Monday Iran Talking Points

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for December 13th, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Ronen Bergman, a military analyst for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, opines that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has barely been able to contain his satisfaction over WikiLeaks cables showing Arab leaders so afraid of Iran that “they even appear to be doing their best to persuade the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.” Bergman acknowledge that Arab leaders are not prepared to join forces with Israel against Iran because “the Palestinian problem has not been solved,” but comes up short of fully endorsing a “linkage” argument. “Unless the concerned states of the Middle East drastically change the way they collaborate (with the U.S. acting as mediator), the campaign to stop Iran from getting the bomb will be lost,” he concludes.

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, the neoconservative Post blogger, writes that it’s “time to reset Iran policy.” Rubin says the current dual-track policy of pressure and engagement is failing on both fronts and dismisses the need to build international consensus on any matter related to Iran. She suggests robust support for the Green Movement, to ”continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program” (including assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists — the “ultimate targeted sanction”), making “human rights a central theme in our bilateral and multilateral diplomacy,” and “begin[ning] to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force.” She contends that an attack on Iran will not allow the current regime to consolidate power. In conclusion, Rubin writes: “The goal should be to do what we can to accelerate the regime’s collapse while we work to retard or force surrender of its nuclear program.”

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, writing on the Post’s Right Turn blog, interviews Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Lieberman tells her that statements from EU and Russian officials indicating support for limited Iranian enrichment”‘is the wrong message’ to send to a regime that has ’such a pattern of deceit.’” He argues that should Iran get a nuclear weapon, “the consequences are so disastrous for us and our allies” that “it’s time to get tough.”

Author: Eli Clifton

Visit for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service's Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

One thought on “Monday Iran Talking Points”

  1. There seems to be a problem that Jennifer Rubin does not address in her proposal of how to best decelerate the progression of the Nuclear Science programs in Iran. Her suggestion to target the scientists involved with direct sanctions does not erase any gained intelligence, and in these days the number of people receiving a higher education does not make it much of a problem for Iran to hire on new scientists. The cold war sets a precedent where hostile nations may develop nuclear weapons, but fear of retaliation keeps them from firing their ammunitions. Espionage is undoubtedly the best way to control the problem, but assassinating Iran's scientists would not be much more than anger the Iranian government upon seeing such blatant interference. Subtlety is needed, not further incendiary action.
    Additionally, Lieberman does not analyze both sides of the argument when he claims that it's time to "get tough." The Iranian's know that the release of a nuclear assault on the United States would be the end of their people, they know that the attack would be subject to retribution. As a government, they have no interest in destroying themselves, and they will not be hasty to enter into a conflict which it is highly they would win.

Comments are closed.