Ashkenazi: Iran is radical, but not irrational - it may still curb nukes
Turkey and Iran officials reportedly meet on sidelines of Istanbul summit; Obama: Work still to be done.
By Haaretz Service Tags: UN Barack Obama Iran nuclear Israel newsIsrael Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said on Tuesday that he believed Western powers would succeed in stymieing Iran's contentious nuclear program, adding that the Islamic Republic is "not irrational" despite its extremist nature.
"The Iranian regime is radical, but it's not irrational," said Ashkenazi. "If the regime sees international insistence, its not illogical to assume that it will change its direction."
"In 2003, the Iranians halted their nuclear program after they understood that the Americans were on their way to Iraq, and knew that Iran was next in line," he added.
However, Israel is readying all options to try to force Iran to halt its atomic program, Ashkenazi told a parliamentary panel on Tuesday, an Israeli official said.
He said he expected world leaders to decide by the close of 2009 which course of action to take to try to stop the Iranian program, the official said, briefing reporters.
"We are readying all the options and decision-makers will have to consider which paths to take" to stop Iran's nuclear development, Ashkenazi told parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
Hinting Israel was still weighing a military option to stop what Israel sees as a plan to produce nuclear weapons - which Iran denies - Ashkenazi suggested diplomatic or economic sanctions may also help.
"If the Iranians understand they will have to pay a steep price, it wouldn't be illogical or unreasonable to say they may change their current direction," the official quoted Ashkenazi as saying.
Ashkenazi said Iran plays an active role in what he called a "battle being waged between radicals and moderates for hegemony in the Middle East" and is a key supplier of weapons to two arch enemy militias of Israel's - the Hezbollah guerrillas of Lebanon and the Islamist Hamas group in the Gaza Strip.
"We cannot protect the entire country with an iron dome," he said, using the name of an interceptor system for short-range rockets that Israel has plans to deploy in two years' time.
Meanwhile, Turkish and Iranian officials met secretly this week on the sidelines of an Istanbul summit, according to a Turkish daily.
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday that an unsettled political situation in Iran may be complicating efforts to seal a nuclear fuel deal between Tehran and major world powers.
Obama told Reuters in an interview that the United States had made more progress toward global nuclear non-proliferation in the last several months than in the past several years.
"But it is going to take time, and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues," he said at the White House.Obama said the United States, along with Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France, had made a "fair" offer to Iran that would allow it to have a legitimate civilian nuclear program while allaying suspicions that it was seeking to build atomic weapons. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for purely civilian purposes.
The proposal by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency calls for Iran to transfer about 75 percent of its known 1.5 metric tons of low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment by the end of this year, then to France for conversion into fuel plates for a Tehran reactor that produces radio isotopes for cancer treatment.
In talks with six world powers in Geneva on October 1, Iran agreed in principle to the draft deal.
But the deal has since stalled over details and goals and Iranian suspicions that any nuclear fuel sent abroad will not be returned to them."Although so far we have not seen the kind of positive response we want from Iran, we are as well positioned as we've ever been to align the international community behind that agenda," Obama said.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
The discussion of this thread was abruptly ended. No discussion of the last 50 years of human experience allowed. No discussion of the size of nuclear stockpiles that most nuclear powers agree by their actions are sufficient. Certainly it is impossible to note that since Israel developed a credible deterrent it has not had an existential threat. It appears that this thread has become too contrary to the national pathology to be indulged.
The Iranian press is no longer engaging in flights of fancy about the negotiations. Rather the coverage has become more sober and is noting that the US is giving some time to consider the proposal. Reading semi- or totally controlled news sources is often tedious, but after a while patterns appear. Technetium-99 doesn't sound important but there is a WORLD shortage right now due to the breakdown of a Canadian reactor. There is a growing shortage in Iran as well. . . .
"Iran is a great and spread country that can stand 1000 nukes" He who posts such a statement should at least refrain from using the term "logic".
"military exit will be barred by this single bomb, which could be INDEED launched incase of an Israel attack (with legitimacy)." I'm glad to see someone mention, at least in passing, Israel's true reason for wanting to halt Iran's program. It will not be able to attack without fear of retaliation. While I certainly understand why Israel would like to do whatever it pleases without any consequence, I see no reason why the U.S. and E.U. have to pay an arm and a leg for this Israeli privilege. P.S. Iran can survive "a 1000" nukes????? Be serious, please.
The first step was correct. The second one has a small flaw: you're implying 200 nukes will be enough to keep Iran form launching its bombs but Iran is a great and spread country that can stand 1000 nukes, while 1 nuke kills half of Israel. Also, if Israel wants to take any measure against Iran in the future, the diplomatic exit will be barred by the UN non-aligned majority and the military exit will be barred by this single bomb, which could be INDEED launched incase of an Israel attack (with legitimacy). Now you'll ask me: why would Israel take measures against Iran? Because it controls Hamas and Hizbullah and can send them whatever it wnats with this kind of dissuasion, which IS an existential threat, aswell as knowing Irna can get more countries to join the alliance by the classic dissuasion implying a nation that holds a nuclear head must be respected. I admit this was a bit hard to discern but in the end, that's pure logic. Also, the steps 3 and 4 are therefore false.
Iran is just acting rationally. They have to. And the worse part is the world is believing it and does not really care if Iran has nukes.... Yet.... Israel seems to be the only country right now that can see the threat and wants something done beofre its to late.
1. Premise: Iran is acting rationally 2. Hence Iran would not commit suicide by nuking Israel, which has 200 advanced nukes. 3. Hence the entire debate about Iranian nukes is not about a first order existential threat to Israel. Any such pronouncements are mostly propaganda. 4. Accordingly, the concern must instead be about jockeying for power and influence, and the perceived undesirability of a having another major hostile power in the region.