Military Action Against Iran Not Imminent, Says Expert

Philip Bunnell - Talk Radio News Service

Michael Adler, a public policy scholar with the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., today dismissed recent worries of military intervention in response to Iran’s growing nuclear program.

Adler said that the Iranian nuclear crisis is nearing the “endgame,” and that while an agreement is not likely to occur soon, it likely will in the “coming months or years.” Adler added that military action by the West against Iran is “not imminent” and “not on the table.”

Adler also highlighted new data showing that the Iranian nuclear program has been greatly stalled. The expert cited US officials, who have said that the nearly 5,000 spinning centrifuges found in Iran in June of last year, is down to under 4,000. Adler said that this can be credited to the outdated centrifuges that Iran uses, which break down frequently.

According to Adler, with the current levels of low-enriched uranium, the Iranians could one day develop 1-2 atomic bombs. But, Alder said, if Iran was to “kick out international inspectors, and go full bore to raise its uranium stockpile from its low-enriched state to the high level needed to make a bomb, it would take 18 months to two years to make enough of this high-enriched uranium for one weapon.”

Adler suggested that the US strategy going forward should be to try to negotiate with the Iranian government, adding that the Iranians “might deal if their right to enrichment is honored.”

Israel Could Launch Pre-emptive Strike Against Iran, Says Foreign Policy Expert

By Laura Woodhead - Talk Radio News

The Israeli militarily may launch preemptive military action against Iran if world leaders fail to act, said David Menashri, Director for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, during a conference call with the Israel Policy Forum.

"[The Israeli government] is unlikely to sit idly by and wait until Iran gains Nuclear capabilities," Menashri said. "This issue is too big for the shoulders of Israel"

The Director stressed that it was important for the rest of the world not to forget about Iran due to the recent decrease in opposition protest.

"Although things on the surface seem calm and quiet, something is really boiling there...while the world is fascinated by the Iranian election process, the nuclear scientists in Iran did not stop their work. The nuclear clock is ticking" he warned.

Menashri suggested that the recent level of political instability may be partially due to the spirit of change surrounding the election of U.S. President Barack Obama.

"Whenever there is a Democrat President with human rights high on his agenda in Washington there are disturbances and riots in Tehran...there is a great appeal in thinking 'Yes we can' too."

The Director added, "The combination of radical ideology on the one hand and nuclear capability and delivery systems on the other is a serious challenge to the region and beyond the region...the solution should be an American lead solution"

Menarshi argued that if Iranian leaders fell under enough pressure "they would choose the survival of the regime" over there nuclear ambitions.

"Iran is a rational country, they have proven again and again, when there was a clash between ideology and interest of the regime, interest won over ideology."

Ultimately, Menashri argued, it is impossible to predict what will happen next in Iran.

"If there is someone that tells you they know what will happen, do not believe him" he said.

"Iran is not a Saddam Hussein Iraq"

The senate finance committee held a hearing today discussing the "S.970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007."
The panel was consisted of Philip Gordon, senior fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, Orde Kittrie, visiting associate professor at the University of Maryland, school of Law, William A. Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council and lastly Danielle Pletka, vice president of Foreign and Defense Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

The panel discussed the advantages and the disadvantages of the S.970 bill, which introduces the Iranian Nuclear sanctions; it also includes prohibition of exports to Iran. Although the panel consisted of both critics and supporters of the bill, they all highlighted the seriousness of the nuclear development in Iran. They introduced different means of approaching to the problem, professor Kittrie, for instance, urged the bill to be passed by the Senate and stressed the fact that the bill is the only way of stopping Iran from further nuclear development. He added by saying that the economic situation of Iranians, as a result of the bill, is the fault of their government.

Mr. Reinsch, on the other hand, expressed his concerns of passing the S.970 stressing that it may lead to a war. In his opinion, balancing the situation will make the U.S. stay strong. He even said that direct diplomacy with Iran is the key to finding a solution. In addition to that, in Reinsch's perspective the S.970 will "withdraw the international attention from the core problem".

As the hearing went on, Ms Pletka raised an awareness of the consequences of a dialogue; she said "a dialogue too often means negotiations" and continued by asking the members of the Senate whether or not they are ready to trade something with Iran. Mr. Gordon stressed the fact that Iran is not a Saddam Hussein Iraq and thus matters should be analyzed and act upon accordingly.