News Analysis: Chirac says what many have been thinking

News Analysis: Chirac says what many have been thinking
By Elaine Sciolino

Friday, February 2, 2007
PARIS
When President Jacques Chirac said this week that he was not overly worried if Iran had a nuclear weapon or two, he stated clearly what some arms control experts have been saying for some time: that the world may have to learn live with a nuclear Iran.

Chirac quickly retracted his remarks, and the Élysée Palace reaffirmed France's commitment to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. But in veering from the prepared script and letting the veil of caution fall, he was sparking discussion of whether containment of a nuclear Iran is less bad than other options — and certainly preferable to war.

"Jacques Chirac said things that many experts are saying around the world, even in the United States; that is to say, that a country that possesses the bomb does not use it and automatically enters the system of deterrence and doesn't take absurd risks," Hubert Vedrine, the French foreign minister from 1997 to 2002, said Friday on LCI television.

The logic of the argument goes this way: Iran is manufacturing enriched uranium, which can be used for making electricity or nuclear weapons. If Iran masters that process for military purposes, it may be able to build a bomb or two. The only realistic goal is to delay the process as long as possible. But even if Iran has the bomb, the classic doctrine of nuclear deterrence that restrained nuclear powers during the Cold War will prevent it from ever using it, according to this argument.

"There is a growing realization that the international community is failing to stop Iran from acquiring a uranium enrichment capability," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "The U.S. government wouldn't accept it, but it's becoming a fait accompli. Can the next step — a nuclear weapon — be prevented? Chirac skipped over that question and cut to the chase in saying that, 'We can live with a nuclear- armed Iran.'"

The Bush administration rejects the idea of an Iranian bomb and has made stopping it the object of an increasingly aggressive policy. Among the Europeans, however, there is an overwhelming consensus that the American-led war in Iraq has been an unmitigated failure and that Washington's Iran strategy could end in an even more destabilizing military confrontation.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/02/news/france.php

has declared the nuclear bomb un-Islamic. That doesn't sound like proliferation to me, especially since Admenijad has no power; he's a figurehead. Iran is a theocracy.

This is all just more of the PNAC agenda, and there is no substance behind most of these accusations.

No, I don't like their war on women, nor do I have much use for their religion, nor do I care for their form of government. However, they've shown little inclination to expand their revolution outside their borders, unlike the Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia. There is nearly as much to admire about them as their is to deplore, and if they do get the bomb in another 10 years or so, it will be for defense. I can't imagine their wanting another war after the 1988 stalemate with Iraq.

In a few very weird ways, they're more liberal than we've ever been, and once we get Stupid out of office, they're very likely to start reforming things and loosening the iron grip of the Mullahs.

Pakistan scares me. India scares me. I can see both of them lobbing nukes at each other over Kashmir much more easily than I can see the Farsi lobbing them at us or anyone else.

Isn't it the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons on other countries? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why not with Iran? I think it's a good idea to just let them have the bomb. Think of it this way. The US can't invade "nuke" countries. It's a great way to SAVE SOME MONEY!

will never believe it because the West says, "hell, if I was Iran I would sure as hell would want a nuclear bomb"! nuff said!