Iran is a long term diplomatic problem
You will not hear this sort of calm analysis from the administration, but then again we should not expect accurate analysis any longer.
Professor Cole:
UPDATE 1530 EST.
From CNN:
Professor Cole:
Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."
The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.
UPDATE 1530 EST.
From CNN:
"When the Security Council reconvenes [later this month], I think it will be time for action," Rice said. "We can't let this continue."This is a long term problem, and with the short term (and potentially long term) trouble in Iraq, America must address this diplomatically, for now. Perhaps the United States can act as a vocal vanguard pressing for action (with middle players in Russia and France?) but military action during this administration is most likely not necessary -- unless Iran were to cross a red line that I do not believe they intend to cross.
Rice did not elaborate on what type of action the Security Council should take, but senior department officials said it could include a move to impose a travel ban against Iranian officials and freezing assets of the regime.
The latter is already in effect in the United States, but a U.N. resolution on similar action would require approval of all 185 U.N. members.
Foreign ministers in Russia and Britain on Wednesday joined the United States in expressing concern about Iran's announcement.
posted by Bravo 2-1 at 1:16 PM
4 Comments:
I agree with this completely; for now at least, Iran is a diplomatic, not a military, problem. Even the most "optimistic" estimates say that it will take Iran two years to build a functioning a bomb, and most credible estimates are between 5 to 10 years. If we're lucky (God knows we need some luck with people like Bush in charge)Bush won't even be in office when it comes time to draw a line in the sand with Iran, if it ever comes to that.
Jason, this is a very small scale development indeed. It seems that Iran wants to build pressure. Our question must be: what is their purpose and what can we negotiate?
Xanthippas, I have added comments that agree with yours, in the update part of this post after the excerpt from Sec. Rice.
I hadn't noticed that you'd added a link to me until today. Don't know how long it's been there. I will happily reciprocate.
Oh, and I see you've got the Condi Rice hype, but did you see the state dept's Rademaker getting the headline that "Iran could have a nuclear bomb in 16 days?" I'm not kidding. Later in the article it says that's not he current capability, but it's just ridiculous hype. It's Bloomberg, I've got the link at my place at the bottom of the Iran/N Korea post.
Mike
Mike
I did, Mike, but I did not have time to add it to this post last night.
Thank you for the link.
Post a Comment
<< Home