News Biden: New Israel would be 'ill-advised' to attack Iran

[Count Iblis]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiRmW6LJrSIvrbGP1dY_W2YpAaBw"

Bush refused to give Israel the codes the Israeli air force needs to safely overfly Iraq and he also refused to give Israel the most advanced bunker busters. The Obama adminstration has now publically spoken out against any hypothetical Israeli attack.


From this we can conclude that the US now believes that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat at all. Just like in case of Saddam's WMDs, the US is simply using the issue to keep the sanctions against Iran in place. This which gives the US a stronger negotiating position in future talks with Iran.


But an Israeli attack on Iran would undermine this tactic, as that would lead to an Iranian counter attack on US forces in Iraq which would quickly escalate to a regional war or even a world war.

 

[jacksonpeeble]

From this we can conclude that the US now believes that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat at all. Just like in case of Saddam's WMDs, the US is simply using the issue to keep the sanctions against Iran in place. This which gives the US a stronger negotiating position in future talks with Iran.

I follow your train of thought, but I think that what you're saying is oversimplifying that matter and also (at the same time), over-analyzing it.

I don't think that we can assume that because of those facts, we don't feel that Iran is a threat. Their leader is absolutely ruthless.

While I don't entirely trust the government by any means (even with the new administration), I think that you're being overly skeptical. I don't think that this can cause much harm - it's always good to watch what the politicians are doing, as I view many of them as corrupt. However, not everyone is out to get us and up to no good.

 

[russ_watters]

From this we can conclude that the US now believes that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat at all. Just like in case of Saddam's WMDs, the US is simply using the issue to keep the sanctions against Iran in place. This which gives the US a stronger negotiating position in future talks with Iran.

There is another possibility: the US is simply taking the politically more popular stance, regardless of whether it actually agrees with it or not.

But an Israeli attack on Iran would undermine this tactic, as that would lead to an Iranian counter attack on US forces in Iraq which would quickly escalate to a regional war or even a world war.

Could you explain why you think an Israeli attack on Iran would lead to an Iranian attack (not counterattack) on US forces in Iraq(what would they gain?)? Also explain why you think a small regional war would escalate into a large regional war or world war (it didn't happen with Gulf I or II...).

The US is pulling out of Iraq and in probably about a year we will be completely gone. After that, we won't have any way of preventing Israel from attacking Iran, so while our position is politically expedient, it doesn't really have any teeth.

 

[jacksonpeeble]

If Israel attacks Iran, the United States will have to help, will it not? It seems to me as though this would turn into a world conflict if it occurred. I don't really know where Iraq comes in, though. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[turbo]

If Israel attacks Iran, the United States will have to help, will it not? It seems to me as though this would turn into a world conflict if it occurred. I don't really know where Iraq comes in, though. Maybe I'm missing something.

No, the US will not have to help. The US should let Israel accept the results of whatever course they pursue.

I knew (and still know) a feisty little jerk who couldn't hold his liquor, and wanted to start a fight anytime he got "offended" at which time he expected some of the heavy hitters in his construction crew to bail him out. Eventually, they stopped rescuing him, and shortly thereafter, he learned to be a bit more diplomatic. He acted like a tough-guy when he thought he had big guys at his back - when he started moving up and getting foreman status on a few jobs, he ticked off a lot of long-term employees by being an a$$ and they let him take his own licks. He ain't so tough these days.

 

[Count Iblis]

I think that the Bush administration exaggerated the case against Iran in 2005 at the IAEA Boards of Governors meeting. There it were foreign ministers, not the nuclear experts, who voted to refer Iran to the UNSC. The Obama adminstration has access to all the information, so they can see that the case against Iran is very weak.


Obama, I think, seeks a face saving way out of the nuclear issue. Some sort of bargain according to which Iran does have the right to enrich uranium but under very strict inspections regime in exchange for lifting sanctions may be on the table.


The current position that Iran cannot enrich their own uranium just because they could kick out the IAEA inspectors in the future and produce nuclear weapons looks untenable given that no IAEA inspections have ever found evidence for an Iranian weapons program. All the violations were procedural in nature and Iran's acquirment of nuclear materials from Pakistan was motivated by US policies that effectively blocked Iranian access to nuclear technology via the normal route.



So, Iran's position on the nuclear issue, i.e. their refusal to accept EU propsals, could simply be motivated by nationalism: Why would Iran give up the right to use their own uranium for use in their own nuclear powerplants? No country in the world is barred from doing that and no country in the world would give up that right even if they would never exercise that right.


In case if Iran, it goes much further than this. They know that the reason why we would rather have that Iran suspends enrichment is bacause the possible threat to Israel. But this makes our case much weaker to Iranians. They see Israel as an occupying force. An Israeli roadblock curtailing Palestinians in their freedom is bad enough. But if they have to suspend their enrichment program because of a hypothetical threat to Israel, then to them that's an Israeli roadblock on Iranian territory.


So, this issue is way more emotional to Iranians than we could ever imagine. Such issues can quickly escalate to big wars. If Israel were to attack, then Iran would hold the US responsible (there is no way Israel could attack without US approval).

 

[russ_watters]

If Israel attacks Iran, the United States will have to help, will it not?

Why? When Israel attacked the Osirak reactor complex in 1981, it was a single mission with no outside help and there was no counterattack or follow-up attack. It was completely self-contained. Why do you believe an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would go any differently?

 

[russ_watters]

So, this issue is way more emotional to Iranians than we could ever imagine. Such issues can quickly escalate to big wars.

"Can", sure - anything "can" happen...but in the real world we live in, they almost never do. Please attempt to connect your argument to reality using historical examples. You're making leaps of logic that are unconnected to reality.

If Israel were to attack, then Iran would hold the US responsible

Why?

(there is no way Israel could attack without US approval).

Why not? I already gave an example of where it has happened before.

All you are doing in this thread is throwing out assertion after assertion after assertion, without providing any supporting examples or logic. This is just empty, idle speculation on your part.

 

[Werg22]

Why?

Israel would not take such a move without consulting the US first. Iran is adjacent to both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is crucial for the US not to give any more pretexts for Iran-fueled anti-US insurgency in those regions. Until disengagement, an Israeli attack would put in peril the success of both missions.

 

[AhmedEzz]

"Can", sure - anything "can" happen...but in the real world we live in, they almost never do. Please attempt to connect your argument to reality using historical examples. You're making leaps of logic that are unconnected to reality.

All you are doing in this thread is throwing out assertion after assertion after assertion, without providing any supporting examples or logic. This is just empty, idle speculation on your part.

Simply because Iran controls Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and has a good military force of Balistic missiles and can block the oil from the Gulf with naval forces. Moreover, Iran is the second most populous country in the ME and its population is known for being proud and patriotic. Finally, why CAN'T it be likely?

Your logic russ is really amazing. You simply criticize everything that you don't like. Why can't you hear people and be heard; no need to debunk every single person's comments.


One last thing, to do anything Israel HAS to take permission from the US. To me the US is the vassal of Israel, it gave it everything it needs. Now how can such country NOT follow orders from big daddy? (already there is a discussion of lowering aids to Israel)

 

[seycyrus]

...
Your logic russ is really amazing. You simply criticize everything that you don't like. Why can't you hear people and be heard; no need to debunk every single person's comments.

I did not see any such actions from Russ's comments. I saw logical analysis. Your comments on the other hand are more in line with your criticisms.

...One last thing, to do anything Israel HAS to take permission from the US. To me the US is the vassal of Israel, it gave it everything it needs. Now how can such country NOT follow orders from big daddy? ...

1) No it does not.
2) You are confusing the vassal/lord reationship.

 

[seycyrus]

...
I knew (and still know) a feisty little jerk who couldn't hold his liquor, and wanted to start a fight anytime he got "offended" at which time he expected some of the heavy hitters in his construction crew to bail him out. Eventually, they stopped rescuing him, and shortly thereafter, he learned to be a bit more diplomatic. He acted like a tough-guy when he thought he had big guys at his back - when he started moving up and getting foreman status on a few jobs, he ticked off a lot of long-term employees by being an a$$ and they let him take his own licks. He ain't so tough these days.

Your analogy does not hold, at least not in regards to Israel. After all, israel could wipe the floor with Iran if it went all out.

Your analogy DOES apply to Iran, however.

 

[seycyrus]

I think that the Bush administration exaggerated the case against Iran in 2005 at the IAEA Boards of Governors meeting. There it were foreign ministers, not the nuclear experts, who voted to refer Iran to the UNSC. The Obama adminstration has access to all the information, so they can see that the case against Iran is very weak.

It was referred. The UNSC took it from there. Has the Obama admin made a suggestion to the UNSC that is contrary to the previous position?

out the IAEA inspectors in the future and produce nuclear weapons looks untenable given that no IAEA inspections have ever found evidence for an Iranian weapons program.

Excuse me? The security council has routinely stated that Iran is not living up to it's obligations! Time and time again!

All the violations were procedural in nature ...

Yeah, that happens when you don't abide by your obligations.

 

[Count Iblis]

"Can", sure - anything "can" happen...but in the real world we live in, they almost never do. Please attempt to connect your argument to reality using historical examples. You're making leaps of logic that are unconnected to reality. Why? Why not? I already gave an example of where it has happened before.

All you are doing in this thread is throwing out assertion after assertion after assertion, without providing any supporting examples or logic. This is just empty, idle speculation on your part.

The nuclear issue is a hugely emotional issue for Iranians. You cannot compare that to some secret Syrian or Iraqi installation. Instead, compare it to Sharon visiting the Temple Mount.


I agree that this is my judgement about the emotions involved. It is difficult to give rigorous proofs when dealing when human behavior.


You can look at the bombing of the Osirak reactor and understand why that did not escalate to a wider war. You have to put yourself in Saddam's position and do a cost benefit analysis. You'll find out that it was more effective for him to try again but this time by using uranium enrichment. Such a program is more difficult to destroy in a surprise attack.


In case of Iran, if Iran's intention were to make nuclear weapons they would not gain much by starting a big war. But if (as I believe) Iran's refusal to stop their enrichment program is motivated out of nationalism then surely, the last thing they would do is let a military attack go unanswered.

 

[Count Iblis]

Excuse me? The security council has routinely stated that Iran is not living up to it's obligations! Time and time again!

The Security council refers to Iran refusing to comply with security Council resolutions. The IAEA has a dual role. They have their own rules, they can refer countries to the SC. And then the SC can make additional demands, the IAEA checking if the country is complying.

The problem with Iran is that Iran was referred without the usual criteria for referral being met. It was all propaganda by the US which convinced the foreign ministers, not nuclear experts, at the IAEA board of governos meeting that Iran should be referred to the SC.

Then the SC decided to pass a Chapter 7 resolution, that according to the rules can only be passed if there is a threat to international peace and security, imposing sanctions on Iran if they don't comply with their demand that they suspend their enrichment program.


So, it seems to me that Iran is a victim of abuse of power by the US. The US has hijacked international institutions to conduct its own foreign policy interests. Iran therefore does not recognize the legal validity of the SC resolutions passed against it.

There is no obligaton on Iran to do anything, unless you believe that the SC is the world's dictator. I mean, passing a chapter 7 resolution in a frivolous way is similar to a dictator declaring martial law to get his way in a dispute.

 

[seycyrus]

The Security council refers to Iran refusing to comply with security Council resolutions. The IAEA has a dual role. They have their own rules, they can refer countries to the SC. And then the SC can make additional demands, the IAEA checking if the country is complying.

I hope you are not critiquing me for my generic inter-usage of the UNSC and the IAEA?

The problem with Iran is that Iran was referred without the usual criteria for referral being met. It was all propaganda by the US ...

This is rather speculative.

Your entire argument is based on the proposal that the UN does the U.S. bidding. Which I reject.

There is no obligaton on Iran to do anything, unless you believe that the SC is the world's dictator. I mean, passing a chapter 7 resolution in a frivolous way is similar to a dictator declaring martial law to get his way in a dispute.

1) I do not believe that the UN is the world's dictator.
2) I believe that that Iran is required to fulfill it's obligations.
3) The chapter 7 was not passed in a frivolous way.

Are there any other subjective responses to your subjective statements that you would like me to make?

 

[Count Iblis]

The chapter 7 was not passed in a frivolous way.

How does an Iranian enrichment program that is under IAEA inspections constitute a clear and present threat to international peace and security? Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, they haven't even enriched uranium to the required level to make bombs, there is no evidence that any of its low grade enriched uranium has been diverted.

Note that in case of North Korea's nuclear test a resolution was passed which was not under chapter 7 (because in case of a chapter 7 resolution, China and Russia wanted to include in the resolution a text saying that non-compliance would not lead to military action).

 

[seycyrus]

How does an Iranian enrichment program that is under IAEA inspections constitute a clear and present threat to international peace and security? )

The resolution was passed after Iran failed to take up a proposal from the UN. Given Iran's stance at the time and at the present, such a refusal was interpreted in the way you mention.

Rightly so, in my opinion.

Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, they haven't even enriched uranium to the required level to make bombs, there is no evidence that any of its low grade enriched uranium has been diverted.

There is plenty of evidence however, that Iran has failed to live up to it's obligations. After all the IAEA's purpose is not to remove countries *existing* nuclear arsenals.

 

[Count Iblis]

The resolution was passed after Iran failed to take up a proposal from the UN. Given Iran's stance at the time and at the present, such a refusal was interpreted in the way you mention.

Rightly so, in my opinion.



There is plenty of evidence however, that Iran has failed to live up to it's obligations. After all the IAEA's purpose is not to remove countries *existing* nuclear arsenals.

Iran not accepting the EU-3 proposal can hardly be called a clear and present threat to international peace and security.

 

[seycyrus]

Iran not accepting the EU-3 proposal can hardly be called a clear and present threat to international peace and security.

It was but one part of a trend. Apparently the UN thought that such actions by Iran required such a result. I doubt that Switzerland, for example, would be treated in a similar fashion (unless it displayed the same long term tendencies as Iran). I wonder why? Perhaps Switzerland controls the UN?

Your argument is based on the premise that the UN blindly does the US's bidding. As noted, I reject that premise. The UN (even the big dudes) is comprised of members that do not blindly follow the US.

 

[turbo]

Your argument is based on the premise that the UN blindly does the US's bidding. As noted, I reject that premise. The UN (even the big dudes) is comprised of members that do not blindly follow the US.

The General Assembly is a debate society. The Security Council can be hobbled by whichever member wants to exercise a veto, and the US has a very strong track-record of doing what Israel wants. I hope that the US will act in the interests of US citizens in the future and not blindly support any foreign entity.

 

[seycyrus]

The General Assembly is a debate society. The Security Council can be hobbled by whichever member wants to exercise a veto,

And as I mentioned. the UN was *not* hobbled in regards to the actions against Iran. not hobbled by those who oftentimes hold opposing views to those of the US.

and the US has a very strong track-record of doing what Israel wants. I hope that the US will act in the interests of US citizens in the future and not blindly support any foreign entity.

I would say that the US has a strong track record of maintaining the interests of it's people.

I hope that the US will continue to act in the interests of its people and the interests of the peaceful world community and hold Iran to it's obligations.

If Iran want to be treated like a peaceful civilized country, then it can act like one. of course, it has a long track record to make up for. Do not be surprised if it takes some time.

 

[Count Iblis]

The General Assembly is a debate society. The Security Council can be hobbled by whichever member wants to exercise a veto, and the US has a very strong track-record of doing what Israel wants. I hope that the US will act in the interests of US citizens in the future and not blindly support any foreign entity.

I agree. I think that it is very clear that there is a tacit undertanding in the SC that the Middle East is a "US zone" and that in exchange the US will tolerate China and Russia having a say in other matters. E.g. Russia and China used their veto against a chapter 7 resolution condemning Sudan over Darfur, because according to Russia and China Darfur, bad as the situation is, does not pose a present and clear threat to international peace and security.


It may be that this tacit understanding has collapsed after the US condemned Russia for attacking Georgia. But you can easily understand how such an understanding could arise. The US thought, at least before the Iraq war, that they don't need the UN. E.g. in late 2002 they made demands like: Pass this resolution against Iraq, or we'll start a war right now.


For the other powers, having the US on board gives them more power despite having to occasionally agree on resolutions that they do not agree on.

So, as far as the Mid East is concerned, the SC is a sort of "Supreme Soviet", a rubber stamp parliament that will approve US policies.

 

[epenguin]

"New nuclear talks offer for Iran"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7990492.stm

For what it is worth. Which in view of the extenuating record of extenuating "talks" of Iran with the IAEA, it is allowable to believe is not very much.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I did not see any such actions from Russ's comments. I saw logical analysis.

The analysis might seem logical to you but not to others. Asserting that Russ is the one that provides logical explanations to political matters can be due to your own stance over the issues. However, he can not undermine others statements and can not declare himself/his opinions as facts while others' comments are mere fictions or misleading opinions.

Proof

All you are doing in this thread is throwing out assertion after assertion after assertion, without providing any supporting examples or logic. This is just empty, idle speculation on your part.

What I said

You simply criticize everything that you don't like. Why can't you hear people and be heard; no need to debunk every single person's comments.

What You calim

Your comments on the other hand are more in line with your criticisms.

My comment about russ's continuous criticism of every statement that rejects *any* of Israel's actions have nothing to do with what you are claiming. Yes I did criticize him, but it is probably the first time. I don't debunk every different opinion. I certainly don't claim that I am the all-knowing authority on any subject.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I would say that the US has a strong track record of maintaining the interests of it's people.

I am not an expert on this but enlighten me, if you will, and tell me what is the interest of American people living in North America in Israel , a new born country that (AFAIK) did nothing but take aids of all kinds from the US ? .. did Israel give anything in return?

I hope that the US will continue to act in the interests of its people and the interests of the peaceful world community and hold Iran to it's obligations.

Again (AFAIK) Iran has no obligations with regards to this issue, at least nothing more than Israel. Iran just like any other country is allowed to enrich uranium and did not brake any laws. Again, if you would enlighten me , please present what are those "obligations" that Iran needs to abide by.

If Iran want to be treated like a peaceful civilized country, then it can act like one. of course, it has a long track record to make up for. Do not be surprised if it takes some time.

We can say the same about Israel .. oh, are am I NOT supposed to say that?

 

[russ_watters]

Israel would not take such a move without consulting the US first.

Again, I cited an example where they did just that. You need to explain why you think this would change, not just assert that it would. Right now, you have a claim with no supporting evidence and the opposite has supporting evidence. Which sounds more logical...?

Iran is adjacent to both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is crucial for the US not to give any more pretexts for Iran-fueled anti-US insurgency in those regions. Until disengagement, an Israeli attack would put in peril the success of both missions.

Agreed, but after the US leaves Iraq, there is no longer any physical impediment to Israel going after Iran. I don't think Israel will or can attack Iran with the US Air Force in the way and therefore if they do, it'll happen after we leave. They have time.

 

[russ_watters]

Simply because Iran controls Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah...

Agreed...

...has a good military force of Balistic missiles and can block the oil from the Gulf with naval forces.

Iran doesn't have what I would call a "navy". No, it can't block oil traffic from the Gulf either with missiles or with its little force of PT boats. Remember, it has tried before! You too are arguing against historical precident.

Moreover, Iran is the second most populous country in the ME and its population is known for being proud and patriotic.

And that is relevant how?

Finally, why CAN'T it be likely?

No obvious benefit, high probability of annihilation (see: Hussein).

But that aside, we maintain posting standards here. The OP started the thread and controls the discussion and therefore is required to support all assertions. I was pointing out what was not supported - you can't make a counterargument unless there is an argument to counter. Bait and switch discussions are bad ettiquite and bad logic.

Your logic russ is really amazing.

My logic? I didn't provide my full argument in that post, I merely pointed out that we needed the OP's argument to focus the discussion, otherwise there is nothing to discuss...that's kinda the point of posting here!

You simply criticize everything that you don't like.[snip] no need to debunk every single person's comments.

Uh, why is anyone here?

Why can't you hear people and be heard;

The OP was heard in the first post - heard making a bad/incomplete point.

One last thing, to do anything Israel HAS to take permission from the US.

Again, again, again. I cited a historical example of exactly the type of attack that is being discussed here where Israel did not get prior permission from the US. Your saying Israel "HAS to" is like saying you have to obey the speed limit. You don't.

To me the US is the vassal of Israel, it gave it everything it needs. Now how can such country NOT follow orders from big daddy? (already there is a discussion of lowering aids to Israel)

You answered your own question there: it doesn't have to because it isn't. Another historical example: why did we deploy patriot missiles in Israel in 1991? We did it to persuade Israel to stay out of the war. This indicates a lack of control. If we had the tight control you suggest, we wouldn't have to deploy the patriots, we could have simply ordered them to stay out of the war.

 

[Count Iblis]

1) It is very difficult for the Israeli air force to avoid air space controlled by the US if they want to attack Iran.


2) The targets that Israel wants to hit are quite difficult to destroy. This cannot be done in a simple hit and run attack. The Israeli planes need to be refueled. This has to be done somewhere near Iran and then the issue of US control of airspace of the region again comes up.


3) Unlike Syria and Iraq, the Iranians have assumed that their nuclear installations could be attacked. So, an attack would not really be a surprise attack. That then compicates any Israeli attack. Iran has said that in case of an attack they will launch a devastating attack, see here:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHu-qXce9oBU3TnywR1HYt5LiEZw


Presumably, the Iranians think that in case of a shock and awe like attack, they need to take into account that command and control links will be cut. So, the smart thing to do is to configue the missiles so that they are automatically fired when the targets are attacked.

E.g., Iran can be sure that SAM and radar installations will be attacked, so they can use these instalations as a bait and tripwire. A signal is sent from the SAM installation to the missiles such that cutting the signal triggers an automatic launch. This way, the Iranians can return the shock and awe directly to US targets.


4) The Iranians have hugely increased their stockpiles of short range missiles since the end of the Iraq-Iran war. This gave them a deterrent against Iraq. Baghdad is within the range of their short range missiles, which in practice means that if Iraq were to attack iran, Baghdad will be raised to the ground in an hour or so. So, Iran has a "nuclear option" against Iraq.


Now, many oil installations are also within the range of their short range missiles. E.g. the largest oil installation of the world lies close to the Straight of Hormuz, not far from the Iranian border.


All this means that Iran can play a similar game as Hezbollah did against Northern Israel in the Lebanon war: Close down the oil installations in the Gulf using only missiles.

 

[mheslep]

How does an Iranian enrichment program that is under IAEA inspections constitute a clear and present threat to international peace and security? Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, they haven't even enriched uranium to the required level to make bombs, there is no evidence that any of its low grade enriched uranium has been diverted...

Iran very probably doesn't have any nuclear weapons, and somewhat probably doesn't have enough HEU to make a weapon, yet. The IAEA doesn't know for certain, as Iran blocks inspections of certain facilities.
Para C.9. here e.g.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-8.pdf

 

[AhmedEzz]

Iran doesn't have what I would call a "navy". No, it can't block oil traffic from the Gulf either with missiles or with its little force of PT boats. Remember, it has tried before! You too are arguing against historical precident.

"Historical precident" is not relevant because the circumstances are not the same Russ. You are calling for some previous similar attack, thing is , there wasn't any. The Iraqi attack was different and had different circumstances. The political setting is very different now. For example arguing that Egypt was not going to launch a war against Israel and reclaim Sinai just because of the previous "historical" encounter is not very clever.

And that is relevant how?

Well as you should know, Iran has sheer numbers of militia fighters. Moreover, those people being as hardliners as they are, are not simply going to lay down while their national pride is being spit at.

No obvious benefit, high probability of annihilation (see: Hussein).

Annihilation ?? I thought you were smarter than that !...the "Hussein" example couldn't come in a worse time. Imagine the Iraq nightmare the US went through and multiply that by 3, that is if US will use all its might (excluding WMD). Which brings us back to Iran being the second most populous country in the ME AND to the fact that the US military is already stretched , this provides a very good encouragement that Iran retaliates.

The thing here is that its the US not Israel that will take the major hit. US does not want an all-out-war ME , its against its interests. The US has a policy of feeding low-intensity conflicts to its own benefit but all-out-wars especially near the oil supplies is to be avoided.
Israel on the other hand cares about one thing only, maintaining strategic advantage of being the only state with WMD. I think there is a STRONG opposition in the US to any chance of waging a war against Iran, thus the US CAN and probably WILL bind Israel not to attack. But this is where things get interesting, if Israel did launch an attack on Iran, then boy, I want to see 1) the Iranian response 2) International response 3)US response.

As a side note, Israel has no right to launch attacks against countries that did not wage a war against it. Anyone disagrees?


Last but not least, this is my understanding and analysis of the situation. Feel free to disagree and discuss it with me but don't be disrespectful.

 

[Count Iblis]

Iran very probably doesn't have any nuclear weapons, and somewhat probably doesn't have enough HEU to make a weapon, yet. The IAEA doesn't know for certain, as Iran blocks inspections of certain facilities.
Para C.9. here e.g.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-8.pdf

Thing is that Iran is asked to not enrich uranium which no other NPT member states are asked to do, and they are asked to allow more inspections than other NPT member states.

An analogy would be this: Initially you are suspected of planning a murder. The police wants you to be put on house arrest pending investigations by an investigating judge. But there are procedures for this, which are not met. The judge agrees with the police despite the legal restrictions. But unfortunately for you, there is no appeals process here.

Then later it is clear that you are not planning any murder, at least the original line of evidence is debunked (this is the analogue of the IAEA finding that Iran did not divert nuclear materials and that the traces of highly enriched uranium came from Pakistan and later that an US intelligence report contradicts initial suspicions).

However, this does not mean that your house arrest will be lifted. The poice now comes up with another reason: "We canot be sure that you will never commit a murder in the future. That's why you always have to be under house arrest." Also, they say that in addition to the house arrest they want to to have intrusive inspections in your home. If you don't agree to that, you'll go to prison.

The fact that you are not cooporating well is then interpreted as evidence that you are hiding something. That "something" must, of course, be your secret murder plans, what else could it be?

Meanwhile, your neighbor (North Korea) actually did commit a crime and he is out of jail convicted to probation only.

 

[mheslep]

Thing is that Iran is asked to not enrich uranium which no other NPT member states are asked to do, and they are asked to allow more inspections than other NPT member states.

Because they were found in violation of the NPT! The IAEA reported its findings up to the Security Council and there we are.

An analogy would be this: Initially you are suspected of planning a murder. The police wants you to be put on house arrest pending investigations by an investigating judge. But there are procedures for this, which are not met. The judge agrees with the police despite the legal restrictions. But unfortunately for you, there is no appeals process here.

Then later it is clear that you are not planning any murder, at least the original line of evidence is debunked (this is the analogue of the IAEA finding that Iran did not divert nuclear materials and that the traces of highly enriched uranium came from Pakistan and later that an US intelligence report contradicts initial suspicions).

However, this does not mean that your house arrest will be lifted. The poice now comes up with another reason: "We canot be sure that you will never commit a murder in the future. That's why you always have to be under house arrest." Also, they say that in addition to the house arrest they want to to have intrusive inspections in your home. If you don't agree to that, you'll go to prison.

The fact that you are not cooporating well is then interpreted as evidence that you are hiding something. That "something" must, of course, be your secret murder plans, what else could it be?

That's not an apt analogy, which uses criminal law and places the burden of proof on the accuser. The NPT is not that, its all about cooperation and transparency which one agrees to all the time, not just when under suspicion of some violation. Failure to be cooperative and to provide transparency is by itself a violation - an effective nuclear treaty can not work any other way. If a nation doesn't want to do that then it should have never signed the NPT, and it needs to get out of the nuclear game altogether.

Meanwhile, your neighbor (North Korea) actually did commit a crime and he is out of jail convicted to probation only.

NK never signed the NTP

 

[Count Iblis]

North Korea did sign the NPT but it withdrew from it.

The NPT has nothing to do with banning countries from developing nuclear weapons. It is merely a way to allow countries to get nuclear technology in exchange for inspections to make sure they aren't diverting what they get to make nuclear weapons.

If a country wishes to withdraw from the NPT, then it has to give a 6 months notice. So, it is basically like: If you want to make nuclear weapons then not with our help.

The problem with Iran is that they could not acquire nuclear technology because of US sanctions, despite them being part of the NPT. They then acquired nuclear technology outside of the NPT, which is a procedural violation, but it isn't like Iran diverting something they got by virtue of being part of the NPT.

Subsequent inspections verified that Iran had not used what they acquired on the black market for a weapons program. At least, no evidence of that was ever found.

Since Iran's enrichment program is completely indiginous, i.e. Iran is not asking e.g. the US to provide for the centrifuges and the uranium, this program could operate completely outside of the NPT. Therefore saying that Iran is violating the NPT in an effort to make nuclear weapons, is a bit of a red herring.

The analogy with the criminal justice system simply explains why Iran is not inclined to fully cooperate with all the inspections given the attitude of the West.

 

[russ_watters]

Since Iran's enrichment program is completely indiginous, i.e. Iran is not asking e.g. the US to provide for the centrifuges and the uranium, this program could operate completely outside of the NPT.

That is also not how the NPT works. You're just making this stuff up as you go along!

You should read the text of the treaty to see what it actually says, rather than just saying what you think it should say! http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

 

[Count Iblis]

That is also not how the NPT works. You're just making this stuff up as you go along!

You should read the text of the treaty to see what it actually says, rather than just saying what you think it should say! http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

It is exactly how it works. Article X from the treaty says it all:

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

So, you don't have to split hairs over the small details in the treaty to see that what the bottom line is. Countries have not given up any rights at all by signing this treaty. The details in the treaty regulate the transfer of nuclear technology in such a way that it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

The whole idea that Iran has somehow "forfeited" the right to enrich uranium (under the usual IEAE inspections regime) because of procedural violations, is thus nonsense. At least, even if one could somehow argue that, trying to use that to ban Iran from enriching its own uranium doesn't make any sense, given Article X.

Iran could simply (legally) withdraw from the NPT and enrich its own uranium in its own centrifuges for use in its own nuclear powerplants. After withdrawing from the NPT they would not even be required to let the whole process be monitored.

When Dr. Rice was arguing: "Iran cannot be trusted to enrich uranium", I was thinking, "what the hell is she talking about"? The NPT never gave the US sovereignity over Iran.

 

[russ_watters]

It is exactly how it works. Article X from the treaty says it all:

Oh, I see - you are combining the two issues. Well if that was the intent, then the NPT wouldn't have much of a point, since non-signatories could just get together and develop nukes as a group (which they kinda do anyway). Obviously, we'd never share our technology with a country unless we could be sure of how they would use it anyway. The purpose is not about control over the technology or economics of selling materials, it is about trying to entice and guilt countries into not developing weapons.

 

[WhoWee]

One last thing, to do anything Israel HAS to take permission from the US. To me the US is the vassal of Israel, it gave it everything it needs. Now how can such country NOT follow orders from big daddy? (already there is a discussion of lowering aids to Israel)

The Obama administration already told Israel not to attack.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-biden-israel-iran8-2009apr08,0,2388127.story

If you're right, there's nothing else to discuss...correct?

 

[AhmedEzz]

If it is a big and mouthful NO , then yes, there is nothing else to discuss indeed.

 

[Count Iblis]

Well, the problem with Iran isn't anything like: "Hmmmm, we the West want to honour our commitment to the NPT and sell Iran 10,000 centrifuges, but we don't trust that Iran is not going to use with what we have to offer for a weapons program."

The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichement facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

 

[Count Iblis]

About the original issue under discussion: A possible Israeli attrack and the US opposition to that, you can see why, from the perspective of the West, an Israeli attack would be the worst possible move.


An Israeli attack must be, sort of, a surprise attack. So, there can be no huge buildup of US military forces in advance. Israel can only do a limited number of bombings, by far not enough to do significant damage to the Iranian military. Also the amount of destruction to the nuclear installation won't be very large. Even if it were, Iran could simply rebuild it over time as most of the equipment was made in Iran, albeit from blueprints obtained from Dr. Khan.


Then, after such an Israeli attack, you have an Iran that will leave the NPT for sure. They'll change their attitude toward nuclear weapons and will go ahead with producing them. The number of centrifuges they need for a weapons program is a small fraction of what they need for keeping a few 1000 megawatt nuclear plants running. They can then easily keep such a program hidden.


On the military side, after an Israeli attack, Iran has the West checkmate. Iran can declare war on the West, saying that the West allowed Israel to atack. It doesn't matter if that's really true or not. Iran can claim it and then declare war, just like the US claimed Saddam was not disarming its WMDs and declared war on Iraq.


Then Iran will demand that the Gulf States stop supplying the aggressor (= the West) with oil or have their oil installations destroyed. Since they are unlikely to comply, Iran will start military actions. Because the US has not had time to mobilize its army, Iran could actually simply go into Iraq, take thousands of US POWs and move them to Teheran.


ALso, instead of destroying the oil installations, Iran could take control of the Iraqi oil fields and invade Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia and take control of oil installations there too.


Then the negotations with the West will start.

 

[AhmedEzz]

You are taking the Iranian military to be too strong and the US + Israeli military being very weak. The US has strong bases in the Gulf states, let alone a strong naval force ready to intercept at any time to secure strategic sites such as oil fields. Moreover, long and medium range strategic missiles could be rained on Iranian soil. This would actually be a 40/60 war with Iran being the underdog. The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

 

[Count Iblis]

You are taking the Iranian military to be too strong and the US + Israeli military being very weak. The US has strong bases in the Gulf states, let alone a strong naval force ready to intercept at any time to secure strategic sites such as oil fields. Moreover, long and medium range strategic missiles could be rained on Iranian soil. This would actually be a 40/60 war with Iran being the underdog. The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

I'm not sure that Iran could not take control of, say, Basra in a surprise attack. It is just over the Iranian border and the US would have to get their forces from further away. The US forces in Iraq are in no position to take on an offensive army.

So, if Israel performs a surprise attack, then the US won't have brought in extra forces. Of course, if the US were planning something, it would take then necesary measures to deny such oportunities for Iran.

Of course, it would still be a risky strategy for Iran to do anything with its conventional army or navy. The missiles strikes are less risky. In the Lebanon war, Israel could not stop Hezbollah from firing missiles. This despite the fact that since the mid 1990s, Israel has invested many billions in anti-missile defense systems. The problem with anti-missile defense systems is that they work best for long range missiles. Many of the oil installations are just over the border with Iran, well in the range of the Iranian short range missiles.

Even if you would try to defend oil installations using the Partriot system, that defense wouldn't last long. Iran has far more short range missiles than the number of patriot missiles the US could deploy, so you would run out of the Patriot missiles very soon.

 

[russ_watters]

The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichement facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

As was already pointed out, this came after violatoins, but even if it hadn't, Iran has shown itself in the past to be a non-trustworty country. The NPT talks about "good faith" negotiations - since the west knows that Iran does not undertake "good faith" negotiations, the west needs a burden of proof from Iran that may exceed the burden of proof they require of others. There is nothing wrong with that - it is just prudent and necessarily to ensure complaince with the NPT.

 

[russ_watters]

An Israeli attack must be, sort of, a surprise attack. So, there can be no huge buildup of US military forces in advance. Israel can only do a limited number of bombings, by far not enough to do significant damage to the Iranian military. Also the amount of destruction to the nuclear installation won't be very large. Even if it were, Iran could simply rebuild it over time as most of the equipment was made in Iran, albeit from blueprints obtained from Dr. Khan.

Again, we should use the Osirak attack as a model: Iraq's nuclear program never really recovered from it. Iran's is more decentralized, but there are still some key locations that if attacked would be major setbacks. This isn't about "the Iranian military", it is about a limited, precision strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel is not going to start a war with Iran (it didn't happen with Iraq and it wouldn't happen with Iran either).

Then, after such an Israeli attack, you have an Iran that will leave the NPT for sure. They'll change their attitude toward nuclear weapons and will go ahead with producing them.

Actually, I'd say if their progress has gone far enough that the attack is deemed necessary, then they are so far outside the treaty already that to formally withdraw would just be a confirmation of reality, not a change in it.

The number of centrifuges they need for a weapons program is a small fraction of what they need for keeping a few 1000 megawatt nuclear plants running. They can then easily keep such a program hidden.

You have that backwards. Weapons require more enrichment and therefore more centrifuges.

On the military side, after an Israeli attack, Iran has the West checkmate. Iran can declare war on the West, saying that the West allowed Israel to atack. It doesn't matter if that's really true or not. Iran can claim it and then declare war, just like the US claimed Saddam was not disarming its WMDs and declared war on Iraq.

I guess they could, but since they don't have the capacity to launch a real attack, much less win, and they know it, they wouldn't. Again: see the Osirak attack and its aftermath.

Then Iran will demand that the Gulf States stop supplying the aggressor (= the West) with oil or have their oil installations destroyed. Since they are unlikely to comply, Iran will start military actions. Because the US has not had time to mobilize its army, Iran could actually simply go into Iraq, take thousands of US POWs and move them to Teheran.

It takes Iran time to mobilize too and we could stop them with a relatively small force if we have good air power in the region (and we will). See Iraq, 1991 for another example. Iraq was intending to take over much of the Arabian peninsula, but it wasn't as easy as you are making it sound.

Again, you are laying out a scenario for a gulf war that is very unrealistic. There is historical precedent here that you are ignorning.

ALso, instead of destroying the oil installations, Iran could take control of the Iraqi oil fields and invade Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia and take control of oil installations there too.


Then the negotations with the West will start.

That is exactly what Saddam tried in 1990, and with a better military than Iran has. How'd that work out for him?

 

[russ_watters]

The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

Well we had two wars with Iraq and the key to an easy exit strategy is obvious from the historical precedent: destroy their military and push them out of the country they invaded, then stop. That's what made the 1991 war so easy.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure that Iran could not take control of, say, Basra in a surprise attack. It is just over the Iranian border and the US would have to get their forces from further away. The US forces in Iraq are in no position to take on an offensive army.

If the US Army were still in Iraq when it happened, Iran would not even get a mile across the border. But even if the US Army were in Texas when it happened, what you are describing is simply the scenario from 1991.

Tom Clancy actually wrote a book in 1996 (Executive Orders) that has a reasonable scenario for an Iranian attampe to do what Iraq failed to do (take over Saudia Arabia). Part of it is that they would go for a more blitzkreig like attack and they'd have a better chance of taking over more of the peninsula before substantial American forces arrived, but the end result would be the same: annihilation of their military.

The missiles strikes are less risky. In the Lebanon war, Israel could not stop Hezbollah from firing missiles. This despite the fact that since the mid 1990s, Israel has invested many billions in anti-missile defense systems. The problem with anti-missile defense systems is that they work best for long range missiles. Many of the oil installations are just over the border with Iran, well in the range of the Iranian short range missiles.

Even if you would try to defend oil installations using the Partriot system, that defense wouldn't last long. Iran has far more short range missiles than the number of patriot missiles the US could deploy, so you would run out of the Patriot missiles very soon.

You can't hit an oil well with an unguided missile - we would not bother trying to defend them.

 

[Count Iblis]

You have that backwards. Weapons require more enrichment and therefore more centrifuges.

Suppose Iran wants to make a few 15 kiloton nuclear weapons. They don't really have a strict time limit, so they can continue to run their centrifuges for a few years to get the highly enriched uranium they need for that.


Suppose, on the other hand, that Iran has a few 1000 megawatt powerplants running. Then, they would need to be able to enrich uranium at a faster rate than is used by the powerplants. This means that the amount of uranium in a 15 kiloton device would have to be enriched (to low level) in just half a day or so.


So, you need to have a far greater number of centrifuges to supply powerplants than if you just want to make a few nuclear bombs.

 

[Count Iblis]

Actually, I'd say if their progress has gone far enough that the attack is deemed necessary, then they are so far outside the treaty already that to formally withdraw would just be a confirmation of reality, not a change in it.

But El Baradei, not Israel, is the boss of the IAEA and he never suggested that military attacks are a good way to deal with Iran.

 

[Count Iblis]

As was already pointed out, this came after violatoins, but even if it hadn't, Iran has shown itself in the past to be a non-trustworty country. The NPT talks about "good faith" negotiations - since the west knows that Iran does not undertake "good faith" negotiations, the west needs a burden of proof from Iran that may exceed the burden of proof they require of others. There is nothing wrong with that - it is just prudent and necessarily to ensure complaince with the NPT.

Iran did not violate any agreements since negotiations started in 2003. The West wanted Iran to stop enriching pending negotiations, and Iran did exactly that. Then, when the negotiations ended, Iran continued with enrichment activities (under IAEA inspections), and the West said that that was a breach of the agreement.


That is nonsense as that would suggest that Iran had already agreed to permanently stop enriching (or only do so if the West would approve of it), but that would mean that the problem had already been solved, which clearly was not the case.


So, it is the West who was dealing with Iran in bad faith by misrepresenting signed agreements.