Friday, August 16, 2024

Media review: Understanding Blinken's assessment of when Iran will produce a nuclear bomb and Haniyeh's assassination

    Friday, August 16, 2024   No comments

What do media reports and political statements about state-sanctioned assassinations and the war in Gaza mean in the big picture?

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced, Friday July 19th, that Iran is capable of producing fissile material for a nuclear bomb "within a week or two."

Blinken said during a forum in Colorado (west) that "the current situation is not good. Iran, because of the end of the nuclear agreement, instead of being at least a year away from being able to produce fissile material for a nuclear bomb, is now probably a week or two away from being able to do so."

He explained that Tehran "has not developed a weapon yet, but we are watching this matter closely, of course."

Blinken reiterated that "a week or two" is the estimated time for Iran to be able to produce this fissile material for the purpose of making a nuclear bomb.

He said, "What we have seen in recent weeks and months is that Iran is moving forward with this" nuclear program, reiterating the United States' goal of Tehran never having a nuclear weapon, and "preferring the diplomatic path" to achieve this.

CNN, which reported the same news explained breakout time as being "the amount of time needed to produce enough weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon – “is now probably one or two weeks” as Tehran has continued to develop its nuclear program."

The US government statement was made about a month ago, July 18. If that assessment is correct, not only did Iran has more than two weeks to reach that goal, but also was given more reasons to achieve that goal when Israel carried out an attack inside Iran on 31 July 2024, that killed Hamas leader, Ismael Haniyeh who was attending the inauguration of the new president. Blinken assessment is significant for many reasons, including these two important reasons.

If US assessment is true, and given the recent development, by Wednesday August 14th, Iran would have had two weeks since the assassination, above and beyond the two weeks between Blinken's statement and the assassination, which is more than the time it needs to reach the stage per US government.  This means that, now, Iran is past the breakout time, and would have enough "weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon". 

If Iran does not produce "weapons grade material" then US assessment is flawed about Iran's ability or wrong about its intention to do so. 

In both cases, this recent development is bad news for Western governments because their next news cycle will be to address Iran with the reality of it possessing the nuclear material or having it and choosing not to build a nuclear weapons. In both cases, the nuclear threat would have moved past it being a threat, since it will be either a reality or a non-threat.

In the light of the nuclear development matter, Iran's delayed retaliation against Israel for the assassination of a Palestinian political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, could be the most strategic response. Iran would have used the timeline floated by high-ranking US official about the breakout time to either make it irrelevant or to create more uncertainty about Iran's capabilities.

The delay froze any conversation about Iran's nuclear program and perhaps allowed the Iranian leaders to add the nuclear option just in case Israel decides to retaliate against Iran's retaliation. Iran does not have to announce that they have a nuclear weapon at this point; Iran could adopt Israel’s strategic ambiguity about its nuclear capability and that would produce the same deterring effects as announcing that it has a nuclear weapon.

Taken in a broader context, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, in effect, was the best thing that could have happened for Iran for many reasons.

First, Iran now has the legal and moral ground to act on the principle of self-defense.

Second, by holding official religious prayers for the dead Sunni leader, Iran’s brand of Islam, Shia Islam, is no longer a fringe belief, as it has been portrayed by Saudi Salafists. The fact that Hamas leaders agreed to have two formal prayers, one in Tehran and one in Qatar, is remarkable in the view of experts on Sunni-Shia divide.

Third, Iran’s menu of retaliatory options has become more expansive. Iran could strike inside the 1948 border of Israel, since the attack on Haniyeh took place in Tehran. But Iran could hit targets and military concentrations in Gaza, which will highlight the above stated connections, and refocus attention on the primary objective that most governments around the world want to achieve: a ceasefire in Gaza War. Also, Iran could use a surgical strike against an Israeli leader or a military installation. Lastly, Iran’s leaders could forgo a military tactical strike in favor of a strategic decision to adopt a different nuclear posture and use the assassination as a justification for developing a last resort self-defense nuclear option, something it has been unable to do in the past.

When considered from these advantage points, it is clear that assassination is the least strategic statecraft tool, as it tends to diminish the standing and reputation of the state that rely on assassinations and bolster the strategic position of the state whose sovereignty has been violated--long-term. For these reasons, this event may end up being one of the most significant turning points of the century. 

  



ISR Weekly

About ISR Weekly

Site Editors

Previous
Next Post
No comments:
Write comments

Followers


Most popular articles


ISR +


Frequently Used Labels and Topics

40 babies beheaded 77 + China A Week in Review Academic Integrity Adana Agreement afghanistan Africa African Union al-Azhar Algeria Aljazeera All Apartheid apostasy Arab League Arab nationalism Arab Spring Arabs in the West Armenia Arts and Cultures Arts and Entertainment Asia Assassinations Assimilation Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Belt and Road Initiative Brazil BRI BRICS Brotherhood CAF Canada Capitalism Caroline Guenez Caspian Sea cCuba censorship Central Asia Chechnya Children Rights China CIA Civil society Civil War climate colonialism communism con·science Conflict Constitutionalism Contras Corruption Coups Covid19 Crimea Crimes against humanity Dearborn Debt Democracy Despotism Diplomacy discrimination Dissent Dmitry Medvedev Earthquakes Economics Economics and Finance Economy ECOWAS Education and Communication Egypt Elections energy Enlightenment environment equity Erdogan Europe Events Fatima FIFA FIFA World Cup FIFA World Cup Qatar 2020 Flour Massacre Food Football France freedom of speech G20 G7 Garden of Prosperity Gaza GCC GDP Genocide geopolitics Germany Global Security Global South Globalism globalization Greece Grozny Conference Hamas Health Hegemony Hezbollah hijab Hiroshima History and Civilizations Human Rights Huquq Ibadiyya Ibn Khaldun ICC Ideas IGOs Immigration Imperialism india Indonesia inequality inflation INSTC Instrumentalized Human Rights Intelligence Inter International Affairs International Law Iran IranDeal Iraq Iraq War ISIL Islam in America Islam in China Islam in Europe Islam in Russia Islam Today Islamic economics Islamic Jihad Islamic law Islamic Societies Islamism Islamophobia ISR MONTHLY ISR Weekly Bulletin ISR Weekly Review Bulletin Japan Jordan Journalism Kenya Khamenei Kilicdaroglu Kurdistan Latin America Law and Society Lebanon Libya Majoritarianism Malaysia Mali mass killings Mauritania Media Media Bias Media Review Middle East migration Military Affairs Morocco Multipolar World Muslim Ban Muslim Women and Leadership Muslims Muslims in Europe Muslims in West Muslims Today NAM Narratives Nationalism NATO Natural Disasters Nelson Mandela NGOs Nicaragua Nicaragua Cuba Niger Nigeria Normalization North America North Korea Nuclear Deal Nuclear Technology Nuclear War Nusra October 7 Oman OPEC+ Opinion Polls Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - OIC Oslo Accords Pakistan Palestine Peace Philippines Philosophy poerty Poland police brutality Politics and Government Population Transfer Populism Poverty Prison Systems Propaganda Prophet Muhammad prosperity Protests Proxy Wars Public Health Putin Qatar Quran Rachel Corrie Racism Raisi Ramadan Regime Change religion and conflict Religion and Culture Religion and Politics religion and society Resistance Rights Rohingya Genocide Russia Salafism Sanctions Saudi Arabia Science and Technology SCO Sectarianism security Senegal Shahed sharia Sharia-compliant financial products Shia Silk Road Singapore Slavery Soccer socialism Southwest Asia and North Africa Space War Sports Sports and Politics State Terror Sudan sunnism Supremacism SWANA Syria Ta-Nehisi Coates terrorism Thailand The Koreas Tourism Trade transportation Tunisia Turkey Turkiye U.S. Foreign Policy UAE uk ukraine UN under the Rubble UNGA United States UNSC Uprisings Urban warfare US Foreign Policy US Veto USA Uyghur Venezuela Volga Bulgaria Wadee wahhabism War War and Peace War Crimes Wealth and Power Wealth Building West Western Civilization Western Sahara WMDs Women women rights Work World and Communities Xi Yemen Zionism

Search for old news

Find Articles by year, month hierarchy


AdSpace

_______________________________________________

Copyright © Islamic Societies Review. All rights reserved.