Heritage foundation Senior fellow Peter Brookes predicted that Iran will achieve the potential for a nuclear breakout by next year.
"I think what the nuclear weapon does for Iran is it gives them a freedom of action that we will have little control over," said Brookes.
James Phillips, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, is in agreement regarding the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran, and warned that diplomacy with between the nation and the U.S. may not be an acceptable deterrent.
"Iran has strongly resisted...international efforts to pressure it to end it's nuclear weapons program, and this diplomatic route would be more promising if the Iranian regime was motivated primarily by national interests and the welfare of the Iranian people," said Phillips.
"However it is a revolutionary Islamist regime that is more interested in preserving its power and spreading its Islamist revolution."
Phillips said that holding a discussion with Iran may in fact carry a risk, and claimed that it may give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a boost in the next election and a sense of legitimacy on the world stage. Phillips further warned that it would have the added effect of disheartening Iranian opposition groups.
As far as solutions go, Gary Milhollin; publisher of Iran Watch, suggests that international sanctions should be put on Iran. Currently, Millholin claims there are few incentives for Iran to halt their programs and negotiate. Placing Iran's economy in distress will apparently create such an incentive.
"We have to bear in mind that nuclear weapons don't make a successful country. The Iranians have lots of problems they will probably have in the future...and they're going to get a lot worse if the world can succeed in imposing sanctions on the Iranians, and I mean meaningful sanctions," said Milhollin.
"I think meaningful, important, onerous sanctions are the only long term threat to the regime."
Sanctions may deter Iran's nuclear campaign
"I think what the nuclear weapon does for Iran is it gives them a freedom of action that we will have little control over," said Brookes.
James Phillips, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, is in agreement regarding the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran, and warned that diplomacy with between the nation and the U.S. may not be an acceptable deterrent.
"Iran has strongly resisted...international efforts to pressure it to end it's nuclear weapons program, and this diplomatic route would be more promising if the Iranian regime was motivated primarily by national interests and the welfare of the Iranian people," said Phillips.
"However it is a revolutionary Islamist regime that is more interested in preserving its power and spreading its Islamist revolution."
Phillips said that holding a discussion with Iran may in fact carry a risk, and claimed that it may give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a boost in the next election and a sense of legitimacy on the world stage. Phillips further warned that it would have the added effect of disheartening Iranian opposition groups.
As far as solutions go, Gary Milhollin; publisher of Iran Watch, suggests that international sanctions should be put on Iran. Currently, Millholin claims there are few incentives for Iran to halt their programs and negotiate. Placing Iran's economy in distress will apparently create such an incentive.
"We have to bear in mind that nuclear weapons don't make a successful country. The Iranians have lots of problems they will probably have in the future...and they're going to get a lot worse if the world can succeed in imposing sanctions on the Iranians, and I mean meaningful sanctions," said Milhollin.
"I think meaningful, important, onerous sanctions are the only long term threat to the regime."