Teheran: Israel will regret any attack

Who do you refer to by the "US" - the administration, Congress, or the people?

I don't think anyone in the administration or Congress actually believes any of the Shahab 6 speculation (they'd much easier believe the taepodong's supposed range). But this doesn't mean it will be hard to put enough fear and doubt into enough people. Heck, if they could pull this off with Iraq's 100-mile al Samouds, they surely can create a lot more fear about the Shahabs.

The only US "soil" that Iran can reasonably reach are the embassies in the Middle East and vicinity.

Because we're strong allies with Israel, and we consider Iran not only a terrorist threat, but a nuclear one too. We can only assume that if Israel were nuked that the U.S. would feel threatened of an imminent nuclear attack on their own soil no matter how fabricated it may be.

"No country has launched an attack using nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there's indeed a strike on Iran, the last thing the forces would want to do is to use nuclear arms, as long as there are other means," Deputy Director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies Dr. Ephraim Kam told Ynet Sunday morning.

Kam's comments come in response to a Sunday Times report that Israel has formulated a plan to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities using tactical nuclear weapons.

According to Dr. Kam, the use of nuclear arms is an extreme step. "Even though this plan is realistic, I don't know if ultimately we'll see a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Even in case a decision is taken to act, it doesn't have to be done with nuclear weapons – that's a far-reaching move."

Three, since it's patently obvious that Iran needs Nuclear plants to subsidize it's power and thus get more money from it's oil. I don't see it as anything approaching fair to target it's facilities.

How is it "patently obvious"? Other nations that have no oil resources of their own and have to buy and transport it don't have nuclear programs.

In the present article, Part II of a three-part series, the need for building nuclear reactors in Iran is analyzed. As was pointed out in Part I, in the opinion of this author, the questions that we Iranians must ask and debate, are: Does Iran need nuclear energy, and is acquiring it in her national interests? It was also pointed out that one must decouple Iran's need for nuclear energy which, as argued in this article, is completely legitimate on economical, social, and environmental grounds, from her alleged or real intentions for producing nuclear weapons.

Recall that the main argument of the United States against nuclear energy for Iran is that, Iran has vast oil and gas reserves, and hence she needs no nuclear reactor. This argument is, in general, not necessarily valid. Many countries that are rich in fossil energy resources, including Britain and Russia (both oil exporters), rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of their energy needs, while Germany, France, Japan, and many other countries, which have no oil or natural gas reserves, have not abandoned nuclear power in favor of more imported oil and gas, even though they can certainly afford this. There are currently 1118 nuclear reactors in the world of which 280 are for nuclear research, while another 400 are used in ships and submarines for producing power. The remaining 438 nuclear reactors are used for generating electricity, of which 104 are in the US, 59 in France, 53 in Japan, 29 in Russia, and 19 are in Germany. Between 1974, when Iran signed her first agreement for building nuclear reactors, and 2000, use of nuclear reactors for generating electricity has increased by a factor of 12!

In the particular case of Iran, the US argument that Iran needs no nuclear energy has no validity at all. While it is true that Iran does have vast oil and gas reserves, she also needs alternative energy sources. I argue that Iran's needs for such alternatives are glaring and indisputable, and I base my arguments on economical, social, and environmental considerations.

We first, however, consider the case for alternative sources of energy on general grounds:

Most of the world's major oil exporters, such as Iran, are developing nations. Thus, these countries must confront the challenge of their demographic explosion without possessing many of the necessary tools, which are strong state structures, rapidly-growing economies, large amounts of investment capitals, numerous entrepreneurs, engineers and inventors, and infrastructres that are reasonably advanced. In fact, we live in a world in which technology and capital are in the countries that are energy-hungry - those that have no major oil reserves of their own (for example, Germany, France, and Japan) or have at best indeaquate sources (for example, the US) - whereas the population growth and social and political turbulence are in the developing countries that are major oil producers (such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Iraq, etc.).

At the same time, oil is a non-renewable national wealth of Iran (and other oil exporters). Once it is produced and exported, it can never be regenerated. One cannot expect Iran (and other oil-exporting countries) to deplete her non-renewable national wealth recklessly, without receiving any lasting products or benefits in return, but this will happen if Iran's sources for energy are not diversified, and she continues to rely almost exclusively on oil and gas for everything from the only source of energy to her annual budget. Except for Norway, every major oil exporter (including Russia) relies heavily on its revenue from oil sales, so much so that if the oil price stays too low for too long, we may have social instability and even revolution in these countries. What would happen to these countries if all of their recoverable oil and gas are rapidly depleted over a few decades, which would be the case if they rely on oil and gas for everything from their annual budget to energy sources?

Furthermore, Iran has been offered to have other nations supply them with reactors AND fuel, but they insist on enriching their own Uranium. They also insist on doing this clandestinely in deep underground facilities and without IAEA inspections.

Combine this with the history of Iranian and Iranian-supported attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets all around the world, and the rhetoric of Iranian leaders - and I think you can see why there is no other way for Israel to deal with this existential threat.

can a nuclear power plant be transformed to a plant capable of making bombs?

LightbulbSun, Iran cannot nuke Israel because Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no chance of building any for years. Israel has nukes and may elect to use them on Iran's nuclear facilities, as you noted. The prime time to use them would be early in the 2-month deployment overlap of the Eisenhower and Stennis carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. If Israeli hawks want to draw the US into a regional war, they will have the perfect opportunity during that period. I hope and pray that it doesn't happen, but all the saber-rattling combined with the lack of any diplomatic dialog with Iraq's neighbors does not bode well. These are dangerous times.

Just like with North Korea, Iran does not have the capability to directly attack the US. And if you are comparing that to Iraq - we didn't nuke Iraq. Remember, I'm still responding to your quote about the US nuking Iran for nuking Israel. I could certainly see us giving Iran the treatment we gave Iraq if Iran nuked Israel, but we wouldn't nuke them. It just isn't a worthwhile thing to do. It has no point.

It apparently had a point and they said it was a worthwile thing to do the last time the USA used her nukes.

What does that have to do with anything?

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.