In the first presidential debate, both President George Bush and Senator John Kerry spoke of a nuclear Iran as a danger, but neither indicated very clearly how that danger would be addressed.
President Bush did speak of cooperation with allies and the possibility of going to the United Nations for sanctions. Senator Kerry somewhat erroneously spoke about the initiative as being more European than American, and as there not being sufficient cooperation on this and all other issues between the US and Europe.
A possibility for stopping Iran, which to this point had not been much discussed in the media, was described by Haaretz correspondent Amir Oren on October 1. He claims that for the past three years, the major US military exercise has been one for a US takeover of Teheran. This operation would be undertaken not as a first step to militarily occupying all of Iran, but rather as leading to regime change. Such regime change would mean a halting of the Iranian nuclear program. But such a military operation would be enormously complex in the vast urban area of Teheran. And it is not at all clear that at this point the US is ready for the undertaking.
At the moment, talk of an invasion is theoretical, but there is a general feeling that such a scenario is far more likely if President Bush stays in power, rather than if the more 'dialogue-with-the-devil'-oriented Kerry takes over.
Soothing words, however, came from another direction. One major Israel-based Iran expert claims that at present, Iran's missile systems are not sufficiently accurate to constitute a real threat to Israel. The expert also says that the Iranian nuclear threat is not about to be realized in the coming months.
A number of analysts, including Erich Marquardt of Power and Interest News Report, say that Israel is worrying about the wrong thing when it worries about an Iranian first strike. These experts claim that the Iranian regime is rational, their nuclear weapons are not going to be used for a suicidal first strike on Israel. Marquardt claims the real danger is the increased power of threat and intimidation Iran would have over neighboring states, thus contracting Israel's room for maneuver.
Another Israeli expert, MEMRI Iran analyst Ayelet Savyon, says that Iran is extremely cautious, and in general takes action only when it knows it will not have to pay a price for it. Thus, an Iranian first strike would seem to be, in this analysis, far from what Iran has in mind.
Yet another analyst, Nadir Habibi, claims that Iran conceives of its nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Israel and especially the United States. It fears a land invasion or a preemptive strike against its nuclear facilities and feels surrounded by growing US power. The view that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons as deterrent is by far the view of most experts, however. Even if so, this does not mean Israel or the United States should be reconciled to this possibility, for a nuclear Iran provides dangers in many other ways, including the increased proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world.
The Israeli Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz, in an interview with the major Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on the eve of Sukkot (Sept. 29,2004), expressed a confidence that the threat would be dealt with in time. He gave the sense that the US was handling the matter diplomatically and that somehow it would be worked out in a satisfactory way. This interview was characterized by Mofaz' optimism about the next ten years ahead for Israel, and on his insistence that Israel in that time maintain its long arm, the air force, at the highest possible qualitative level.
However, another Iran expert, Michael Ledeen, warned against the present complacency and patience, claiming that any time given to Iran is time for it to continue its nuclear programs.
A most interesting development was the appearance on the intelligence website Milnet of a report detailing the known Iranian nuclear sites and the kind of military operation required for taking out each site. Milnet claims that while it is impossible to halt the Iranian program completely, it might be sufficiently delayed so as to cease to be an immediate threat. Such a preemptive strike might also induce the kind of regime change the US is looking for in Iran.
The Iranians, for their part, continue to claim that their program is for peaceful purposes and the Teheran Times of October 2 asserts that the head of the IAEA, Mohammed El-Baradei, is in agreement with them. They are still insisting on the legitimacy of their achieving the 'complete nuclear cycle', an accomplishment that would mean their producing a bomb depends only on their decision to do so.
As Israel has been so preoccupied with quelling rocket fire from Gaza, as the US has been so involved in its elections and quelling the anti-government violence in Iraq, Iran has been less in their focus the past two weeks than in previous weeks. But the Iranian nuclear issue remains high on the foreign policy agenda of the US, and vital for Israel and, in fact, for the world.
The IAEA's next meeting and report on Iran is November 25, 2004, and this will be after the US election. Perhaps then a clear new direction will emerge, though it is very likely that it will be more of the same old game, of an international body delaying and giving a violator still more time to develop its illegal weapons.
How Israel will act, what its exact strategy is, how great its coordination with the US is on the issue - all remains unclear.
The one certainty is that a nuclear Iran would make the Middle East and the world as a whole a far more dangerous place, far more threatened by nuclear terror and war. One way or another, for the benefit of all of humanity, it must be stopped.
President Bush did speak of cooperation with allies and the possibility of going to the United Nations for sanctions. Senator Kerry somewhat erroneously spoke about the initiative as being more European than American, and as there not being sufficient cooperation on this and all other issues between the US and Europe.
A possibility for stopping Iran, which to this point had not been much discussed in the media, was described by Haaretz correspondent Amir Oren on October 1. He claims that for the past three years, the major US military exercise has been one for a US takeover of Teheran. This operation would be undertaken not as a first step to militarily occupying all of Iran, but rather as leading to regime change. Such regime change would mean a halting of the Iranian nuclear program. But such a military operation would be enormously complex in the vast urban area of Teheran. And it is not at all clear that at this point the US is ready for the undertaking.
At the moment, talk of an invasion is theoretical, but there is a general feeling that such a scenario is far more likely if President Bush stays in power, rather than if the more 'dialogue-with-the-devil'-oriented Kerry takes over.
Soothing words, however, came from another direction. One major Israel-based Iran expert claims that at present, Iran's missile systems are not sufficiently accurate to constitute a real threat to Israel. The expert also says that the Iranian nuclear threat is not about to be realized in the coming months.
A number of analysts, including Erich Marquardt of Power and Interest News Report, say that Israel is worrying about the wrong thing when it worries about an Iranian first strike. These experts claim that the Iranian regime is rational, their nuclear weapons are not going to be used for a suicidal first strike on Israel. Marquardt claims the real danger is the increased power of threat and intimidation Iran would have over neighboring states, thus contracting Israel's room for maneuver.
Another Israeli expert, MEMRI Iran analyst Ayelet Savyon, says that Iran is extremely cautious, and in general takes action only when it knows it will not have to pay a price for it. Thus, an Iranian first strike would seem to be, in this analysis, far from what Iran has in mind.
Yet another analyst, Nadir Habibi, claims that Iran conceives of its nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Israel and especially the United States. It fears a land invasion or a preemptive strike against its nuclear facilities and feels surrounded by growing US power. The view that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons as deterrent is by far the view of most experts, however. Even if so, this does not mean Israel or the United States should be reconciled to this possibility, for a nuclear Iran provides dangers in many other ways, including the increased proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world.
The Israeli Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz, in an interview with the major Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on the eve of Sukkot (Sept. 29,2004), expressed a confidence that the threat would be dealt with in time. He gave the sense that the US was handling the matter diplomatically and that somehow it would be worked out in a satisfactory way. This interview was characterized by Mofaz' optimism about the next ten years ahead for Israel, and on his insistence that Israel in that time maintain its long arm, the air force, at the highest possible qualitative level.
However, another Iran expert, Michael Ledeen, warned against the present complacency and patience, claiming that any time given to Iran is time for it to continue its nuclear programs.
A most interesting development was the appearance on the intelligence website Milnet of a report detailing the known Iranian nuclear sites and the kind of military operation required for taking out each site. Milnet claims that while it is impossible to halt the Iranian program completely, it might be sufficiently delayed so as to cease to be an immediate threat. Such a preemptive strike might also induce the kind of regime change the US is looking for in Iran.
The Iranians, for their part, continue to claim that their program is for peaceful purposes and the Teheran Times of October 2 asserts that the head of the IAEA, Mohammed El-Baradei, is in agreement with them. They are still insisting on the legitimacy of their achieving the 'complete nuclear cycle', an accomplishment that would mean their producing a bomb depends only on their decision to do so.
As Israel has been so preoccupied with quelling rocket fire from Gaza, as the US has been so involved in its elections and quelling the anti-government violence in Iraq, Iran has been less in their focus the past two weeks than in previous weeks. But the Iranian nuclear issue remains high on the foreign policy agenda of the US, and vital for Israel and, in fact, for the world.
The IAEA's next meeting and report on Iran is November 25, 2004, and this will be after the US election. Perhaps then a clear new direction will emerge, though it is very likely that it will be more of the same old game, of an international body delaying and giving a violator still more time to develop its illegal weapons.
How Israel will act, what its exact strategy is, how great its coordination with the US is on the issue - all remains unclear.
The one certainty is that a nuclear Iran would make the Middle East and the world as a whole a far more dangerous place, far more threatened by nuclear terror and war. One way or another, for the benefit of all of humanity, it must be stopped.