Posted By Michael Singh Share

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the surprising assertion yesterday in Doha that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not directly threaten the United States:

“[P]art of the goal -- not the only goal, but part of the goal -- that we were pursuing was to try to influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. And, as I said in my speech, you know, the evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn't directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond.”

Secretary Clinton is surely correct about the threat faced by U.S. allies in the region, but her assessment of the potential threat to the U.S. does not comport with the evidence on Iran’s ballistic missile programs. Many U.S. facilities and thousands of American personnel are of course already within range of Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, which Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair recently testified (pdf) are “inherently capable of delivering WMD.”

Furthermore, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reported (pdf) this month that “Iran continue[s] to develop long-range ballistic missiles that will be threatening to the United States,” and the U.S. intelligence community has judged in the past that Iran may test an ICBM by 2015 (see here [pdf] for a full discussion of this issue). Iran last year demonstrated progress by successfully placing a satellite into orbit. At that time, the State Department spokesman issued a statement of “deep concern,” noting:

“Recently, Iran's development of a space launch vehicle (SLV) capable of putting a satellite into orbit establishes the technical basis from which Iran could develop long-range ballistic missile systems. Many of the technological building blocks involved in SLVs are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles.”

The Pentagon spokesman also noted the U.S. concerns over the development:

“It is certainly a reason for us to be concerned about Iran and its continued attempts to develop a ballistic missile program of increasingly long range. Although this would appear just to be the launch of a satellite, their first, obviously there are dual-use capabilities in the technology here which could be applied toward the development of a long-range ballistic missile.”

The spokesmen’s concerns were well-founded. Given the available facts, it is difficult to support the view that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not pose a direct threat to the United States.

EXPLORE:IRAN, NUKES
 

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

6:20 PM ET

February 15, 2010

Not a Realistic Threat

Pointing out that Iran's ballistic-missile system is a direct threat to the United States is a pretty lame argument in my view. You can say the same thing about Russia or China...heck, every nation that possesses a missile system that is capable of launching warheads for thousands of miles is a direct threat to the United States. But this does not necessarily mean that they will will indeed choose to attack the U.S. homeland.

Just the fact that officials in the State Department and the Pentagon are deeply worried about a menial military is a testament to how obsessed this nation has become about Iran. Guess what would happen if Iran launched a missile at American bases in the Persian Gulf? The U.S. Military would respond with unprecedented force, bombing military installations throughout Iran and possibly targeting the Natanz nuclear site. The same nuclear plants that the Iranians have been so dedicated to protecting would be either destroyed or utterly damaged. The costs of the Revolutionary Guard in actually using the ballistic-missile program would far outweigh the benefits. Sure, you may strike a U.S. target, but your most prized possession would be eliminated as a result.

Iran's ballistic-missile program is not a direct threat to the United States, because the mullah's in Tehran would be downright suicidal if they even contemplated using ICBM's. We should stop drumming up fear and useless aggravation for the sake of some realism and common-sense.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

 

KIMAC

3:59 PM ET

February 16, 2010

Awkward Realisms

Speaking of reality, what's up with the Jericho III (ICBM) that Israel is apparently now deploying? Do they see yet another existential threat coming from the Americas or Australia that is outside the range the range of the J-II? Maybe that the ring they now have through the noise of American policy makers may slip? I'm sure there's a good answer; always is. Maybe they just wanted Moscow to pay more attention to them on the sanctions they're now discussing.

Intentions are a tedious business. I'm a really nice guy, but if I don't have my nap after lunch I'm just like some other marginally domesticated animal who may snap off your hand, just because its there.

That is the reality of things. After all, Americans are a pretty civilized bunch who'd never invade another country out of sheer insecurity, right? Ironically enough, Israel and Iran share the same problem, only to a FAR greater degree

Everyone glosses over how Israel has already destablised the region (even further) by introducing nukes into the ME; America's presence there, on all sides of Iran have exacerbated the problem.

The way out of this corner is for EVERYBODY to back-up, rather than more of Hillary's lame bluster.

 

SABABA03

8:17 PM ET

February 17, 2010

Sec. Clinton get its right.

Perhaps many readers are unaware that the war with Iran had already started. Mrs. Clinton knows EXACTLY what she is doing (saying).

Considering the oversize ego of the little akmed-e-midget in Tehran, and all his self declared "Iran is a superpower and should sit at the same table as other 5+1 Member of SC". Her comments were aimed to needle the regime in Iran, Challange their ego, by questioning the same mantra by which this hollow regime conceives itself. Here is a woman, challenging the macho of the man.

In a society like the Iranians, where social hierarchy, and man's macho and ego is paramount, questioning, or any challenge the to leader's authority - particularly the region ones, is a big NO, NO, AND SHE KNOWS IT. It is worse when the challenger is woman.

The plan contains few objectives.
a) Reduce their image in the eyes of the Iranian people with direct and indirect insult to their authority. ("nah, Khamani and Akmadinejad are not the REAL leaders in Iran. The military ones are the real ones"). That could force the mullahs to confront the IRG, to assert their authority, and save face.
b) Drive a sharp wedge between the Mullahs and the IRG which keeps them in power.
c) Provoke IRG to attack U.S. and Nato forces in the area, just to prove they are still a viable force in Iran.

Mrs. Clinton's challenges will certainly provoke the little guys in Tehran to react (as they did). after which we could see two developments.
1. (hopefully) Open confrontation between the IRG and Mullahs.
2. Many more Iranian will further be emboldened to openly challenge the Mullahs.

One way or another, I see, Sec. Clinton and other leaders from Israel and the West to sharpen, and perpetuate further the notion "Iran is governed by military dictatorship", This way de-legitimize the Mullahs authority, eroding their ability to affect much in Iran.

Lets hope this tactic, when backed by more sanction will work. Iran will be freed of this despotic regime, and join the rest of the international community as peaceful and secular nation with its glorious past.

 

HASS

10:51 PM ET

February 17, 2010

Military dictorships = US allies

The more repressive and tyrannical a regime is in the Mideast, the more likely it is to be a US ally. Do you think that people don't know this?

 

HASS

10:50 PM ET

February 17, 2010

Iran is SO threatening!

So pretty much any sort of scientific and technological advancement by Iran represents a "threat" to the USA??

 

WOLFBOY

6:53 PM ET

February 18, 2010

Nuclear First Strike

I accept that Iran potentially poses a threat to the US, but the US deterrent makes an actual attack extremely unlikely.

In contrast, the US is reported to have actively planned for and seriously considered a nuclear first strike on Iran.

I would suggest that this provides useful perspective on the issue.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More