Bolton: We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb

[Winner]

We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 7:37am BST 16/05/2007

David Blair: Countdown to a nuclear Iran

Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.

Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.

Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday.

The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb.

Experts had judged that Iran would need perhaps two years to master the technical feat of enriching uranium using centrifuges - and then another two years to produce enough material to build a weapon.

But the IAEA found that Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the four per cent purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84 per cent purity.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said the West's goal of halting the enrichment programme had been "overtaken by events". Iran had probably mastered this process and "the focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production".

Mr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.

"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."

President George W Bush privately refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to wipe Israel "off the map", as a 21st Century Adolf Hitler and Mr Bolton, who remains a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney, said the Iranian leader presented a similar threat.

"If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours."

But Mr Bolton conceded that military action had many disadvantages and might not succeed. "It's very risky for the price of oil, risky because you could, let's say, take out their enrichment capabilities at Natanz, and they may have enrichment capabilities elsewhere you don't know about."

Such a strike would only be a "last option" after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed but the risks of using military force, he indicated, would be less than those of tolerating a nuclear Iran. "Imagine what it would be like with a nuclear Iran. Imagine the influence Iran could have over the entire region. It's already pushing its influence in Iraq through the financing of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah."

Although he praised Tony Blair for his support of America over the Iraq war, he criticised the Prime Minister, who is due to visit Washington today to bid farewell to Mr Bush, for persisting with supporting EU attempts to negotiate with Iran that were "doomed to fail".

"Blair just didn't focus on it as much as [Jack] Straw [former Foreign Secretary] did, and it was very much a Foreign Office thing because they wanted to show their European credentials, wanted to work with the Germans and the French to show 'we'll solve Iran in a way differently than those cowboy Americans solved Iraq'."

Mr Bolton, a leading advocate of the Iraq war, insisted that it had been right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that the later failures did not mean that military action against rogue states should not be contemplated again.

"The regime itself was the threat and we dealt with the threat. Now, what we did after that didn't work out so well. That doesn't say to me, therefore you don't take out regimes that are problematic.

"It says, in the case of Iraq, and a lot of this I have to say we've learned through the benefit of hindsight, was that we should've given responsibility back to Iraqis more quickly."

The Bush administration has moved some distance away from the hawkish views of Mr Bolton and Mr Cheney, which were dominant in the president's first term, towards the more traditional diplomatic approach favoured by the State Department.

But his is still a highly influential voice and Mr Bush remains adamant that he will not allow Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for military action and some senior White House officials share Mr Bolton's thinking.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/16/wbolton16.xml

We'll see. My opinion is the US is currently unable to take out the Iranian regime by force without a large war mobilisation.

 

[JollyRoger]

We should just airdrop Bolton into Tehran and let him fight.

 

[Tee Kay]

"If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours."

Here we go with the Nazi analogies...

 

[GenMarshall]

Does Bolton understand that were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Winner]

Does Bolton understand that were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't know.

I think it is perfectly possible to bomb Iran, the US can do that any day, but I doubt it can deal with the consequences and Iranian response.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Mutually Assured Destruction.

Look up that term, and then you'll realize that an Iranian nuke (still waiting for some actual proof that they're actually trying to build one) doesn't pose a threat.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Does he realize that he is invading a country for doing something his on country is doing?

 

[CurtSibling]

Airpower cannot win a war, Bosnia taught us this.

The USA lacks the power to muster the men needed to take and hold Iran.
Iran knows this, and it is the main reason behind their attempts to gain
more power in the Middle East...I can see no simple answer to the crisis.

...

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

...wait for France and those other nations to come around?






...



...or not.

 

[amaterasu]

Mutually Assured Destruction.

Look up that term, and then you'll realize that an Iranian nuke (still waiting for some actual proof that they're actually trying to build one) doesn't pose a threat.

People are scared of Iran as they dont seem to care about their destruction, or they could give it to al-Queda ect.ect.

Also america may not lanch one in retaliation... especially if iran only has the one.

 

[CurtSibling]

...wait for France and those other nations to come around?






...



...or not.

With the new leadership in France, it should be interesting to see what they do...

...

 

[Bucephalus]

I doubt if British public opinion would support it; it's a problem with credability, after the WMD lies used to justify the attack on Iraq.

 

[boarder]

Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

Yes because we know what happens when a country gets nukes aka North Korea. Also there is speculation that Iran already has nukes as it bought 12, Kh-55 cruise missiles with nukes from Ukraine. Speculation I said.

John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed.

Well hes right there, still Iran has had sanctions against it for years and they have still achieved a lot technology wise so why would they suddenly change.

Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.

See above on the first part, does he really think he can overthrow the Iran regime? By whom I ask, maybe the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), whom are on americas terrorist list but yet they also support, hmmm double standards much?

Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday

Leaks? They have cameras installed in there, and Iran has had many many more inspections from the IAEA then any other country.

The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb.

Strange I recall reading in a Iranian paper a while ago that they had reached 3000 and where now planning on having 50 000 up and running asap.

Experts had judged that Iran would need perhaps two years to master the technical feat of enriching uranium using centrifuges - and then another two years to produce enough material to build a weapon.
But the IAEA found that Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the four per cent purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84 per cent purity.

I guess these experts the paper quoted re 2 years to enrich when at the same time the IAEA knows that Iran has reached 4% purity a while ago shows how much faith one should put in the so called experts. They are also allowed to if they are going off the NPT.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said the West's goal of halting the enrichment programme had been "overtaken by events". Iran had probably mastered this process and "the focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production".

To late I would think if there aiming for 50 000 centrifuges asap.

Mr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.

Iran doesnt respond well to threats and never will, its a dead end path, I would have thought they would have realised this by now.

"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."

Yes keep up support of that terrorist group MEK, I hope he realises they are very much as despised in Iran as Al Queda is in the states.
Regime change can't be affected there from the outside, only from within IMO.

President George W Bush privately refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to wipe Israel "off the map", as a 21st Century Adolf Hitler and Mr Bolton, who remains a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney, said the Iranian leader presented a similar threat.

Its widely knowen he said nothing of the sort RE "wiped off the map" Why do papers keep saying that its total BS and only paints a wrong scene of whats happening.
Why the referal to adolf? To further demonize him, when in reality hes nothing like Hitler, he doesnt even hold any real power in Iran, can anyone say the same about hitler??? What countrys does Iran want to invade? None. Is Iran hell bent on world domination? Nope.
Enough with the hitler analogies already, I for one am sick of it. And think its almost a insult to all those affected by Hitler.

"If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours."

Pretty much as above, does anyone believe this crap? How am I supposed to take anything he says seriously when he says things like this, like the boy whom cryed wolf. Why is it never mentioned that during the Iran Iraq war Iran was heavily attacked with WMD'S and build its own but never used them due to a fatwa or whatever being issued due to them being un islamic. And yes they have done that with nuclear weapons to, well a fatwa has been issued ruling against them. Doesnt sound like something the Nazi's would do.

But Mr Bolton conceded that military action had many disadvantages and might not succeed. "It's very risky for the price of oil, risky because you could, let's say, take out their enrichment capabilities at Natanz, and they may have enrichment capabilities elsewhere you don't know about."

Hes right there, in fact the last war game Iran sank one or two of the USA's aircraft carriers. No wonder they are worried, oh and you could kiss goodbye to the greenzone to. Cant remember what the war games where called at the moment.

Such a strike would only be a "last option" after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed but the risks of using military force, he indicated, would be less than those of tolerating a nuclear Iran. "Imagine what it would be like with a nuclear Iran. Imagine the influence Iran could have over the entire region. It's already pushing its influence in Iraq through the financing of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah."

Imagine the countrys that Iran could offer protection to with a nuclear umbrella,
Or more importantly, imagine what would happen to Israel's power in the area no wonder the pro israeli lobby is pushing so hard for it,they'll lose a lot of power if Iran build a bomb and went public with it.
Hamas and Hizbollah are in Iraq??? This is news to me.

Started to get bored here so skipped a few irrelevant paragraphes...

But his is still a highly influential voice and Mr Bush remains adamant that he will not allow Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons

I don't think he has a choice, should have done it a year or so ago. The reprucussions are to high now. And they dont even know which sites to bomb.


In conclusion this article like many regarding Iran is full of fallacies and just basically rubbish.Gnite

 

[Rambuchan]

Mr Bolton, a leading advocate of the Iraq war, insisted that it had been right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that the later failures did not mean that military action against rogue states should not be contemplated again.

"The regime itself was the threat and we dealt with the threat. Now, what we did after that didn't work out so well. That doesn't say to me, therefore you don't take out regimes that are problematic.

"It says, in the case of Iraq, and a lot of this I have to say we've learned through the benefit of hindsight, was that we should've given responsibility back to Iraqis more quickly."

^ This section says it all. ^

He's basically saying: It doesn't matter if we've handed a new breeding ground on a plate to radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq through our lack of post-invasion planning. It doesn't matter if we created a huge humanitarian disaster there through our shortsightedness and arrogance. It doesn't matter that we've frightened off our allies in the west and wasted billions of dollars, whilst our economy falters. It doesn't matter that we've ruined our former Middle Eastern ally against Iran and pushed it into civil war, whilst emboldening Iran. And it doesn't matter that we've shattered our credibility around the world in doing so........we can do it all again folks!

That is, as long as we don't hand over government too quickly after invasion (ie. occupy them for longer), everything will be fine.


Does this guy learn nothing from previous mistakes?! Is he totally ignorant of what is taking place in Afghanistan?

We've heard lots about airstrikes, which most analysts worth their salt reckon would not halt any nuclear power programmes and any (as yet unproven) nuclear weapons facilities. (They would only delay them and create huge resentment and violent reprisals). We've heard nothing specific about an actual invasion plan, let alone a post-invasion plan, other than it can't be done along side other commitments. And we've heard nothing about how he proposes to deal with the certain and widespread violent backlash against the USA and its allies, like Isreal, as a result of such an act.

His ideas here are all bark and no consideration for the bite and its consequences. No wonder Iran are laughing their asses off and couldn't give a hoot. Such talk is only a cause for Iran to arm itself more fully anyway and it only lends credence to Ahmadinejad's populist vitriol.

 

[Plexus]

At least then we'd have a contiguously huge occupation zone?

 

[CurtSibling]

We are looking at people running the USA having more interested in 'punch the air' rhetoric and half-baked
ideas of a 'divine' battle against the non-christian 'infidels', than they are about actually guiding the USA
and making the American people prosper. They do not see that 'victory' is hardly possible when the rules
keep changing...What exactly constitutes final victory in an arena like Iraq, anyway?

America does not have the will to pursue the bloodbath that would be needed to stop the insurgency...

In short, blank-eyed demagogues have taken control. And outbursts like this from Bolton really prove it.
This individual does not seem to think that the tottering civil war in Iraq is a problem, because any minute now,
those darn insurgents will cave in and convert to christianity, and then open a multitude of new Starbucks cafes...

We are back in the Fuhrerbunker, where they give orders to phantom panzer divisions.

Iran indeed needs to be stopped, but unless reality powder can be slipped into the coffee of the White House
staff, and Europe can be brought on-board with a tangible reason to join any military alliance, then Tehran will
gain purchase, and with the firm confidence that the West lacks the balustrades to face them.

We have to do something about the farce of Iraq, and then recognise where the real enemy always was...

Sitting in Tehran.

Once an incompetent president and his cold-warriors see that, the better.

...

 

[BCLG100]

Best thing for it, will give manc some room to expan to the north without having to worry about them pikeys nicking our stuff.

 

[HannibalBarka]

With the new leadership in France, it should be interesting to see what they do...
...

France will let the US fight its dumb wars alone

 

[Gangor]

Why doesn't the US just make friends with Iran? That would solve all sorts of problems, because who cares if an ally has nukes? Iran is a natural enemy of Al Queda and the US wants influence over where Iran's oil goes, so they're a natural fit.

 

[Verbose]

Why doesn't the US just make friends with Iran? That would solve all sorts of problems, because who cares if an ally has nukes? Iran is a natural enemy of Al Queda and the US wants influence over where Iran's oil goes, so they're a natural fit.

Possibly because Iran does in fact see little reason to befriend the US at this point. All the wooing would have to be made by the US, and that would probably be just to awkward for it to contemplate.