How to Keep Iran in Check Without War
Seventeen years ago, in January 1992, the U.S. Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons." That same month, Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb... (The nuclear threat) must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S." In that same year, Robert Gates, then director of the CIA, asked, "Is [Iran's nuclear program] a problem today?" He answered, "Probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem." Three years later, a senior Israeli official declared: "If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."
Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014--the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992.
The rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran is heating up again in various places, including some Canadian places. Gary Sick served on the American National Security staff under three presidents, was a principal White House aide for Iran and has written two books on U.S. - Iranian relations. In other words, he's spent some time studying the issues. There's some good context and perspective on the issue here.
H/t Glenn Greenwald who's watching some of the usual American suspects go into full freak-out mode.
Now it is three to five years ... is this an improvement on the Friedman Units of six months? Can we call this a Netanyahu unit?
Thanks for this post! I've been looking & looking in the MSM & NO sign of any questions re the real deja vu of this "situation". Loved the Greenwald link too.
Both Scott Ritter and Gwynne Dyer agree the Qom facility was most likely a back-up plan hatched during the over-heated Cheney rhetoric of 2007, when Natanz was overtly threatened. Overheated rhetoric, yes. Maybe that was to get the media off the otherwise flimsy accomplishments of the G20 meeting. It wouldn't be the first time a U.S. president has turned to the international arena to relieve some of the heat on domestic issues (like the reversal of the Guantanamo prison closing).