{"id":7776,"date":"2010-08-20T17:29:56","date_gmt":"2010-08-21T01:29:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=7776"},"modified":"2010-08-20T17:29:56","modified_gmt":"2010-08-21T01:29:56","slug":"friday-iran-talking-points-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2010\/08\/20\/friday-iran-talking-points-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Friday Iran Talking Points"},"content":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog<\/a>: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 20th, 2010:<\/em><\/p>\n

New York Times<\/a><\/em>: Mark Manzetti and David Sanger report that the Obama administration has \u00e2\u20ac\u0153persuaded\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Israel that Iran is at least one year \u00e2\u20ac\u201d if not more \u00e2\u20ac\u201d away from having the potential to build a nuclear bomb. (This is consistent with the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153at least 18 months\u00e2\u20ac\u009d figure<\/a> reported by Sanger and William Broad in January.) In the latest piece, an anonymous U.S. official said Iran was currently questioning how far to push its program: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The argument is over how far to push the program, how close to a weapon they can get without paying an even higher price.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Atlantic blog<\/a><\/em>: In an interesting forum on<\/a> Jeffrey Goldberg\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recent piece on Israel and Iran, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy<\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Patrick Clawson<\/a> writes that, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Washington and Jerusalem see eye-to-eye in their assessment of where Iran stands and how quickly it is moving forward.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d He concludes that while this is the case, differing threat perceptions and military doctrines \u00e2\u20ac\u201d the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force\u00e2\u20ac\u009d vs. Israel\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u0153mow the grass,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d quick, incremental mentality \u00e2\u20ac\u201d might cause Israeli and U.S. intentions to diverge again later this year.<\/p>\n

The Jewish Week<\/a><\/em>: The Jewish Week<\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s editorial board summarizes Jeffrey Goldberg<\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s article on Israel and Washington\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s potential military response to Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s alleged nuclear weapons program. The authors endorse the sanctions track but share Goldberg\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s doubt that Iran can be deterred from acquiring nuclear weapons. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6Goldberg told The Jewish Week on Tuesday that \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcIran loves nukes and will do anything to have them.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The editorial concludes that, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153For now, we must do all we can in support of the administration\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s efforts to convince Iran to end its nuclear program voluntarily. But Washington needs to address what happens when that fails.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 20th, 2010: New York Times: Mark Manzetti and David Sanger report that the Obama administration has \u00e2\u20ac\u0153persuaded\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Israel that Iran is at least one year \u00e2\u20ac\u201d if not more \u00e2\u20ac\u201d away from having the potential to build a nuclear bomb. (This is consistent with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":75,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/75"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7776"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7776\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7777,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7776\/revisions\/7777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7776"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=7776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}