Mossad chief: Iran will have nuclear bomb by 2009-2010

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The head of the Mossad espionage agency, Meir Dagan, on Monday told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons by 2009 or 2010.

He said that Iran in June began serious efforts to enrich uranium, and aspires in 2007 to acquire another 3,000 centrifuges, which will be located in bunkers.

Dagan also told MKs that there was no need to take seriously any Syrian overtures regarding peace talks.

"Every time Assad comes under international pressure, he comes up with some speech about his readiness to hold peace negotiations with us."

Dagan said Syria is not prepared to return to the negotiating table with Israel despite declarations by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802499.html

[shain from kane]

1. Does Mr. Secret Agent man know when Israel had its first one? n/t

[everythingsxen]

2. What is your point?

Israel has had nukes for a long time and hasn't used them. Nor has it threatened to 'erase from the pages of history' any other nation. Iran however has repeatedly threatened such action and honestly, Iran no doubt feels it *has* to have nukes, since of the "Axis of Evil", Iraq has been overrun, N. Korea has nukes and is in no danger, so only Iran is feeling a bit lonely.

[shain from kane]

5. If we knew the exact date, then we would be able to assess whether Israel

was justified in building a nuclear bomb, based on the threats that existed at the time. After all, its "agressive" neighbors did not have any nuclear bombs, until when? Sometime about next week? 2009 or 2010?
So, we want to deny Iran the ability to react to its perceived threats from other countries that actually have the bomb.

[msmcghee]

6. It seems to me that . .

. . your premise does not acknowledge that different states have different reasons for acquiring powerful weapons.

States that do not generally attack others and that repeatedly express the desire to live in peace with its neighbors - would generally prefer such weapons to deter attack from others. The fact that Israel has never attacked its neighbors except in defense, has never even admitted to having nuclear weapons - much less used them to intimidate its neighbors - pretty much puts Israel in this category.

Belligerent states that have been known to attack others and that make threatening statements about wiping out certain neighboring regimes - would more likely prefer such weapons for their ability to intimidate and threaten their neighbors. Iran seems to fit that mold.

Your argument seems to be just another variation of the false moral equivalence premise so popular in this forum.

Powerful weapons in the hands of warlike and aggressive states are not the same thing as powerful weapons in the hands of peace-seeking states. In one case peace and stability is enhanced. In the other, it is diminished. To imply that they are the same practically or morally is simply a way to help warlike aggressive states achieve their goals.

Do you prefer a peace where states in the ME do not attack each other and kill each others' citizens to get their way? Or do prefer the current chaotic ME where issues are determined by which side has the greater killing capacity at the moment?

[The Magistrate]

3. That Seems A Reasonable 'Worst Case' Prediction, Sir

[newyorican]

4. And the waiting game continues...

I would have thought someone wiser than I would have determined whom that will benefit.

Power, like politics, has a pendulum swing to it.