Woolsey on Iran (CM)

FDD Distinguished Advisor R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence under former President Bill Clinton, before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, 11/21/05:

There is no reason in economics or common sense for Iran to be involved in fuel enrichment and processing [key steps in assembling atomic arms] unless it has a nuclear weapons program.

How soon might Iran obtain nuclear weapons? It all hinges on how soon they can obtain adequate fissionable material. Some aspects of the capabilities of a more sophisticated plutonium weapon might be desirable to those managing the Iranian nuclear weapon and missile programs. But it should be remembered that once nuclear material such as highly enriched uranium is available, a simple shotgun-design weapon, similar to that which we used on Hiroshima sixty years ago could be quickly produced. Estimates of how far the Iranians are from having nuclear weapons thus doubtless depend heavily on assessments of the maturity of their fuel enrichment and processing capabilities. But if they were supplied with highly enriched uranium by some outside source, such as their erstwhile collaborator, North Korea, simple nuclear weapons could be available to them in very short order.

What then are our options? First we must be clear-eyed about the nature of the Ahmadinejad regime. There is no possibility, none, of working with it or moderating it. For example, at the recent "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran, Ahmadinejad displayed a large hour-glass with a broken USA lying in the lower half of the glass and Israel falling through the glass to break beside it. The president of Iran said in his speech, ". . . a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved . . . . "

Appeasement, whatever euphemism is used, of Iran or any other dictatorship determined to deploy nuclear weapons and support terror will not work any better than it did in the 1930's. It is time to stop deluding ourselves that security can be obtained in today's world on the cheap and without sacrifice.

It cannot be.

Hat tip: Josh Block.

Comments

[Hassani]

Actually, there are very good reasons why Iran would want a self-sufficient domestic nuclear power industry, which is why the US (including several members of the current Bush administration) encouraged Iran to diversify its energy sources to include nuclear power in the first place. This was the topic of a Washington Post article:
Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy
By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005

[Goodman]

"(There is no reason in economics or common sense for Iran to be involved in fuel enrichment) and processing [key steps in assembling atomic arms] unless it has a nuclear weapons program."

This is not an argument or a fact just an unsupported opinion. One can state the opposite opinion in the same way. It only proves that the speaker has no factual argument.
What the intentions of the Iranians are and what is their legal rights, I do not know, however this type of arbitrary statements only weaken your argument.

[David Parsons]

For the two geniuses who just excused Iran's quest for highly enriched uranium - nuclear reactors cannot use highly enriched uranium, otherwise the reactor would instantly melt down. Highly enriched uranium has only one purpose on this planet: To make a bomb.