Foxy,

Here are the facts:

--Iran now has the capability to enrich uranium

--Iran claims it wants this capability for a civilian nuclear program and that it has no interest in producing nuclear weaponry

--Iranian protestations notwithstanding, the equipment Iran has installed does have the capability to enrich uranium up to weapons grade

--Weapons grade fissile material is the chief obstacle to acquiring nuclear weapons. Given an adequate supply of suitably enriched fissile material, building a nuclear weapon is a routine engineering problem for a competent engineer.

--In other words, Iran has now acquired the capability of developing and deploying nuclear weapons in fairly short order. Maybe in a couple of years. We have only their word for it that they do not intend to do this.

None these facts are in dispute except among people who practise "see no evil" when it comes to Israel's foes.

Will the Iranians actually develop nukes?

My guess is yes. The massive resources devoted to the program make it unlikely that this is purely for civilian power generation. It's too expensive for that.

Will the Iranians use nukes against Israel?

That is the $64 billion question.

I doubt it. The corrupt and cowardly mullahs are willing to send gullible young men to their deaths but PROBABLY will not want to be vaporised themselves.

But can we count on the death cult that rules Iran to remain rational?

I don’t know.

Neither do you.

Neither does Anthony Lowenstein.

Nobody knows.

And therein lies the problem.

Where nukes are involved there is no margin for error.

If the finger on the button is Ahmadinejad's there is reason wonder whether he will remain rational.

If the PM of Israel is told there are incoming missiles from Iran he has FIVE MINUTES to decide whether to respond with a nuclear salvo.

If the PM of Israel receives credible intelligence that Iran MAY be preparing a strike he has no choice but to strike first in the hope of averting the blow.

He can debate morality later.

Dear Steven,

I hear what you're saying but
what Antony Loewenstein says
also makes sense to me.

"A threatening and militarily aggressive
Israel ignores the geographic and political
realities of the Middle East.
Any kind of strike against Iran would unleash
unfathomable consequences..."

and

"...the International Atomic Energy Agency
has yet to produce evidence of a covert
nuclear program in Iran..."

We'll have to agree to disagree on this
one Steven.

I feel that a nuclear-free
Middle East is the only way forward.

Foxy,

I am not talking about a covert nuclear program in Iran.

Iran's OVERT program shows that they are acquiring the capability to make weapons-grade fissile material.

This from the BBC:

"The [Security] Council is concerned because the technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used to enrich the uranium to a much higher level to produce a nuclear explosion.

"Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years,…."

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/3

As these and other reports demonstrate, the FACT that Iran now possesses the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade is BEYOND DISPUTE. There is no room for disagreement on this.

If Lowenstein says something else he is either mistaken, or wilfully blind or deceitful.

Once the capability exists there may be no way of telling whether it is being used to build nukes until Iran has assembled a sizeable arsenal.

Does it matter if Iran acquires a nuclear arsenal?

That depends.

--Are the mullahs crazy like Hitler who, in the end, put exterminating Jews ahead of winning the war?

--Or are they just plain crazy but sane enough to be deterred?

My guess is the latter but there is no way of telling. Anyone who says he knows the answer is either self-delusional or lying. That includes Lowenstein.

Facts are facts Foxy. A feel good book by Lowenstein doesn't change them.

Whether an Israeli attack on Iran is the best option for Israel I don't know. I doubt that Israel on its own has the capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear program.

So what could Israel do?

Probably all it can do is warn the Iranians that incoming missiles will be regarded as nuclear and will trigger a nuclear response. And then hope that the Iranian theocracy is sane enough to be deterred.

A nuclear free Middle-East is, I am afraid, a pipe dream. A nation surrounded by genocidal neighbours will not surrender its ultimate deterrent.

Dear Steven,

Now I'm really confused...

I thought that Loewenstein was an expert
on the Middle East - being a board member
of Macquarie University's Centre for Middle
Eastern Studies.

His book, "My Israel Question," is required
reading for VCE students, so it is more than
just a "feel-good" kind of text.

I've always found you to be a very
reasonable and logical poster. With a good
head on his shoulders.

I, on the other hand am no expert on the MIddle
East - I only go by what I read - and admittedly -
on this topic it's been mainly Loewenstein.

I support the state of Israel and firmly believe
in its existence. But I also feel that there must
be a way for Israel to exist securely without having
to use nuclear weapons. That's why
Loewenstein appeals to me.

Perhaps it is only a pipe dream as you say. Peace in
the Middle East. But if Israel could really force the
Iranians towards a radical rethinking of any future
conflict - then perhaps a sustainable future for everyone
in the Middle East would be more than just a pipe dream.

Enough said however, I think I'll just go quietly,
and sit in a corner for a while...

What missiles?

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will not use missiles.

Missiles take 5 minutes to reach their target; they can be intercepted; are limited in range; and it is easy to tell where they come from.

No - the nukes will arrive in ordinary containers, as cargo, to various sea-ports around the globe. They will explode instantly when the container is opened and/or by remote-control.

Iran is not even likely to do it directly - it will simply gift some nukes to terrorist organizations. When the attack starts, it will not be from Iran, it will probably be from ships scatterred in all oceans, so destroying Iran will make no difference.

Israel may be the first target, but in no way the last. Australian cities are likely to be among the targets as well. By the time Iran has the bombs, NOTHING will stop them from erasing this civilization.

Dear Yuyutsu,

And how did you come to this
theoretical conclusion?

Do you have any evidence for this?

If terrorists wanted to achieve these goals,
they could have obtained the resources
from within the former Soviet Union,
why wait for Iran, when the Russian mafia
are selling anything and everything -
providing the price is right.

Don't you go to the movies or watch television? :)