An LA Times article.
Sure looks like assassination to me. Iran blames The West and its allies.
Who do you think did this? Are we, the US and our allies, killing Iranian scientists involved with their nuclear program? How do you feel about that?
I think assassinating scientists is pretty despicable, myself.
I don’t think this one is us. It isn’t our style. We would make them disappear and have them in questioning, not just off scientists. I hate to agree with Iran on anything but if I had to bet, I’d put my money on on the Israelis.
These assassinations are disturbing, no doubt about it. One report I read said that one of the earlier victims was involved in opposition politics in Iran, with the suggestion that that killing may have been orchestrated by the government, using the story of Israeli assassination as cover. It does seem a bit odd to me that, if these guys are lynch-pins of the Iranian nuclear programme, they are just driving around Tehran in ordinary cars. If I were a despot bent on developing a nuclear arsenal, I would have my weapons scientists under close protection. Maybe Iran isn’t as much of a police state as I imagine?
This is a good point. The only issue I could take with the logic is that this is the fifth one. I find it hard to believe that all of them were so politically active they were more dangerous in their speech than useful in their work and had to be taken out.
On the other hand, the Israeli’s have an immediate interest in preventing a nuclear capable Iran.
See, this is just further evidence that the War on Terror is far from being over.
I think a prudent assumption would be the Israelis. They have the motive, the capability, the actionable intelligence.
How do I feel about one country killing the citizens of another? Well, let’s see… I objected to the Iranian plot to assisinate the Saudi Arabian diplomat in New York. I vigorously oppose Iran sentencing to death an American citizen visiting his grandmother through ridiculous charges of being a CIA spy. I despise them for flooding Iraq and Afghanistan with sophisticated weapons that have killed so many thousands of civilians and American troops. Same for their support of Syria, Hezbollah, the proxy wars in Lebanon, on and on ad nauseum.
So do I feel bad when someone working to provide them weapons that could kill millions is targeted just because he falls under the category of scientist? No, not really. The world would be a less dangerous place if Pakistan’s AQ Khan, a “scientist” had been prevented by whatever means necessary from his proliferation efforts in Iran and North Korea. If someone wants their right to life to be respected, don’t contribute to weapons of mass destruction for rogue regimes.
The Israelis justifiably have every reason to fear a nuclear armed Iran. Instead of attacking the facility and suffering through the widespread conflict that would cause have decided to use surgical strikes. Of course this bothers me on some levels but I completely understand why they find this action to be necessary and preferable to a far larger conflict.
Lieu, do you think Iran is going to think, “gosh, they keep killing our nuclear scientists, I guess we should give up this insanity?”
So is assassination a legitimate tool now?
Is there any standard of proof required or is suspicion good enough to assassinate them?
Can Rogue regimes use it too or would it be an act of war if they did it?
I was wondering about this too when I saw the news this morning. My reaction was, “CIA or Mossad?” I don’t know that I necessarily agree with Acid Lamp–I don’t know anything about how the CIA operates, but I could see them icing someone if that was the easiest way to accomplish their goal. Feel free to fight my ignorance.
In any case, it seems pointless–surely all they’re doing is delaying the inevitable.
Definitely. Don’t forget that nuclear weapons were invented in the 1940’s. The technology is 70 years old, and about the only thing that’s high-tech about nukes are the missle guidance systems.
I think Iran is hellbent in their cause and is indifferent to the death of anyone outside of the degree to which it negatively impacts their programs.
I agree that the only thing this does is delay. But delay can be a goal unto itself. The only way to out and out prevent a regime from obtaining these weapons if they want to is to defeat the regime in war. However, one can impose considerable costs and delays by such tactics as embargos on certain materials and tech, sanctions, and at the more-aggressive end, bombings directed at equipment and assassinations directed at key persons.
None of which can of course prevent a regime. They can delay the regime and impose costs. On the other side of the ledger is the costs of the tactics themselves - not just literally as in paying people off, but in ramping up hostilities and using tactics such as assassinations.
From a cold blooded perspective the issue is whether the costs of using the techniques are worth the benefits of the resulting delays.
I’m not sure that you should measure technology in years. Instead, iterations; how many tries people have had to improve it. On that count, nukes are still new technology. It is clearly rather difficult for smaller states to get away with experimenting with nukes.
Mossad most likely. But for some crazy reason I’m picturing a lone Gurkha under deep cover running a samosa stand somewhere in Tehran. . .
Their remaining nuclear scientists might be forgiven for thinking along those lines. Although they may not have much personal choice in the matter.
I’d be surprised if the US had intelligence assets on the ground in Iran who could operate so effectively. Maybe the CIA could provide tech support, like satellite tracking of the target scientists, though.
Technically. But a nuke isn’t the kind of invention, like, say, paper plates where every country now uses them.
It may be more difficult to hire a replacement.
Well, its strongly suspected the Israelis took out Saddam’s huge artillery supergun designer Gerald Bull in 1990. Saddam wanted an artillery piece like the one used to shell Paris in WWI from a massive distance away. Bull’s supergun had the potential of reaching Israel.
Paris gun
I can easily see Israel taking out the Iraq nuclear scientists. Why sit back and watch the executioner build the gallows?
The Wikipedia cite, for what it’s worth, does not back up the suggestion that it is “strongly suspected” that Israeli agents killed the supergun designer. It is merely put forward as a possibile explanation.
My comments were based on a 60 Minutes Report that I saw in the 90’s. They did an entire segment on Gerald Bull’s career and death. Nothing can be proved. Whoever took him out did it very expertly. Israel certainly had a lot to gain by stopping him and the supergun.