It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Israeli study: Iran seeks 'nuclear ambiguity,' likely to act 'logically'

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   

A new study on Iran and its nuclear program suggests that Tehran "is seeking to adopt a policy of nuclear ambiguity." The study, authored by Ephraim Kam and a team of researchers at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, will be presented at a conference on Wednesday on Iran's nuclear program, its implications and options for dealing with it.

...

The study also evaluates the chances that a military operation may be undertaken against the nuclear installations in Iran, and concludes that "this is a very problematic and complex operation that involves many risks including an open-ended Iranian response. Moreover, a military operation is not guaranteed. At this stage the political conditions are also not ripe for an operation, so long as the diplomatic efforts continue."

...

However, the report states that own must assume that a nuclear Iran will act logically, rationally evaluating the price and risks involved in its actions, and will not act out of religious-ideological motives. If one make this assumption, then one appreciates that Iran's motives for acquiring nuclear weapons "are defensive, [and are to be used] against Iraq in the past and against the U.S. today."

Such an explanation can be added to its strategic goals of achieving regional hegemony and to bolster the domestic position of the Iranian regime.

"It is reasonable to assume that also in the future Iran will opt to retain this type of weapons as a final card to use against extreme threats, and that the elimination of Israel is not considered to be an essential interest worthy of using such weapons."


The report also assumes that the likelihood that Iran will transfer nuclear arms to terrorist organization is minimal.

Source


I could have been the author of this report since I've been saying exactly the same for more than a year now.

A nuclear Iran to bolster its political position, not driven by religious zealots and no motive to wipe Israel off the map.

Additionally, this study perfectly proves the US/Israeli fear mongering propaganda to be false.

One problem though... with a nuclear Iran, Israel could no longer untroubled continue to humiliate its neighbors.

Western pressure on Israel to improve the living hell has never resulted in anything. Israel does not care about UN resolutions, while they want Iran to perfectly obey them. Perhaps Iranian pressure could improve the situation as it will be the first country able to fire nuclear warheads into Israel.




[edit on 5-2-2007 by Mdv2]




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I for one think that Iran should have nuclear capabilities to rival Israels or Israel should be completely disarmed and put under sanctions.
Why bitch at Iran for trying to proliferate when you got a crazy little country next door to it that has the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal at its disposal and has ample nuclear abilities of its own?

They always talking about stability in the middle east and the fact Israel has nukes and the US backs Israel like a lapdog, civil and regional disputes aside, Israels irresponsible behaviour linked with its abnormaly high power (because it has the US to back it) is the main reason WHY there is instability in the greater middle east.

If you get someone in the Middle East that can keep Israel leveled, stability will come by itself.
As long as Israel has an unfair advantage and keeps acting like the highschool bully, the middle east will stay unstable.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
A good study that blow off the propaganda machine. They should air this report on all news stations without spin... that would be a big NO-NO for an attack on Iran. And people would be aware that it's a fraud and Iran is NOT a threat.

I hope this study have effects on the zionist and american government to stop their warmongering. But I fear they won't care, the Iraq Study Group was a easy way out for Bush, but he didn't take it... we'll see soon enough what the medias and administrations will do of this report. And after all, the UN showed that the whole spin about nuclear weapons was fraud, but the government dismissed the report...

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
On the other hand, its the constant barrage of reports like these that will embolden Iran to continue ignoring the UN And researching nuclear materials.

Every man and his dog has alerted the world that hitting Iran is a bad, bad bad move that will bring further carnage to an already anarchy type situation.

Why else has Iran been stating '' there's little chance of military action ''

Its a quagmire...

Its not that I think we should stop being honest.. but...

jee's I dunno...

i almost wish they'd just stop putting this bs out in the media,i mean does it really matter any more what the public thinks they think, or hears?

We could be kept in the dark on everything, a gag order could be placed on everyone.. but im sure the US will still do, what ever they are planning on doing.

Iran, like Iraq.. had military action against them decided long before they told the world they had no other choice.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2


Such an explanation can be added to its strategic goals of achieving regional hegemony and to bolster the domestic position of the Iranian regime.


I don't think it's about Iranian hegemony, but equal standing with Israel in terms of capability in overall defence.


Originally posted by Mdv2
"It is reasonable to assume that also in the future Iran will opt to retain this type of weapons as a final card to use against extreme threats, and that the elimination of Israel is not considered to be an essential interest worthy of using such weapons."


In the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, I agree.


Originally posted by Mdv2
The report also assumes that the likelihood that Iran will transfer nuclear arms to terrorist organization is minimal.


One, because Iran knows the potential consequences of being found to be involved, and two if referring to Al-Qaeda, there is near ancient-mutual enemy division in their different Islamic beliefs and mutual hatred of each other as a result. Iran wants to see Al-Qaeda destroyed, and vice versa.



Originally posted by Mdv2
A nuclear Iran to bolster its political position, not driven by religious zealots and no motive to wipe Israel off the map.


Precisely.


Originally posted by Mdv2
Additionally, this study perfectly proves the US/Israeli fear mongering propaganda to be false.


Agreed.



Originally posted by Mdv2
One problem though... with a nuclear Iran, Israel could no longer untroubled continue to humiliate its neighbors.


If a nuclear Iran makes Israel hesitatate before repeating the scenes in Lebanon last summer and actions there in previous years, and if it makes Israel hesitate before treating Palestinians like subhumans and vermin, then so be it.


Originally posted by Mdv2
Western pressure on Israel to improve the living hell has never resulted in anything. Israel does not care about UN resolutions, while they want Iran to perfectly obey them. Perhaps Iranian pressure could improve the situation as it will be the first country able to fire nuclear warheads into Israel.


All the UN resolutions Israel has broken and that have been forgotten and ignored shows for one the double standards of the UN through being corrupted and weakened by the US, and two as a result, the UN's impotence in not confronting such double standards and corruption and the abuse of the UN system that are attempts and too often successes to meet individual nation's wants and desires.

I wonder how much this report will receive coverage in Israel, and indeed the US.

I wonder.





[edit on 5-2-2007 by Regensturm]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
On the other hand, its the constant barrage of reports like these that will embolden Iran to continue ignoring the UN And researching nuclear materials.


Perhaps if the UN was even-handed and dealt with Israel, for example, the same way as it does with Iran, and perhaps if the UN was not so often underminded by the US, perhaps Iran would have more ears for the UN.

You can't completely blame Iran if it does not trust the UN or follow it obediently, when it sees the UN in action in regarding Israel, and the US influence there.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm
Perhaps if the UN was even-handed and dealt with Israel, for example, the same way as it does with Iran, and perhaps if the UN was not so often underminded by the US, perhaps Iran would have more ears for the UN.

You can't completely blame Iran if it does not trust the UN or follow it obediently, when it sees the UN in action in regarding Israel, and the US influence there.


The example hereunder underlines what you are saying:


The UN General Assembly on Friday night overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the errant shelling of a Beit Hanun house which killed some 20 Palestinians.

Representatives of 156 countries voted in favor of the resolution, seven objected and six abstained.

Voting "no" were the United States, Israel, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Abstaining were Canada, Ivory Coast, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

Europe's envoys cast their votes unanimously in favor of the resolution.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman walked out of the session in protest, saying his words were falling on deaf ears and that he was better off holding a nearby press conference.

The United States ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, warned member states against approving the proposal, saying it would undermine the organization's relevance." Such a decision will only strengthen the widespread doubts regarding the UN, and lead many to conclude that the global organization cannot fulfill a role in the region," said Bolton.

Bolton called the resolution "one-sided" and said its adoption would only "increase tension and serve the interests of those hostile to Israel and that do not accept Israel's right to exist.

Bolton also slammed the UN Human Rights Council, based in Geneva, which called Wednesday for an inquiry into the Beit Hanun shelling.

Haaretz



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I don't really care what they want a weapon for. Here is how things go in my mind. If they don't have a nuclear weapon then im good because they can't use one on me. If they did have one then I need to look out for them because they can use one against me.

There is no middle ground here. Life is not fair. To anyone thinking everybody should just be able to build what ever they want or do what ever they want is being mislead. We do not live in a world where everything is nice. Everything is based on what you can do and what you can not do. The whole world is better off if Iran dose not have nuclear weapons.

Im not just going to go along with whatever sombody tells me and say, oh ok well maybe they should be able to build nuclear weapons. No way, look at things with way... The more counties with nuclear weapons means the world as we know it is going to end faster. Im starting to think some of you who want Iran to be able to make nuclear weapons have a death wish. Do you realise what a nuclear weapon is made for? I nuclear weapon is made to kill people, destroy buildings, ruin lives. That is it's only function. The only thing it is good for. The reason it is made.

If somebody has a gun and they are trying to start a fight with me, I would rather then not have that gun. If they don't have the gun then they can't shoot me.

Styki



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Ok, interesting read. But I must say it would be a bit naive to believe that those in charge of Iran(the religious council) wouldnt also be in charge of any weapons that could possibly be produced if that is indeed the aim of Irans nuclear program, which you can make cases for or against. I cant say I trust that Supreme Council any more than I would really trust the Saudis with nukes. Israel may very well have nuclear weapons as evidence suggests but have not used them and keep the numbers they own a secret.

Israels endeavor to acquire nuclear weapons was concieved because of observations from WW2. Especailly the observation of the Japanese soldiers resolve to fight to the death, which was ended with the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israelis felt that if the Arabs adopted the same ideology that the only way to defeat them was with the ultimate deterrent, the bomb. Through espionage in the US, and cooperation of the French, the Israelis were able to reach their strong strategic and tactical positions they have today. This article I found gives a good analysis of Israels pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Israels Nuclear Program

[edit on 2/5/2007 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
A nuclear Iran to bolster its political position, not driven by religious zealots and no motive to wipe Israel off the map.

Just because it acts rationally does not say anything about the quality of its leadership.


Additionally, this study perfectly proves the US/Israeli fear mongering propaganda to be false.

This creates a logical fallacy. Why would the US and the Israelis want to release a report that contradicts their propaganda, unless they believed in good faith what they were saying?


One problem though... with a nuclear Iran, Israel could no longer untroubled continue to humiliate its neighbors.

Western pressure on Israel to improve the living hell has never resulted in anything. Israel does not care about UN resolutions, while they want Iran to perfectly obey them. Perhaps Iranian pressure could improve the situation as it will be the first country able to fire nuclear warheads into Israel.

How has it humiliated its neighbors? It hasn't taken any actions outside of its borders in years. I agree that Israel has not been consistent on its resolutions, but how does the presence of weapons increase stability? There is an undisputed history of aggression on the part of Arab states against Israel, how do such weapons decrease the possibility of another attempt to attack Israel?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Seems that article disappeared. I know it was there earlier because I read it on Haaretz's website. The link now leads to an old article. Amazing isn't it how things just up and disappear when it doesn't go along with the bandleaders choice of music!


Pie



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
This is a tough call for me. History has shown that every country that ever achieved nukes has taken on the awesome responibility that has gone with it. Not since WWII have they been used in combat and quite frankly prevented war on more than one occasion. Remember MAD? (mutually assured destruction.)

If Iran actually had the bomb it might be forced to grow up.

On the other hand more nukes in the world means there will always be a greater danger of them being used, MAD be damned.

Like I said, this is a tough call for me.

At the moment i'm more concerned about South Africa having nukes than Iran.

Just my opinion on it.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Iran getting nuclear weapons will continue to destabilize the Middle East. I can just see what the Sunni countries will start doing once Iran gets nuclear status. And I can just see what will happen when/if the US leaves Iraq. It will be a battle ground for Sunni (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) and Shia (Iran) countries.

It would be great if they had nuclear weapons too. The Middle East is ready for them. They are still involved in religious wars!



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
At the moment i'm more concerned about South Africa having nukes than Iran.

Just my opinion on it.


If you recall Israel did give nukes to then Apartheid Africa, and they recanted and dismantled the nukes. Thankfully this was done before all the madness there.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I always see people on here so happy to just bash on U.S. policy. Who saved the world in WWI and in WWII? The United States did and with the losses my country took to help these countries we made it a vow that we would never let things get that bad ever again. My people know what they are doing and I think the U.S. is owed some good faith. So what if no WMDs were found, dont try to say that Hussein was a good person, and do not say that the people in Iraq wont be better by our involvement in the establishment of a democracy. Iran keeps butting into are business and fighting opportunity we are trying to spread. You really think that our soldiers want to die for nothing? They don't and they won't. They will die as heroes fighting to give Iraqs next generation a brighter future. If Iran wants to take hostile steps against what my grandfather fought for then they will be held accountable. And for those bashing Israel, they are a worthy ally and a force to be reconed with. And moreover they would have already taken out Iran a long time ago if we didn't insist upon first trying to find a diplomatic solution. I know I am going to hear about this and look forward to it.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoWarningShots
I always see people on here so happy to just bash on U.S. policy.

So what if no WMDs were found, dont try to say that Hussein was a good person, and do not say that the people in Iraq wont be better by our involvement in the establishment of a democracy.


Well gee with people like you going around saying "So what" as if you just bought a dozen eggs and found one cracked when you got home, its no wonder why people bash US Policy and Americans. Sorry but we told the world we were going to Iraq because there was a threat of Nuclear devices or other Weapons of mass destruction being launched from Iraq to land on our shores. We did not tell the UN, the people of the world that we were going to Iraq to "bring freedom and democracy" to the people there. You are falling for your own baloney....it was an afterthought and nothing else.




And for those bashing Israel, they are a worthy ally and a force to be reconed with.

A Worthy ally? Here it is you are blathering on about how your father fought in WWII for Iraq and now you excuse a country that killed over 38 of your fellow countrymen and attacked one of our vessels (The USS Liberty) for over 2 hours, as well as attempted to sell nuclear secrets to our enemies,gave nukes to apartheid south african government, has resold surplus helicopters to drug cartels in South America, and sent hundreds of spies to not only steal state secrets but technology and manufacturing secrets as well. Yes such a worthy ally




And moreover they would have already taken out Iran a long time ago if we didn't insist upon first trying to find a diplomatic solution. I know I am going to hear about this and look forward to it.


Well of course they haven't...Iran is someone that can fight back. Why would they risk their own skins when they will wait for our children to be sacrificed.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   


I always see people on here so happy to just bash on U.S. policy. Who saved the world in WWI and in WWII? The United States did and with the losses my country took to help these countries we made it a vow that we would never let things get that bad ever again.


Or took advantage of the situation to further their own interests. Weren't the Bushes supporting Hitler? We need a more objective perception on U.S intervention in the world wars. The united states helped save the world along side many other countries. Stop with this egocentricism. The U.S has been involved in just about very dirty war subsequently and continues to arm and supply dictators abound.

Delusional reactionaries.

Luxifero



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Just because it acts rationally does not say anything about the quality of its leadership.


The Ayatollahs have been in power since the late 70s. Since then, Iran has never been an aggressive factor, why would they suddenly be one now? Just because the US and Israeli propaganda machine say so?


Originally posted by Togetic
This creates a logical fallacy. Why would the US and the Israelis want to release a report that contradicts their propaganda, unless they believed in good faith what they were saying?


I beg to differ. Not every think tank is under direct governmental supervision. This is an independent study.


Originally posted by Togetic
How has it humiliated its neighbors? It hasn't taken any actions outside of its borders in years.


I'll refrain from going into detail, but you might want to research the fact that Israel occopies large parts of the West Bank. Not to speak of the war in Lebanon, a sovereign nation.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
It would be great if they had nuclear weapons too. The Middle East is ready for them. They are still involved in religious wars!


When Iraq invaded Iran back in the 80s and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, Iran refrained from doing so, even though they did possess the weapons. Asserting they would use them now is a baseless claim.


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
I always see people on here so happy to just bash on U.S. policy.


Happy? I criticize your government for putting my, the American people and many others at risk. Are you aware of the mess in the Middle East? The US policy is primarily responsible for this.


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
Who saved the world in WWI and in WWII? The United States did and with the losses my country took to help these countries we made it a vow that we would never let things get that bad ever again.


Perhaps that's what they teach you in America, but without the Soviet Union we, the Western world, would probably haven't won the war. Besides, the allies won the war, which includes more than American alone. Saying that the US saved the world is nonsense. The US did play a major role in defeating the evil but so did the Soviet Union, Canada, Britain and local resistance.

Furthermore, the fact that the US is one of the countries liberated the world from the Axis does not give the US an infinite license to do what it wants.

Good faith? Western society has supported the US for decades. Since Bush took office this support suddenly started to fade. Guess why?


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
And for those bashing Israel, they are a worthy ally and a force to be reconed with.


Some people cannot stand criticism, I have noticed that before
.

Perhaps you should read this:


In a recent essay published by the American Jewish Committee, reflecting widely shared attitudes, Jews who criticised Israel and its policies were accused of stirring anti-Semitism. The executive director of the committee said "those who oppose Israel's basic right to exist, whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted".

It is clear, however, that a growing number of concerned Jews in the United States and Britain are no longer staying silent in the face of Israeli policies in Palestine and Lebanon.

A new organisation has just been launched in Britain giving voice to such Jews, for example. Independent Jewish Voices includes prominent British figures such as the historian Eric Hobsbawm and the Nobel Prize-winning playwright Harold Pinter. Hobsbawn told the Independent: "It is important for non-Jews to know that there are Jews who do not agree with the apparent consensus within the Jewish community that the only good Jew is one who supports Israel."

Source



That's what the hardliners on here share: the only good Jew [human being] is one who supports Israel."



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoWarningShots
I always see people on here so happy to just bash on U.S. policy. Who saved the world in WWI and in WWII? The United States did and with the losses my country took to help these countries we made it a vow that we would never let things get that bad ever again.


What on earth are you talking about?

The US saved the world in WW1?

Erm nope...the US just helped one side win land instead of the other side win land. Nothing about saving the world, just joining the side who looked like it was going to win by 1917.

The US saved the world in WWII?

Saved the world from Nazism, yes but not single-handedly, there was a coalition called 'The Allies', heard of them? In fact, we have more to thank the Soviets than the US for getting rid of the Nazis, and if you are talking about losses to justify your view, perhaps you should remember around 20 million Soviets died against the Nazis.

I could go into how the US at a time of depression made a nice tidy profit from WWII, helping it become a superpower.

Saving the world indeed.....I see no Captain America.


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
My people know what they are doing and I think the U.S. is owed some good faith.


Good faith does not come from lying, or pursuing greedy interests.


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
So what if no WMDs were found, dont try to say that Hussein was a good person,


No Saddam was not a nice person, but the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq was that it was because Saddam had WMD's and was a threat.

Lies on both counts. Saddam was actually weak. Neighbouring nations knew it.


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
and do not say that the people in Iraq wont be better by our involvement in the establishment of a democracy.


Yep! Iraqis are better off now! Their country has been destroyed and fractured, and if they are not getting shot, they are getting blown up by different people!

But never mind that! Heeeeeeeeeeeere's democracy! Never mind you don't have running water or electricity or security or can not go out without being shot or blown up, at least as you try to stay alive you can vote!

Forget that the government is Shia Tyranny by majority, and Sunnis don't get a say!


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
Iran keeps butting into are business and fighting opportunity we are trying to spread.


The US butted into Iran's backyard and border and created hell. Iran is ensuring a friendly government will be in place, so far Iran have got what they wanted there.

Attack Iran, and the Shias in Iraq (including those in the Iraqi government who have Shia death squads at their proposal to cleanse areas of Sunnis) will unleash their anger.


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
You really think that our soldiers want to die for nothing? They don't and they won't. They will die as heroes fighting to give Iraqs next generation a brighter future.


They will die as those willing to die for their country, but often little knowing it was a war for oil and geopolitical positioning, that they were used and abused like the Iraqis themselves for ulterior motives other than the ones given.

Shame on the NeoCons.


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
If Iran wants to take hostile steps against what my grandfather fought for then they will be held accountable.


As I see it, the ones taking hostile steps against what MY grandfathers, their brothers and brother in laws fought for are the US and those who follow the US, and they should be held accountable.



Originally posted by NoWarningShots
And for those bashing Israel, they are a worthy ally and a force to be reconed with.


Hezbollah proved that of course militarily, and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians proves that morally, right?


Originally posted by NoWarningShots
And moreover they would have already taken out Iran a long time ago if we didn't insist upon first trying to find a diplomatic solution.



Actually, it's the EU who have been seeking diplomacy, all the US do is bellow rhetoric, barely restraining Israel, because the US know if bombs fall on Iran from Israel, bombs will have a good chance of falling on Israel from Iran.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Regensturm]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join