Israelis: "Very Little Time Until the Point of No Return" on Iranian Nukes

[onedomino]

April 13, 2005
Sharon Asks U.S. to Pressure Iran to Give Up Its Nuclear Program
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, April 12 - Spreading photographs of Iranian nuclear sites over a lunch table at the Bush ranch in Texas on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel urged President Bush to step up pressure on Iran to give up all elements of its nuclear program, according to senior American and Israeli officials.

Mr. Sharon said Israeli intelligence showed Iran was near "a point of no return" in learning how to develop a weapon, the officials said. However, Mr. Sharon gave no indication that Israel was preparing to act alone to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, a prospect that Vice President Dick Cheney, who was at the lunch, raised publicly three months ago.

In a conversation lasting more than an hour, Mr. Sharon argued that European nations negotiating with Iran were softening their position and may be willing to allow it to hold on to technology to enrich uranium.

American officials said the evidence Mr. Sharon presented, including aerial photographs of sites in Iran, was neither startling nor new to Mr. Bush. But they said the prime minister was clearly pressuring Mr. Bush not to allow the European negotiations with Iran to drag on.

"The Israelis consider the Iranians a big threat and they saw this as another opportunity to convey that to the president," an American official said. But among American experts familiar with the latest Israeli imagery, the official added, "no one thinks this was earth-shattering stuff."

Israeli officials declined to describe the evidence they presented, or say whether the photographs were from Israeli or American sources, commercial satellites, or from agents on the ground in Iran.

Nonetheless, Mr. Sharon's extended conversation - bolstered by the Israeli photographs and intelligence presented by his chief military aide, Brig. Gen. Yaakov Galant - showed tension between Israel and its biggest ally over how much time is available to deal with the issue.

While American and Israeli officials insisted Tuesday that they were in total agreement about the nature of the Iranian threat, Israel has interpreted the evidence that the two countries share in what one official called "the worst-case scenario." In describing the Iranians as on the cusp of a "point of no return," officials said, Mr. Sharon was arguing to Mr. Bush that once Iran solves some remaining technical hurdles, there will be no effective way of stopping it from ultimately building a weapon - even if that day is years away.

"This can't be delayed much longer," a senior Israeli official traveling in Mr. Sharon's party said Tuesday. "There is very little time until the point of no return is reached."

American officials have interpreted the evidence differently. While they have accused Iran of running a secret weapons program - under the cover of plans to build nuclear power plants for electricity - they have told Congress that any weapon is likely to be several years away. In the most recent public testimony on the subject, on Feb. 16, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress that "unless constrained by a nuclear nonproliferation agreement, Tehran probably will have the ability to produce nuclear weapons early in the next decade."

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in February in the German magazine Der Spiegel that if Iran had "decided to operate a secret nuclear weapons program - for which we, as I mentioned, have not found any evidence to date - they are likely to have a bomb in two to three years. They certainly have the know-how and the industrial infrastructure."

The White House said Monday that the subject of Iran came up over lunch, but it made no mention of the intelligence that was presented, and gave no details of the conversation. Israeli radio and other news reports in Israel gave more details earlier Tuesday, prompting American and Israeli officials to speak about the interchanges more openly.

The subtext of the conversation is an increasing concern within the administration that Israel might act pre-emptively, as it did in 1981 when it attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.

While American officials have rarely discussed that possibility openly, Mr. Cheney talked about it in an interview on MSNBC on Inauguration Day. "If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability," he said, "given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

Mr. Sharon made no such threat at the lunch, officials said, and a senior Israeli official said Tuesday in Washington that "it is not Israel's job to lead this effort." The official warned that "what is worrisome is that there are several European countries that are beginning to think that Iran will be a member of the club, and that is a grave danger."

Mr. Sharon, officials said, made it clear to administration officials during his visit that he has little confidence in the outcome of the negotiations under way by Iran and three European nations - Britain, France and Germany. Iran has insisted that it has the right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and will not give up that right. While there is disagreement among the Europeans themselves, they seem more willing to allow some uranium enrichment, under strict monitoring.

The United States has argued that because Iran hid so many elements of its nuclear program from the International Atomic Energy Agency for 17 years, it cannot be trusted.

"If you think that they've been running a secret weapons program, which is what we believe and the Israelis believe, than what kind of inspection system could work?" a senior American diplomat said Tuesday.

The session at the ranch also included some references to Iran's growing missile program, which gives it the ability to reach Israel. Admiral Jacoby, in his February testimony, noted that Iran already has medium-range missiles "capable of reaching Tel Aviv," and he said that by 2015, it may have "the technical capability" to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile. But he noted that "it is not clear whether Iran has decided to field such a missile."

Recently the new president of the Ukraine, Viktor A. Yushchenko, said his government had discovered evidence that the country's previous leadership secretly sold to Iran and China cruise missiles that can carry a nuclear warhead. Iran has denied it made any such purchases.

-

 

[Annie]

Here's the link to the above:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/international/middleeast/13nuke.html

Great article and Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

 

[dilloduck]

Here's the link to the above:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/international/middleeast/13nuke.html

Great article and Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I'm guessing that Iran is a real hot potato for Isreal and the US right now--I can forgive George a little if his inaction in some areas is a result of a lot of quiet action going on about how to effectively deal with Iran. It's just a little too quiet out there. Anyone else notice it?

 

[onedomino]

Here's the link to the above:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/international/middleeast/13nuke.html

Great article and Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Yes, that was the link I forgot to include in the post.

 

[onedomino]

I'm guessing that Iran is a real hot potato for Israel and the US right now--I can forgive George a little if his inaction in some areas is a result of a lot of quiet action going on about how to effectively deal with Iran. It's just a little too quiet out there. Anyone else notice it?

The IAEA says Iranian nukes in two or three years. The US says Iranian nukes before the end of the decade. The Israelis say that soon we will be at the “point of no return.” Which of these views is accurate? I guess that "information" released to reporters regarding the US-Israeli discussion about Iranian nukes is intended to pressure the Mullahs, and to underscore the lack of confidence in the E3 appeasement of Iran.

 

[dilloduck]

The IAEA says Iranian nukes in two or three years. The US says Iranian nukes before the end of the decade. The Israelis say that soon we will be at the “point of no return.” Which of these views is accurate? I guess that "information" released to reporters regarding the US-Israeli discussion about Iranian nukes is intended to pressure the Mullahs, and to underscore the lack of confidence in the E3 appeasement of Iran.

So far I don't see any signs of this "pressure" tactic working.

 

[BR-549]

Bomb those bastard mullahs before they can produce a weapon. Sharon's making this public indaicates to me that if the United States is unwilling to stop Irans' nuclear program then Israel will do so. Not surprising as the jew-hating mullahs have stated for years they would like to destroy Israel. Take off the kid gloves with respect to Iran and attack their nuclear program.

 

[dilloduck]

Bomb those bastard mullahs before they can produce a weapon. Sharon's making this public indaicates to me that if the United States is unwilling to stop Irans' nuclear program then Israel will do so. Not surprising as the jew-hating mullahs have stated for years they would like to destroy Israel. Take off the kid gloves with respect to Iran and attack their nuclear program.

Are you telling that to Sharon or Bush?

 

[manu1959]

bomb bomb bomb iran, bombiraaaan, ....great song!

 

[BR-549]

Are you telling that to Sharon or Bush?

Sharon will act unilaterally..

 

[nosarcasm]

 

[dilloduck]

that outta put a few bumps in that road to peace :cof:

 

[nosarcasm]

peace through superior firepower worked for Germany and Japan.

Do not doubt history. :crutch: I should know

 

[drac]

that outta put a few bumps in that road to peace :cof:

there is not road to peace b/n israel and iran at the current time (unless you count handshake)

 

[drac]

The IAEA says Iranian nukes in two or three years. The US says Iranian nukes before the end of the decade. The Israelis say that soon we will be at the “point of no return.” Which of these views is accurate? I guess that "information" released to reporters regarding the US-Israeli discussion about Iranian nukes is intended to pressure the Mullahs, and to underscore the lack of confidence in the E3 appeasement of Iran.

i think it is in the middle. It is soo hard to predict those things, look at wmd in irag. Plus having nukes might be different from point of no return. This point most probably is scientific "know how" + materials (perhapse lab experiment) which far away from actual nukes.

 

[dilloduck]

there is not road to peace b/n israel and iran at the current time (unless you count handshake)

I was referring to the road that runs a bit west of there--the entire Muslim population wouldn't be real happy about Israel nuking Iran.

 

[drac]

I was referring to the road that runs a bit west of there--the entire Muslim population wouldn't be real happy about Israel nuking Iran.

maybe on the surface, but it is not a sold front, some would be very happy by it (shia vs sunni, irag vs iran .... ). i am sure europe will be also "o my good why oo why...".
somehow i think it would be similar to irag bombing. although iran does have some extra strings it can pull (hizbulla and hamas...). I just do not believe it would be too much of diplomatic fallout as one would think