]

5. PNACers are helping out...

August 2, 2005


MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS


FROM: GARY SCHMITT


SUBJECT: A New Estimate on Iran’s Nukes


The headline for the lead story in the Washington Post today is, “Iran Is Judged 10 Years from Nuclear Bomb.” The story itself is based on leaked portions of a January 2005 national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Iran, whose annex apparently contains a revised assessment by American intelligence of the time Iran needs to produce a nuclear weapon. Previous estimates had Iran possibly producing a weapon in five years or less. There are several points worth noting about this story.


· First, the Post sets this revised estimate off against “forceful public statements by the White House” and “administration officials” that “Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal.” But, of course, the two are not in contradiction with each other. The fact that the intelligence community is increasing the estimated time it would take Iran to build a weapon does not undercut in any way the fact that Tehran seems determined to have nuclear weapons. As the story itself notes, a senior intelligence official “familiar with the findings said that ‘it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons.’”


· Second, it is difficult to take any comfort in this new assessment. The fact is – and as both the estimate apparently admits and the presidential commission on wmd recently reported – U.S. intelligence knows very little about what is going on Iran. In fact, according to the Post story, in 2002, the intelligence community prepared a paper on the possibility of “regime change” in Iran and “described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward democracy.” As events in Iran since then have made clear, just the opposite has happened. Moderates and so-called pragmatists have lost power, having been purged from Iran’s parliament and largely shut out of the presidential election.


Indeed, given how little we know, the intelligence community estimate is just as likely to be wrong as right when it comes to predicting Iran’s program. Remember, US intelligence on Iraq first missed how close Saddam was to having a bomb prior to the first Gulf War before overestimating Iraq’s wmd program in the run up to the second war. Interestingly enough, the Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that Israeli intelligence had also adjusted its estimates of Iran’s program. According to the paper, Israeli intelligence is now saying, “Iran will probably have a nuclear bomb by 2012, but could have the capability as early as 2008.” If Iran has a blueprint for a bomb in hand – which is not improbable given the already wide proliferation of a dependable Chinese design – then all that really remains to be done is for Iran to complete its uranium enrichment program.


· Third, lest we forget, one reason the Bush administration promulgated the possibility of military preemption in its strategic doctrine was the fact that, in this day and age, one could not count on timely warning of when states or terrorist groups might be on the verge of obtaining a devastating capability that puts America and its allies in serious danger. With denial and deception capabilities in our adversaries growing, and the seeming holes in U.S. intelligence’s collection capabilities, senior policymakers will rarely, if ever, be able to count on getting “date certains” to guide key decisions. All of which returns us to the fact that we have to keep an eye on the bigger picture: What kind of regime is Iran? What is the history we do know of its clandestine nuclear program? What are its avowed aims toward the U.S. and our allies? Why is it developing a ballistic missile warhead capable of delivering a nuclear weapon? And, last, what remains of its ties to and support for terrorists?


None of this means that the U.S. should be planning an attack tomorrow. There are numerous practical problems we would confront in carrying out that decision, even if that were in theory the right one to make. But it does mean that we have no reason to relax, nor can we postpone difficult decisions indefinitely.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20050802.htm

[bloom]

10. Thanks - that's a good addition to the collection.

:)

[sandnsea]

15. This is long-standing US policy

France and Germany don't want them to have nukes either. The world is supposed to be working towards nuclear disarmament, not escalation. Supporting nukes in any country is ridiculous. And most Democrats DO NOT support the US developing more nukes or even keeping the ones we've got once the rest of the world is disarmed.

There's no cause to be threatening Iran with talk of bombing and military force, but there's also no reason to support them having nuclear weapons either.

[bloom]

22. Of course this pre-emptive war thing

is a new policy.

So that makes the discussion somewhat different.


Not that the CIA, etc. didn't work on regime change in the past - but the concept of invasion/large scale bombing to reduce the possibility of possible threats has not been widely accepted in the past.


It's as if nukes are bad - but large scale bombings are not (as long as we are the ones doing it). I don't buy it.

[sandnsea]

27. "There's no cause to threaten bombing"

Did you miss this, intentionally ignore it, what???

[bloom]

30. since you asked...

the way you said

"This is long-standing US policy - France and Germany don't want them to have nukes either."

rather sounded like you were defending the policy - as if the policy were a given - or as if the rhetoric came from nowhere and that nobody was pushing it.

So I was responding to that.


I don' t know where you came up with the idea that people were advocating or "Supporting nukes in any country"

And so I may have started disconnecting listening to you at that point...

Though it's not surprising that Iran (and any allies it has) is at least making a case for itself to have nuclear power. And it's difficult for me to take seriously nuclear powers trying to stop others from having nukes. Even though I'm not surprised by any coercive action the US takes these days. It seems to be a given.



While I agree that

"There's no cause to be threatening Iran with talk of bombing and military force"

then you went back to

"but there's also no reason to support them having nuclear weapons either"

as if people were doing that.



The conclusion could be that so therefore we should just ignore what is going on :shrug: or not do anything. Not pressure/not support... or maybe you think we should pressure but not threaten and not support.

I wasn't really sure where you were at at that point.

I was just trying to respond to your message in a global sense - to where it seemed to lead.

[sandnsea]

34. You built an erroneous case

or at least it appeared to me you were. This nuclear thing with Iran is not a recent PNAC eruption, although they aren't capable of resolving peacefully. Beyond that, I'm just not willing to get into an entire Israel/Palestine/ME/Iran debate.

I also can't really reconcile not "stopping others from having nukes" with "ignoring what is going on. and not doing anything". Either there's something dangerous to address or no reason to stop others from having nukes.

I prefer letting them have the enriched uranium from Russia, or somewhere, myself. Unfortunately, we've got idiots in office who can't punch themselves out of a paper bag, let alone solve a routine foreign policy problem.

[LunaC]

32. About those "weapons" of which you speak.....

“IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…No state has successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to an NPT inspection regime.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty

[sandnsea]

41. I wrote this twice now

"There's no cause to threaten bombing" I didn't even say Iran had nuclear weapons. All I said is keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons has been US policy forever. So I don't know what your post was about. Except one might consider the reason no country has constructed a nuclear weapon in secret is because superpowers have insisted on strong oversight agencies.

[LunaC]

47. There's a distinction

between having nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

As you stated: "there's also no reason to support them having nuclear weapons either.

My response was to the assumption that weaponry is Iran's intention.

[sandnsea]

48. Then tell the OP

or maybe you did, but I was responding to that.

[oneighty]

16. It is good that

neither Israel nor Iran are nuclear powers. I hope it remains so.

180

[Karenina]

19. Excuse me, 180

Israel is armed to the teeth and DOES HAVE NUKES.

[oneighty]

24. In that case

nobody will be messing with them. Not even Iran.

I bet.

180

[LunaC]

33. Au contrare

Israeli nuclear 'power' exposed

Mordechai Vanunu, Israel's nuclear whistleblower, was jailed in 1986 for publishing photographs of Israel's nuclear bomb factory at Dimona. Olenka Frenkiel reveals the extent of Israel's nuclear gagging.

Note: Mordechai Vanunu was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2841377.stm

[NativeTexan]

23. As John Travolta's character said in "Swordfish"......

...."I'm talkin' about...MISDIRECTION"!!

Although, it just makes ME think...."why didn't we go to Iran FIRST, instead of IRAQ?"

[Hardrada]

26. Actually, we went to Afghanistan first

and that was supposed to catch the terraists so we would be safe. How did this other stuff sneak in there?

[PhilipShore]

29. PNAC and Bush Inc...

because they want the nuke technology issue, to become mainstream around the world (Bush Inc. wants Nuke technology in Iran).

[meganmonkey]

37. Thank you!!!

You'd think the last 5 years never happened, the way a lot of folks are talking!

:thumbsup:

[Emit]

38. And don't forget the warmongers and warprofiteers

As predicted last year, much of the Bush administration's nuclear review echoes an earlier report released by the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP). The NIPP report was directed by Dr. Keith Payne, whose main claim to fame is co-authoring a 1980s essay on nuclear war entitled "Victory Is Possible." Bush National Security Council staffers Robert Joseph and Stephen Hadley were involved in the production of the NIPP study, as was William Schneider, an informal advisor and ideological soul mate of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Bill Hartung's "Bush's Nuclear Doctrine: From MAD to NUTS?" http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0012nuclear_body.html)

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:lUheQF1rojMJ:www.commondreams.org/views02/0117-10.htm+Stephen+Hadley+Nuclear+Posture+Review&hl=en

In the 56 page classified NPR obtained by the LA Times and the New York Times, the Pentagon outlines a list of contingencies and targets where nuclear weapons might be used. Listing seven countries, China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria, as potential nuclear target, the leaked NPR indicates that4:

Nuclear weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."

The Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons during an Arab-Israel conflict, an Iraqi attack on Israel, or its neighbors, a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation between China and Taiwan (a scenario in which Chinese leaders may try to forcefully integrate Taiwan with the mainland China).

Countries such as Iran, Syria and Libya could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies requiring "nuclear strike capabilities."

The United States should be prepared to launch a nuclear strike to destroy stocks of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and chemical arms.

The NPR also suggests the need for developing a new generation of nuclear devices that could be integrated into U.S. war-fighting strategy for much wider uses than for deterrence. Specifically, it recommends development of new nuclear weapons called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNP) to be used against hardened and deeply buried targets such as caves or bunkers and suggests that U.S. may have to resume nuclear testing for development of these weapons.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:e22wwXxjI-EJ:www.psr.org/home.cfm%3Fid%3Dnuclear_posture+Pentagon%27s+Nuclear+Posture+Review&hl=en

At the sub-cabinet level, where real decisions get made and options for political leaders are skewed one way or another, the Bush administration is crammed with proponents of the use of tactical nukes. They include: Stephen Hadley, Bush's deputy national security adviser; Robert Joseph, a member of the National Security Council; Stephen Cambone, now a senior Pentagon policy planner; and William Schneider, another Bush defense counselor. These four co-authored a report published last year by the National Institute for Public Policy--a conservative think tank funded in part by the military-industrial conglomerates--declaring that "nuclear weapons can . . . be used in counterforce attacks that are intended to neutralize enemy military capabilities."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ff7_uwh26YcJ:indyweek.com/durham/2002-04-03/cover.html+Stephen+Hadley+Italy&hl=en


And check out Stephen Hadley, as discussed by robertpaulsen here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2046689&mesg_id=2050241

[bloom]

40. Thanks for that.

Stephen Hadley - he sounds like quite the case - I hadn't heard about the fraud thing....


"Bush’s Nuclear Doctrine: From MAD to NUTS?"

That sums it up pretty well.

[Swamp Rat]

43. From this creature:

[bloom]

44. Thanks - it's nice to put a face on it.

:hi:

[Kool Kitty]

45. It's coming from the same place as the

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" came from-they pulled it out of their ass.