You know, it's one thing to read about our pending Iranian war plans in the pages of the New Yorker written by Sy Hersh. If you find them there, like we did several months ago, there is usually some political motive behind their publication. Then again, William Arkin was covering them at the same time too.
But it is quite another to read about the plans, in a bit more enhanced and possibly advanced fashion, in Time magazine. And to have to the larger picture confirmed by the excellent reporters at McClatchy.
Of course, the most alarming part of the Time article wasn't this paragraph:
More after the jump.
And in practical terms, the U.S. would have to consider military action long before Iran had an actual bomb. In military circles, there is a debate about where--and when--to draw that line. U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte told TIME in April that Iran is five years away from having a nuclear weapon. But some nonproliferation experts worry about a different moment: when Iran is able to enrich enough uranium to fuel a bomb--a point that comes well before engineers actually assemble a nuclear device. Many believe that is when a country becomes a nuclear power. That red line, experts say, could be just a year away.
It was having that paragraph confirmed by Tzipi Livni today on Wolf Blitzer's show:
BLITZER: How much time do you believe the international community has before Iran crosses into an area of no return, in effect has a nuclear bomb?
LIVNI: The crucial moment is not the day of the bomb. The crucial moment is the day in which Iran will master the enrichment, the knowledge of enrichment.
BLITZER: And how long is that?
LIVNI: A few months from now.
BLITZER: What does that mean, a few months?
LIVNI: A few months, I mean…
BLITZER: Six months?
LIVNI: No, I don't know for sure, because it takes time and this something that they have to try, in doing so…
BLITZER: Because other Israelis have said that would be the point of no return.
LIVNI: I don't want to use the words "point of no return," because the Iranians are using it against the international community. They are trying to send a message that it's too late; you can stop your attempts because it's too late.
It's not too late. They have a few more months. And it is crucial because this is in the interests of the international community. The world cannot afford a nuclear Iran. It's not only a threat to Israel. The recent understanding, also, of moderate Arab states is that Iran is a threat to the region. And I believe that this is time for sanctions.
Inexorable is my new word, because nothing is inevitable. We just don't have the will, as a nation, to stop this trainwreck.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
I don't believe if United Nations efforts fail that we will be able to garner enough troops to go into Iran for a ground invasion because one, they are already committed to the war in Afghanistan and the useless war in Iraq and two, after not being able to effectively contain the problems in Iraq, the rest of the world now doubts our ability to conduct another war successfully.
Third, and possibly the most important is that the world no longer trusts our intelligence.
We will not be able to conduct a possible war alone, the terrain in Iran is very mountainous, making it more difficult to navigate the areas.
We also have no clue where the facilities are, much less how deep underground they are located.
One other question is how much money will it cost. It is already predicted that by the end of the Iraq war, we will have spent 1 trillion at least. How much is enough?? Are we willing to bankrupt our country to ensure it's security???
You must also ask yourself, what role will China play in all of this. Iran is now selling oil to China, and China can ill afford to have its major supplier cut-off. Plus, china has bought many of our treasury bonds, which finances our cheap Chinese goods buying spree from Wal-Mart.
What would happen if China were to demand its money back for all those bonds in retaliation for a strike on Iran.
With all these unanswered questions, is it better to live with a nuclear Iran and focus on containment, or bankrupt our country and risk war with China???
We cannot declare war on a country based on simple emotions and hypothetical s!!!
With your series of articles on this, I just want to say thanks. I didn't have enough negative things to think about. LOL Seriously though, you have to laugh to keep from crying these days. I'm beginning to think no matter how bad you think things can get under our government today, you have absolutely no idea. I hope those that voted these guys in are happy with the results. If we hadn't been busy invading "terrorist" countries, North Korea, and now Iran, would not have been off the radar for so long. It's indefensible. I'll call my representatives yet again, and express a position to a staffer, that will basically say "Thanks, but we don't care what you think, you're a liberal." More civil, but basic content unmistakable.