1. Iran's leadership is rational.
"I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people."
"The regime in Iran is a very rational regime."
"We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor."- Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Fareed Zakaria GPS, February 19, 2012 [Dempsey was challenged on this remark by Rep. Tim Price at a House committee hearing. Read why he thinks it's important to recognize Iran's rationality.]
"We judge Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran. Iranian leaders undoubtedly consider Iran’s security, prestige, and influence, as well as the international political and security environment, when making decisions about its nuclear program."- John Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence, February 16, 2012
"I don't think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, (would) drop it in the neighborhood. They fully understand what might follow. They are radical but not totally crazy. They have a quite sophisticated decision-making process, and they understand reality."2. Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel.
"Iran poses a serious threat, but not an existential one."
"Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."
"It is not in the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel … [Iran is] far from posing an existential threat to Israel."3. Iran has not made the decision to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Iran "is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile.""[Iran has] not yet decided to manufacture atomic weapons.”"And we also know -- or believe we know […] that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability.""We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."- John Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence, February 16, 2012
"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."4. Attacking Iran would make Iran more likely to acquire a nuclear weapon, not less so.
“[Israeli leadership] presents a false view to the public on the Iranian bomb, as though acting against Iran would prevent a nuclear bomb. But attacking Iran will encourage them to develop a bomb all the faster.”- Yuval Diskin, Former Head of Israeli Domestic Intelligence (Shin Bet), Jerusalem Post, April 28, 2012
"It is difficult to see a single action more likely to drive Iran into taking the final decision to acquire nuclear weapons than an attack on the country."- Carl Bildt and Erkki Tuomioja, Foreign Ministers of Sweden and Finland, New York Times, March 20, 2012
"A U.S. strike would damage key Iranian facilities, but it would do nothing to reverse the nuclear knowledge Iran has accumulated or its ability to eventually build new centrifuges. A U.S. attack would also likely rally domestic Iranian support around nuclear hard-liners, increasing the odds that Iran would emerge from a strike even more committed to building a bomb."- Colin H. Kahl, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2012
An attack would be a "sure way for Iran to go on a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the full support of the Iranian people ... and with the most catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the rest of the world."
"[An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities] has a very high propensity in my view of driving Iran into the direction of openly declaring and deciding... to make a nuclear weapon seemingly to defend itself."
"When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret."- Gen. Michael Hayden, former CIA and National Security Agency Chief, Foreign Policy, January 19, 2012
"Paradoxically, the quickest way to insure that the Iranians decide to go for a bomb may be to bomb them. The most predictable result of a military strike would be Iran's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ejection of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and cameras that watch every step of the Iranian enrichment process."- Gary Sick, former National Security Council analyst and lead White House Iran expert during Iran hostage crisis, CNN, January 12, 2012
"A military solution, as far as I'm concerned ... it will bring together a divided nation. It will make them absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons. And they will just go deeper and more covert."5. Attacking Iran would ignite a regional conflict.
"If, God forbid, a war with Iran breaks out, it will be a nightmare. And we will all be in it, including the Persian Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia. No one will remain unscathed.""A military attack against Iran risks igniting a period of confrontation across the region with consequences that no one can fully predict. The turmoil could end up producing several nuclear-armed states in what is probably the most volatile area of the world. And there could be war both with and within the Muslim world."- Carl Bildt and Erkki Tuomioja, Foreign Ministers of Sweden and Finland, New York Times, March 20, 2012
"The consequence could be that we would have an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives, but I think it could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret."- Leon Panetta, US Defense Secretary, December 2, 2011
"We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.""Any war with Iran would be a messy and extraordinarily violent affair, with significant casualties and consequences."- Colin H. Kahl, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2012
"An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years."This is the assassin in Chief of Mr. Elie HOBEIKA, january 24th 2002, [ God avenge his blood...]
"An Israeli attack on Iran could ignite a regional conflict from Afghanistan to the Gaza strip. For the Americans and the Obama Administration, it will be a disaster."- Bruce Riedel, Former Special Assistant to the US president and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council, YNet, November 3, 2011
6. Attacking Iran would not be in US or Israeli national interests.
"Now is not the right time [for a military strike] which may not lead to the right outcome that is needed to ensure the security of the State of Israel."
"I don’t think Israel should use the military option. I don’t agree with some of my colleagues who support a military strike. An attack on Iran wouldn’t add anything to our security."- Dan Meridor, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Metro International, April 16, 2012
"Iran or surrogates could attack businesses, non-governmental organizations, missionaries and virtually every American establishment in the region and beyond."
"Inside the Pentagon, civilian and military, I cannot find a single voice in favor of striking Iran. [...] Not only will we be mired in yet another interminable war, but from this one we might not recover for half a century."- Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vanity Fair, March 2, 2012
"No one that I’m aware of thinks that there’s any real positive outcome of a military strike or some kind of conflict."- Admiral William Fallon, former CENTCOM Commander, Center for Strategic and International Studies Address, February 23, 2012
"[If Iran were attacked,] the United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases. Fourthly – there are economic consequences to that attack – severe economic consequences that could impact a very fragile economy in Europe and a fragile economy here in the United States."- Leon Panetta, US Defense Secretary, December 2, 2011
"[The possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran is] the stupidest thing I have ever heard."
"After you’ve dropped those bombs on those hardened facilities, what happens next? [...] eventually, if you follow this all the way down, eventually I’m putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran."7. There is time to pursue non-military options.
"There is enough time to try different avenues of pressure to change the balance of power with Iran without the need for a direct military confrontation with Iran."
“I think we still have time. It is not tomorrow morning.”8. The West needs to talk to Iran.
"The argument is not only about giving diplomacy a chance. It is about recognizing that diplomacy is the only alternative for those seeking a lasting and sustainable solution to the Iran nuclear issue and peace in the region. The other options are recipes for war and in all probability a nuclear-armed Iran."- Carl Bildt and Erkki Tuomioja, Foreign Ministers of Sweden and Finland, New York Times, March 20, 2012
“We haven't had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran so we don't understand each other. If something happens it's virtually assured that we won't get it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world. […] I think any channel would be terrific."
