by Michael Rubin*
On April 29, answering a question on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Sen. Hillary Clinton warned that if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, “we would be able to totally obliterate them.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama chided Clinton. “It’s language reflective of George Bush. …This kind of language is not helpful,” Obama told Tim Russert.
by Andrew Potter*
Mr. Pipes spoke with Citizen editor Andrew Potter about the emerging threats to Israel, the state of the American professoriate, and the problem with Islamic radicalism.
You’re coming to Ottawa tomorrow to talk about ‘The threat to Israel’s existence, why it’s back and how to deal with it.’ Can you tell me what is or are the main threats right now to Israel’s existence?
Well, they’re unending, from the threat of nuclear annihilation, conventional military attacks, economic boycotts, demographic overwhelming, ideological undermining — you name it, from the most violent to the most political; the threats against Israel are across the spectrum.
by Danielle Pletka and Michael Rubin*
On Friday, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei submitted a report on Iran’s nuclear program to the IAEA’s Board of Governors. It concluded that, barring “one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme” — including a mysterious “green salt project” — Iran’s explanations of its suspicious nuclear activities “are consistent with [the IAEA’s] findings [or at least] not inconsistent.”
by Michael Rubin*
During his February 5 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell backpedaled from the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and its claim that, “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”
Not only did McConnell testify that the Islamic Republic was working to master the enrichment of uranium - “the most difficult challenge in nuclear production” - but he also acknowledged that, “because of intelligence gaps,” the U.S. government could not be certain that the Iranian government had fully suspended its covert nuclear programs. “We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons,” he testified. “In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons - and such a decision is inherently reversible.”
By Barry Rubin
The two main areas where the alliance of radical forces in the Middle East confront Western interests and pose a danger of major instability are Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons and Syria’s efforts to destabilize Iraq. This article considers these two issues. First, it examines what effect Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons would have on Middle East politics, with an emphasis on scenarios that would occur even if Iran never actually uses them. Second, it asks why it is that the interests of Iran’s ally, Syria, compel it to destabilize Iraq.
by Michael Rubin*
Congressional Democrats have seized upon the latest National Intelligence Estimate - which says Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003 - with great relish. They suggest it proves that not only did the Bush administration exaggerate the threat of a nuclear Iran, but that the White House, in its drive for hard-line sanctions backed by military force, has been far too skeptical of diplomacy.
In a statement yesterday, Sen.Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chastised President Bush, saying his “actions are doubly dangerous because they undercut the cooperation we need from other countries for dealing with the real problems Iran continues to pose.”
by Michael Rubin*
On Oct. 17, President Bush raised the specter of war with Iran. “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III,” he said, it’s necessary to deny the Islamic Republic “the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Condemnation of his comments was swift. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) accused the President’s of using “rhetorical ghosts and goblins to scare the American people, with claims of an imminent nuclear threat in Iran.”
By Jonathan Spyer
The possible emergence of a nuclear-armed, Islamist Iran committed to the destruction of the Jewish state is the key security issue currently occupying the attention of Israel’s political and security elite. It is one of the few issues upon which there is near (but not total) consensus. Israel has watched the growing power of radical elements within the Iranian ruling elite in the last half-decade with concern. These elements, of which President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the most prominent representative, openly reject Israel’s right to exist. Ahmedinejad’s comments advocating Israel’s destruction and denying the Holocaust are part of a larger project to recover the original fervour of the 1979 Islamic revolution. The expansion of Iran’s regional role is also part of this, and Israeli strategists note that the influence of Iran in all areas of key strategic concern to Israel is being felt, in a negative way. Iran’s alliance with Syria underwrites Damascus’s increasingly bellicose stance. Iran’s creation and sponsorship of Hizbullah has enabled it to come to constitute the powerful militia opponent seen in last year’s war. Iranian assistance to Hamas and Islamic jihad may be in the process of turning these organisations into analogous forces.
You are currently browsing the archives for the WMD category.
Articles/Entries