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.
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
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.
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."
Originally posted by Mdv2
The report also assumes that the likelihood that Iran will transfer nuclear arms to terrorist organization is minimal.
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.
Originally posted by Mdv2
Additionally, this study perfectly proves the US/Israeli fear mongering propaganda to be false.
Originally posted by Mdv2
One problem though... with a nuclear Iran, Israel could no longer untroubled continue to humiliate its neighbors.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Originally posted by mrwupy
At the moment i'm more concerned about South Africa having nukes than Iran.
Just my opinion on it.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Togetic
Just because it acts rationally does not say anything about the quality of its leadership.
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?
Originally posted by Togetic
How has it humiliated its neighbors? It hasn't taken any actions outside of its borders in years.
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!
Originally posted by NoWarningShots
I always see people on here so happy to just bash on U.S. policy.
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.
Originally posted by NoWarningShots
And for those bashing Israel, they are a worthy ally and a force to be reconed with.
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
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.
Originally posted by NoWarningShots
My people know what they are doing and I think the U.S. is owed some good faith.
Originally posted by NoWarningShots
So what if no WMDs were found, dont try to say that Hussein was a good person,
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.
Originally posted by NoWarningShots
Iran keeps butting into are business and fighting opportunity we are trying to spread.
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.
Originally posted by NoWarningShots
If Iran wants to take hostile steps against what my grandfather fought for then they will be held accountable.
Originally posted by NoWarningShots
And for those bashing Israel, they are a worthy ally and a force to be reconed with.
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.