I don't know how reliable a source "DEBKAfile" is, but just in general, it makes me very uncomfortable that civilian scientists may possibly now be considered legitimate targets for assassination or kidnapping by the US, Israel or others.
According to Iran, scientists aren't working on a weapons system, they are part of a civilian program to produce nuclear power plants. Following your logic, the people who competed in the DARPA grand challenge are not civilians and are legitimate targets for assassination by another world power.
DARPA funds the Grand Challenge so the technology can eventually be used to defend the country. I would not consider killing scientists involved in the competition to be a war crime; it would just be a garden variety act of war. I know little about the international law involved in such distinctions, but it makes logical sense to me.
In my estimation, attacking DARPA-funded scientists is more likely to be "okay" than attacking the Iranian scientists, because the latter may not actually have any involvement in weapons development if Iran is telling the truth.
is there anything at all supporting the Iranian version?
We know that USA and lots of other countries don't believe Iran, are really worried and put lots of resources into stopping the program. We also know that Iran has had suspicious behavior and actively supports terrorism. And so on.
The alternative would be an US conspiracy, which they obviously would have failed to keep quit about... :-)
The King of of the UAE even begged the US to bomb Iran...
Obviously Iran wants the bomb, and given the crazy guy in charge it should make anyone feel _very_ uncomfortable. The last time they pursued this the Israelis at some point bombed their reactor.
Why would Iran risk an outright attack just to build nuclear power plants? Doesn't make sense on any level. A nuke on the other hand is a guarantee that nobody is going to attack your country, ever, again. Invaluable.
The last time they pursued this the Israelis at some point bombed their reactor.
That was Iraq, at Osirak.
But your larger point is correct. Nobody in foreign policy circles takes Iran's claims about having only a peaceful nuclear program seriously. Especially not when two of the main facilities were built in secret before being uncovered by dissidents and Western intelligence agencies. No country pursuing a purely peaceful nuclear program builds enrichment facilities in secret.
More or less like Israel. And i'm not comparing them. I think we can not trust Iran (the government) but is not the only country spreading FUD and probably not even the biggest liar.
All countries lie, it's part and parcel of diplomacy. Expecting otherwise is to naively anthropomorphise states.
And while Israel does have a covert nuclear program that's more or less an open secret these days, it's not directly comparable to Iran. That's because Israel is considered by its neighbours, despite the rhetoric, to be a rational and stable nuclear power that does not have regional ambitions. Israel's nuclear doctrine is explicitly understood by those in the region to be defensive doctrine, intended to ensure Israel's survival rather than to exert influence and control over the entire region.
Iran, on the other hand, does have regional power ambitions and both the intensity of the religious beliefs held by many of those in power combined with its opaque civil and military governing structures mean that its neighbours are not convinced that the country would be a rational nuclear power. Sunni states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are incredibly concerned about what Iran could do if protected by a nuclear umbrella and free to use its affiliated groups like Hezbollah to destabilise the traditional Arab powerhouses of the Middle East. That's why the Wikileaks cables have shown Arab leaders to be even more strident than the Israelis in wanting US action against Iran.
So in the end, it's not about who is the biggest liar or who is spreading FUD. It's about the fact that Iran is a country which has potentially dangerous motives, a stated desire to regain 'lost' influence over the Middle East and a covert nuclear weapons program. Any one of these would be cause for concern; the presence of all three combined is the reason so many countries are worried enough to regard military action as a viable option.
What are you talking about, 'legitimate targets'? There are no rules who they are allowed to attack and not allowed to attack. 'They' are capable of targeting any man in this country they like. This is why you either make friends with other countries or carry the biggest stick. We're already talking acts of war, it's not like you can increase the backlash any further than a declaration of war.
I think you're forgetting that war is not a board game with a friendly set of rules everyone has implicitly agreed to follow.
If we or someone else who signed that is the one making a strike, sure. But it won't always be.
It could even be a country that signed it, but is aiming for complete dominance, and throws out the rules because they are already at war with the rest of the world anyway.
They have hardly any refining capacity to actually use those reserves.
There's no doubt though that they feel having nuclear weapons will be a deterrent after how close they came to having their government wiped out by Cheney et. al.
They are trying to build _a_ bomb at this point. They are no where near the point they can deter the US from meddling. One bomb, however, will deter those with no bombs.
They should know better than anyone what the state of their reserves are. It would be a pity for them to squander the wealth that comes from selling their oil without having created any lasting infrastructure.
Yeah. If you working on a nuke for Iran, you know you're a target for the Mossad (at the very least). Whether you call yourself a civilian or a soldier doesn't matter.
