I'll trust the Pentagon's assessment of Iran's nuclear program more than politician-speak in newspapers. Here's Chomsky's take on the issue:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htmHere's the original article, which I will take quotes from:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58833Some interesting attempt to "sex up" the report right at the start which is a forehead-slapping tautology:
“With sufficient foreign assistance,” the report states, “Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”
A single ICBM launcher costs about $100 Billion, and what's this "sufficient foreign assistance"? Only the 5 permanent members of the UN Security council have ICBMs to my knowledge. Basically this is saying that if one of the top-tier nuclear powers
gave Iran ICBMs they could install them within a few years.
ANY country could have ICBMs with “With
sufficient foreign assistance”, and it's pure alarmism to put a 2015 date on this when there is in fact, no "foreign assistance" for ICBMs in the works
at all.
The report states that central to Iran’s “deterrent strategy” is its pursuit of a nuclear program that could potentially move it closer to developing a nuclear weapon. Iran contends that its nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes.
“Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy,” the report says.
(emphasis mine - to point out how many "ifs" the Pentagon loads the report with, to give you an idea how much they're grasping at straws)Ok, Pentagon's assessment: Iran keeps the "possibility" of a nuclear program alive as a bargaining chip against being invaded - that's what deterrent strategy means - in other words the Pentagon knows that Iran's stance is purely defensive. Since they had that invasion by US-backed Iraq in the 1980's they have a anti-invasion deterrence poilcy. And their military is entirely structured around slowing down invading armies while they try to negotiate for peace - they do not have overwhelming "force projection" like the United States etc.
Chomsky (and the DOD report) talks about the main gist of American efforts which are to counter the "destabilizing" efforts of Iranian diplomacy in the middle-east.
The written report to Congress cited Iran’s influence in the Middle East -- including its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, in Lebanon and Gaza, respectively -- and its reach into Iraq and Afghanistan. Military and defense officials have characterized such behavior as “destabilizing.”
Flournoy last week said a vital component of U.S. strategy to counter Iranian influence is to strengthen the security capacities of vulnerable states in the region, noting that both Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both have traveled to the region in recent months.
“It's a vital avenue for countering destabilizing Iranian activities, and we believe we are seeing some results,” Flournoy said of efforts to build partner capacity. “In Iraq and Lebanon, for instance, our efforts to develop the capacity of security forces and improve governance have helped to weaken Iran's proxies.”
A noteworthy observation is how the terms stability and destabilizing are used in American media: Any action which enforces American corporate control overseas, no matter how destructive and how many conflicts it causes (e.g. backing genocidal regimes), is "Stabilizing" an area. (read articles on Latin America etc). Any non-American action to strengthen regional forces which in some way sidelines American control is "Destabilizing".
e.g. when Hugo Chavez signs treaties, or gives financial aid or discount oil to other countries, e.g. subsidizing heating oil for poor Americans, he's "destabilizing" the region. And when the Bush Administration backed the Colombian government in 2008 bombing Ecuador and demonizing both Ecuador and Venezuela as terrorist countries (talking up a regional war), they talk about Colombia and the United States as forces for "stability".
I'll point out that government assassin squads exist in Colombia with recent mass-graves of trade unionists and human-rights protestors killed by uniform soldiers, right-wing death squads infiltrate universities and make "hit lists" of Professors who are seen as left-wing, even murdering some of them, and when this is reported to the authorities, it's the
professors who get investigated or arrested, not the death squads. And all this is just from 2002-2010.
Similarly, America invades Iraq and Afghanistan, throws them into utter chaos, and talks about all their efforts as "stabilizing". Iran attempting to have good relations through diplomacy or aid offers - even with regimes that America put into power - is pure "destabilizing".