And Iran...Iran So Far Away?
It came from the 80's...
Recent CIA estimates pushed back previous estimates of an Iran with a weaponized nuclear program to as much as 10 years away. Not so say key members of Congress.
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) speaking to a pro-Israel audience stressed NOT suicide bombings or Palestinian terrorism or Israel’s future neighbor of Hamastan. It was Iran. Iran. Iran.
“A nuclear weapon going off in a major metropolitan area is the nightmare scenario for everyone. If you are looking for a state that has the technological ability to create nuclear weapons and missiles, and the national will to provide them to those who would strike the heart of the U.S.? Iran. Is. That. State.”
Rep. Kirk, a commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve and distinguished naval intelligence officer, and Rep. Israel now head up an Iran Study Group to bring options to the table on U.S. response to a suddenly nuclear Iran. Rep. Israel is founder and chair of the Democratic Study Group on National Security, and was appointed to chair the House Democratic Caucus Task Force on Defense and Military. Both also serve as assistant whips (being one of ten) for their respective party leadership.
“There are no good policy options,” said Steve Israel, a member of the Blue Dog Democrats. “We are looking for the least-worst policy option.”
What is our plan?
Kirk specifically noted that conventional wisdom in the House and the State Dept. is coalescing into two “camps” of policy directions.
Camp 1 is the “it’s too late” camp. We can’t stop it – it’s too far gone. The U.N. is useless and the IAEA spineless and we should just let them have it. We’re going to be stuck with a nuclear Iran, that’s the way it is. And so on. Camp 2 is the “Let Israel do it,” camp. They did it before. We know they can and that way we don’t have to get directly involved.
The problems with all of these options were brought up and then other options were discussed. Primarily the idea being that both of these create more problems than they solve and don’t ultimately solve the real problem of Iran, and in the latter’s case, directly implicate Israel specifically in a world-altering action of dubious nature at best.
Kirk’s idea is to establish a new Camp 3 – finding weaknesses in Iran that can be exploited and hopefully destabilize the mullahs government into something less anti-American. The main revealed weakness offered by Kirk is that Iran refinery capability is so poor they are a net importer of gasoline by 100,000’s of gallons a day. Finding a way to quickly and effectively embargo gasoline could cause economic ruin and force the fall of an already unpopular government.
Downsides to such a plan being that it could inflate already high gasoline prices further (not a automatic because it could also increase world supply), and such acts could also be spun in Iran as anti-Iran instead of anti-Mullah, driving the two sides together instead of apart.
Asked directly by an audience member, “How long do we have to, you know, ‘talk amongst ourselves’ here?” regarding the future of Iran’s weapons program.
For the creation of fissile material that can be transported easily, said Kirk,“probably about a year.” This one year time frame has been echoed by Israeli officials and various members of the IDF.
Missiles and warheads take a bit longer to incorporate but, with the Shahab-3 in production and tested, it seems clear that a nuclear Iran is actually not so far away.
Recent CIA estimates pushed back previous estimates of an Iran with a weaponized nuclear program to as much as 10 years away. Not so say key members of Congress.
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) speaking to a pro-Israel audience stressed NOT suicide bombings or Palestinian terrorism or Israel’s future neighbor of Hamastan. It was Iran. Iran. Iran.
“A nuclear weapon going off in a major metropolitan area is the nightmare scenario for everyone. If you are looking for a state that has the technological ability to create nuclear weapons and missiles, and the national will to provide them to those who would strike the heart of the U.S.? Iran. Is. That. State.”
Rep. Kirk, a commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve and distinguished naval intelligence officer, and Rep. Israel now head up an Iran Study Group to bring options to the table on U.S. response to a suddenly nuclear Iran. Rep. Israel is founder and chair of the Democratic Study Group on National Security, and was appointed to chair the House Democratic Caucus Task Force on Defense and Military. Both also serve as assistant whips (being one of ten) for their respective party leadership.
“There are no good policy options,” said Steve Israel, a member of the Blue Dog Democrats. “We are looking for the least-worst policy option.”
What is our plan?
Kirk specifically noted that conventional wisdom in the House and the State Dept. is coalescing into two “camps” of policy directions.
Camp 1 is the “it’s too late” camp. We can’t stop it – it’s too far gone. The U.N. is useless and the IAEA spineless and we should just let them have it. We’re going to be stuck with a nuclear Iran, that’s the way it is. And so on. Camp 2 is the “Let Israel do it,” camp. They did it before. We know they can and that way we don’t have to get directly involved.
The problems with all of these options were brought up and then other options were discussed. Primarily the idea being that both of these create more problems than they solve and don’t ultimately solve the real problem of Iran, and in the latter’s case, directly implicate Israel specifically in a world-altering action of dubious nature at best.
Kirk’s idea is to establish a new Camp 3 – finding weaknesses in Iran that can be exploited and hopefully destabilize the mullahs government into something less anti-American. The main revealed weakness offered by Kirk is that Iran refinery capability is so poor they are a net importer of gasoline by 100,000’s of gallons a day. Finding a way to quickly and effectively embargo gasoline could cause economic ruin and force the fall of an already unpopular government.
Downsides to such a plan being that it could inflate already high gasoline prices further (not a automatic because it could also increase world supply), and such acts could also be spun in Iran as anti-Iran instead of anti-Mullah, driving the two sides together instead of apart.
Asked directly by an audience member, “How long do we have to, you know, ‘talk amongst ourselves’ here?” regarding the future of Iran’s weapons program.
For the creation of fissile material that can be transported easily, said Kirk,“probably about a year.” This one year time frame has been echoed by Israeli officials and various members of the IDF.
Missiles and warheads take a bit longer to incorporate but, with the Shahab-3 in production and tested, it seems clear that a nuclear Iran is actually not so far away.
posted by JCH | 6:22 PM
<< Home