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

[Count Iblis]

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).

I think that this is why Biden is so worried. I think he understands that Iran will hit back. Iran has publically said so many times. If Israel thinks they can just do some precision strikes, then they will have attacked Iran while leaving their military more or less intact (Israel coiuld not do very serious damage anyway).

So, that's like sneaking up to a lion and biting in his tail. Sure, some damage to the tail will be done, but what will happen next?

 

[Count Iblis]

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

That would be a mistake. See the Lebanon war of 2006. Iran has far better quality missiles than Hezbollah has.

 

[mheslep]

...The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichment 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.

Iran violated the NPT, while being a signatory to the NPT. Iran had not withdrawn the NPT before hand. In response, the UN security council imposed sanctions, demanding Iran stop _all_ enrichment. This is not an issue of sovereignty.

 

[Count Iblis]

Iran violated the NPT, while being a signatory to the NPT. Iran had not withdrawn the NPT before hand. In response, the UN security council imposed sanctions, demanding Iran stop _all_ enrichment. This is not an issue of sovereignty.

Of course it is. Iran may have violated the NPT, but on a purely procedural point. It wasn't like that Iran obtained nuclear materials from, say, the US and had diverted that to secretly produce nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran could not obtain nuclear technology because the US was blocking that, which is in fact a violation of the NPT by the US. Then Iran obtained the nuclear technology to the black market.


When all this was uncovered and the IAEA checked out what Iran had obtained and what Iran had done, no evidence of a weapons program was found, which is very strong evidence against Iran having the intention to produce nuclear weapons.


Anyway, since Iran is enriching its own uranium using materials not obtained via the NPT mechanisms, Iran can continue to do that after leaving the NPT. So, the NPT violation of Iran is a red herring when used to argue that Iran must stop enriching uranium because they violated the NPT.


What is really going on here is that the West is trying to force Iran to stop enriching uranium for reasons that have nothing to do with any violations of the NPT on Iran's part. The West simply is not comfortable with Iran having the technology to make nuclear weapons, period. To make sure Iran doesn't get this technology, the West is going to use whatever it can.


To justify this, the West makes propaganda, it exaggerates the intelligence against Iran in a similar way as was done to exaggerate the intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Procedural violations are misrepresented, just like in case of Iraq.


The West knew in 2003 when they found out about the enrichment facility in Natanz that Iran was not obliged to notify the IAEA about it, because that only has to be done a certain time before it is supposed to go online.


The West misrepresented Iran's non-tranparancy as being a violation of the NPT. It clearly isn't, so there you have it: a lie told by the West to win points against Iran.


The reason why the West found it necessary to act in this way is, of courrse, that they did not expect to find any real evidence of an Iranian weapons program. Indeed, if they had expected that Iran would not notify the IAEA ever about the existence of the enrichment facility at Natanz and that Iran would produce highly enriched uranium there, then the smart thing to do for the West was not to notify the IAEA at all and wait until Iran had made some highly enriched uranium. Then they would have informed El Baradei and Iran would have been caught.

So, the fact that this did not happen is again evidence for the weakness of the case the West is making. It is all based on what in the opinion of the West Iran will do.


Anyway, Iran being barred from putting its own uranium in its own centrifuges to produce fuel for its own nuclear powerplants, just because Israel doesn't like this idea, surely is a violation of Iran's sovereign rights. The NPT only gives the West leverage about what Iran is allowed to do using nuclear materials and technology it got by virtue of being part of the NPT.

And if Iran's NPT membership is judged to be incompatible with Iran's enrichment activities, then Iran should be kicked out of the NPT and thus barred from getting any assistance on nuclear matters. However, that is precisely not what the West would want. The West wants Iran to stay in the NPT and then on the basis of the alleged incompatibility of Iran's NPT membership and its enrichment activities, they want to ban Iran from enriching uranium.

So, this is, sort of, the West holding Iran hostage.

 

[mheslep]

... 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.

Israel has some aerial refuelling capability. Boeing 707s. So does Iran for that matter.

 

[Count Iblis]

Israel has some aerial refuelling capability. Boeing 707s. So does Iran for that matter.

Israel would not want to do the refueling over Iranian air space, or for that matter any other airspace of unfriendly countries. That severely constrains how Israel can deploy its air force.

 

[WhoWee]

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

No means no and besides...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nobody-messes-with-joe-ob_n_169685.html

This thread was started to discuss Bidens comments.

The real question might be what would Obama do if Israel ignored warnings...flew through US controlled airspace and attacked.

http://money.aol.com/article/cautious-response-is-quintessential/420108?flv=1

It's doubtful Iran would first retaliate against US forces...they'll focus on Israel.

As for Obama, I don't think scolding rhetoric in a press conference or a stern letter will do much. Then, after the fact (of an attact) he can attempt to make peace offerings (or throw money at the problem)?

Talk won't stop a war between Iran and Israel, if an attack plays out, Obama/Biden will need to make some very difficult decisions...support Israel or turn their back...

 

[Count Iblis]

James Baker told in an interview by Wolf Blitzer last week on CNN that Bush had refused to give Israel the codes it needs to safely overfly Iraq.

The US air defense system in Iraq will automatically shoot down Israeli planes with deadly efficiency. It is in fact quite a tour de force to make sure the Patriot system does not accidentally target friendly planes.

 

[Count Iblis]

And it looks like Iran's response to any attack will be automatically triggered.:

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

 

[AhmedEzz]

No means no and besides...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nobody-messes-with-joe-ob_n_169685.html

This thread was started to discuss Bidens comments.

The real question might be what would Obama do if Israel ignored warnings...flew through US controlled airspace and attacked.

http://money.aol.com/article/cautious-response-is-quintessential/420108?flv=1

It's doubtful Iran would first retaliate against US forces...they'll focus on Israel.

As for Obama, I don't think scolding rhetoric in a press conference or a stern letter will do much. Then, after the fact (of an attact) he can attempt to make peace offerings (or throw money at the problem)?

Talk won't stop a war between Iran and Israel, if an attack plays out, Obama/Biden will need to make some very difficult decisions...support Israel or turn their back...

Iran is not Iraq. That's all I could further say.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

They have separate ways of going after the same goal: The goal of the IAEA is to keep Iran from getting weapons via the treaty. It isn't like they'd be kicked-out of the treaty for violating it. Israel just wants to keep them from getting the weapons, irrespective of whether they are in the treaty or not.

 

[russ_watters]

I think that this is why Biden is so worried. I think he understands that Iran will hit back. Iran has publically said so many times. If Israel thinks they can just do some precision strikes, then they will have attacked Iran while leaving their military more or less intact (Israel coiuld not do very serious damage anyway).

So, that's like sneaking up to a lion and biting in his tail. Sure, some damage to the tail will be done, but what will happen next?

Iran says a lot of things and it is often useful to make such threats. Don't mistake threats for real intent.

 

[russ_watters]

Iran did not violate any agreements since negotiations started in 2003.

That's not the way the history reads to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#2002.E2.80.932006

The IAEA reported breaches in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, culminating with referral to the UNSC. During what span of time was there compliance?

 

[OmCheeto]

Iran is not Iraq. That's all I could further say.

Do you think Iran would supply Hezbollah and Hamas with mini-nukes? Iran has a recent history of non-aggression, but their current dictator seems to be playing a mind game. Although I've defended Iran in the past, their apparent aloofness to the west has even me worried. I for one do not much care for these international poker games, and this one could end very badly if their ultimate intentions are not known. Some might naively say it is obvious; the removal of the Israeli government. But I think it is much more complicated, and much simpler, than that.

Obama is my age, and seems to be doing everything I would if I were in the position, and I would not hesitate to level Tehran if push came to shove. And this time, unlike Iraq, it would have nothing to do with oil.

 

[Count Iblis]

That's not the way the history reads to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#2002.E2.80.932006

The IAEA reported breaches in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, culminating with referral to the UNSC. During what span of time was there compliance?

Except for the minor issue of failing to report the uranium from China and the plutonium extraction, there were no violations at all. So, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Count Iblis]

Do you think Iran would supply Hezbollah and Hamas with mini-nukes? Iran has a recent history of non-aggression, but their current dictator seems to be playing a mind game. Although I've defended Iran in the past, their apparent aloofness to the west has even me worried. I for one do not much care for these international poker games, and this one could end very badly if their ultimate intentions are not known. Some might naively say it is obvious; the removal of the Israeli government. But I think it is much more complicated, and much simpler, than that.

Obama is my age, and seems to be doing everything I would if I were in the position, and I would not hesitate to level Tehran if push came to shove. And this time, unlike Iraq, it would have nothing to do with oil.

Why not simply consider two hypothetical Irans:

1) Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons.

2) Iran does not want to produce nuclear weapons, it wants to be able to produce fuel for nuclear powerplants.

and analyze what the best strategy for both Irans would be. In case of 1) Iran would paradoxically be better off agreeing to the incentives deal. Just sign the deal, close down Natanz, get sanctions lifted. Then build a small enrichment facility in a secret location and produce the small amount of highly enriched uranium needed for a bomb over the course of several years.


In case of 2) Iran wants to be able to generate the fuel in needs for a few 1000 megawatt powerplants that it intends to build in the future. It intends to do that within the NPT framework, so it will allow for inspections of the facility at Natanz. The number of centrifuges Iran needs is far larger than if they just wanted to make few bombs. To make sure Iran doesn't diver uranium for a weapons program and becase of general suspicions, Iran is willing to gree to iuntrusive inspections, provided, of course, the objections to Iran's enrichment program are dropped.


Because of these more intrusive inspections in case of 2) the hypothetical Iran that wants to make bombs in 1) would prefer not go go this route and do as I suggested above: Accept the incentives deal and then secretely violate that deal.


To see the difference between the necessary enrichment capacity needed to make a nuclear device and the capacity you need to produce fuel, consider this calculation.


A 15 kiloton nuclear bomb contains an amount of fissionable energy of about 6.3×10^13 joules. A 1000 megawatt nuclear powerplant will use this in a time of:


6.3×10^13 joules/(1000 megawatt)= 17.5 hours


So, Iran would need to be able to produce this amount of enriched uranium (to low levels) in less than 17.5 hours to power just a single 1000 megawatt powerplant.


Iran has, in fact produced the amount of enriched uranium necessary to produce a bomb, but this has only been enriched to low levels. But it took them more than a year to do that. So, Iran continuing to expand their enrichment capacity under IAEA inspections despite sanctions points to their intentions being peaceful.


The reason the West doesn't want Iran to have the capacity to make fuel for their powerplants is because they are afraid that Iran could leave the NPT and make nuclear weapons very fast. So, the West seeks to gain a tactical advantage over Iran in the case of a hypothetical conflict in the future.


But this is not how the Western governments explain it to their own people. They suggest that Iran's activities are more consistent with Iran intending to make bombs instead of nuclear fuel, while the opposite is true.

 

[OmCheeto]

The reason the West doesn't want Iran to have the capacity to make fuel for their powerplants is because they are afraid that Iran could leave the NPT and make nuclear weapons very fast. So, the West seeks to gain a tactical advantage over Iran in the case of a hypothetical conflict in the future.


But this is not how the Western governments explain it to their own people. They suggest that Iran's activities are more consistent with Iran intending to make bombs instead of nuclear fuel, while the opposite is true.

Ah ha! I knew it was more complicated and simpler than anyone thought possible.

 

[WhoWee]

Why doesn't Obama explain the benefits of Green energy...Iran is ideal for solar and wind power...or even a clean oil burner?

 

[Count Iblis]

Why doesn't Obama explain the benefits of Green energy...Iran is ideal for solar and wind power...or even a clean oil burner?

Because he doesn't want to make a fool of himself. Solar and wind power

 

[Count Iblis]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/12/Peres-threatens-action-against-Iran/UPI-60741239548239/"

Peres declined to go into detail, saying only that a strike against Iran could not happen without support from the United States.

"We certainly cannot go it alone without the U.S., and we definitely can't go against the U.S. This would be unnecessary," Peres said.

 

[WhoWee]

Because he doesn't want to make a fool of himself. Solar and wind power

What do you mean...it's his vision.

If Iran needs only needs electric...they've got lot's of sun and wind.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Wow, I wonder why couldn't anyone tell that to the Iranians ?

Ofcourse this has been suggested, and you would hear different answers to it but only one message confined, "We will not give up nuclear technology".

 

[OmCheeto]

Wow, I wonder why couldn't anyone tell that to the Iranians ?

Ofcourse this has been suggested, and you would hear different answers to it but only one message confined, "We will not give up nuclear technology".

Well, as an ex-nuke and ex-kid, I'd say it's a coolness factor. You need to know a lot of stuff not to blow yourself up.

Does Egypt have a nuclear power program?

And if so, who let you?

I do not know why, but I like the Iranians.

But I do not like the Ayatollah.

He reminds me of my father; a control freak...

I might be wrong. There is logic in not letting kids run amok.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Egypt does have a power nuclear program. It is internationally supported and validated by the IAEA. The difference between Iranian and Egyptian program, is that Iranians are doing the work by themselves (mostly) and -I think- the Egyptian route costs a lot more.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Do you think Iran would supply Hezbollah and Hamas with mini-nukes? Iran has a recent history of non-aggression, but their current dictator seems to be playing a mind game. Although I've defended Iran in the past, their apparent aloofness to the west has even me worried. I for one do not much care for these international poker games, and this one could end very badly if their ultimate intentions are not known. Some might naively say it is obvious; the removal of the Israeli government. But I think it is much more complicated, and much simpler, than that.

Obama is my age, and seems to be doing everything I would if I were in the position, and I would not hesitate to level Tehran if push came to shove. And this time, unlike Iraq, it would have nothing to do with oil.

I am not in favor of Iran at all. However, I severely criticize EU and US for having double standards, which makes me lean towards the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian defiance of empty threats. The carrot and the stick politics are bullying and no respectful country would comply by this way of negotiating. Even if that was the case, it wouldn't be the greatest problem. The problem however, is that the same is NOT being done with N.Korea or Israel. Which makes it much more difficult to accept the so-called international (US, Israel and EU) position on Iranian NP.

 

[Count Iblis]

And why not ban Iran from having a chemical industry just because they could, in theory, make nerve gas and supply that to Hezbollah?

 

[seycyrus]

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)

1)New born country? As opposed to the "old" country that was in that territory that the *Arab palestinaians* had held for milenia? Hahahahaah! <----SARCASM! Please don't make me laugh again that hard.

2) Israel is a U.S. ally, therefore by definition, it is an american interest.

... Again, if you would enlighten me , please present what are those "obligations" that Iran needs to abide by.

In the spirit of "give a man a fish...' I instead offer you a path to enlightenment. Go to the IAEA webiste, look at the resolutions and figure out what obligations the committee states were broken.

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

Oh you can *say* anythign you want. But I'd rather look at each countries view on suicide bombings, for example.

 

[seycyrus]

... I certainly don't claim that I am the all-knowing authority on any subject.

You seem to be implying that Russ does make that claim. Which he does not.

You didn't like what he said, and tried to hold his comments to a far greater stricter standard than is customary.

'Nuff said!

 

[OmCheeto]

I am not in favor of Iran at all.

And why is that?

However, I severely criticize EU and US for having double standards, which makes me lean towards the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian defiance of empty threats. The carrot and the stick politics are bullying and no respectful country would comply by this way of negotiating. Even if that was the case, it wouldn't be the greatest problem. The problem however, is that the same is NOT being done with N.Korea or Israel. Which makes it much more difficult to accept the so-called international (US, Israel and EU) position on Iranian NP.

I cannot argue with you about this.

After looking at the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2160010#post2160010", I googled what the president was reading to the kids, and came across an interesting article about a book that someone said he should read: Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States by Trita Parsi

Someone at http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/09/obamas_nightstand_recommended_iran_reading" mentioned that someone in the White House may have already read the book:

This policy would be based on the recognition that, like China, Iran is a country that the US cannot contain indefinitely, that Iran becomes more antagonistic when excluded, and that the US can better influence Iran by helping it integrate into the world's political and economic structure rather than keeping it out.

emphasis his

We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations, with the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security,

I also read up on your fellow countryman, nobel prize winning head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2214711120071022"
Mon Oct 22, 2007

I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed. All the intelligence services agree on that.

I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb.

We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.

emphasis mine

I could go on all day I suppose, but I'll stop here, as I'm about to be late for work again.

I do enjoy your comments Ahmed. As Israels next door neighbor, I value your opinion more than most.

 

[Count Iblis]

Russ more or less argued that Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear powerplant is a legal, sort of, law enforcement operation and that Iran would be the aggressor if they would retalliate. He actually argued that that Iran would not retalliate, so there would be no war.

The fact that an Israeli attack would, in fact, be an act of war, eludes him. The fact that Syrian and Iraq in the past chose not to retalliate is besides the point. There are reasons why they didn't do that. The case of Iran is diferent because you need quite a large scale bombing campaign. And unlike the Iraqi and Syrian rectors, the Iranian nuclear installations are not sectret and the iranian people are in support of the nuclear program.

So, as far as Iran would be concerned, an attack on their nuclear installatons would be no different as how the US would regard an attack on US nuclear installations. So, very hypothetically, if Kim were somehow to fire CMBs and take out some targets in the US, would Obama then say: "Well, that's bad news, but we are not going to do anything against it."

 

[AhmedEzz]

And why is that?

Because there is a huge tension between Egypt and Iran. The reason for that is Iran's new politics of trying to declare itself as a dominating power over the ME (besides Israel). Egypt has always been the main power in the ME. In pursue of this Iranian agenda, Iran supported sabotage acts carried by Hezbollah on Egypt. The terrorist cell was captured a few days ago. It clearly shows the intent of Iran towards us.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I hope you had a good share of laughs because you still have not answered my question. What is it that may interest people living in North America in a state that has nothing to do with it? Let alone give it unconditional support and grant it "ally" status ? What would Israel give in return? Its greetings ?

In the spirit of "give a man a fish...' I instead offer you a path to enlightenment. Go to the IAEA webiste, look at the resolutions and figure out what obligations the committee states were broken.

Please don't lower the standards of this discussion. I have asked a serious question and you couldn't answer. But again I ask , what serious violations that Iran did that would require a military action against it ?

Oh you can *say* anythign you want. But I'd rather look at each countries view on suicide bombings, for example.

??

It is just not too hard to impose any kind of sanctions, if the victim was from the ME. Let alone invading a country based on 'reports' claiming they have weapons of mass destruction. This is the kind of schoolyard bullying that countries are subject to...Do Americans really honor this kind of politics? I think not. Do Israelis honor this kind of politics? I leave that to you.

 

[seycyrus]

I hope you had a good share of laughs because you still have not answered my question. What is it that may interest people living in North America in a state that has nothing to do with it? Let alone give it unconditional support and grant it "ally" status ? What would Israel give in return? Its greetings?

I did answer your question. Perhaps not to your liking, but it was answered correctly and succinctly. Israel is our ally. Iran is not.

Please don't lower the standards of this discussion. I have asked a serious question and you couldn't answer. But again I ask , what serious violations that Iran did that would require a military action against it?

hey! No need for a personal attack!

I am not a scholar of international law, are you?

It is a fact that the IAEA has stated on numerous occasions that Iran is not in full compliance with it's obligations.

Are you disputing this fact that the IAEA has made these statements?

I am not going to dispute the findings of a United Nations agency in regards to international matters. Your inclusion of the additional adjective"serious" illustrates your need to strenghen your position. I for one am glad, that the UN includes discourse and debate in its policy making. Evidently, given the past behavior of Iran, the IAEA must have made a judgement about the relative "seriousness" of the violations.

Do not lower the standards of this discussion by creating what you think I said. I never brought up military action, did I? In this thread? You are attempting to use a logical fallacy to add clutter to the argument.

It is just not too hard to impose any kind of sanctions, if the victim was from the ME. Let alone invading a country based on 'reports' claiming they have weapons of mass destruction. This is the kind of schoolyard bullying that countries are subject to...Do Americans really honor this kind of politics? I think not. Do Israelis honor this kind of politics? I leave that to you.

Are you trying to turn this into an Iraq WMD thread? Good luck with that. I suppose you're going to start off by making implications that Bush was the only one in the whole world who thought that Sadaam had WMDs.

 

[seycyrus]

??

My statement was made regarding the "civilized" nature of Iran v.s. Israel.

I for one would much rather live in a world ruled by Israel, as opposed to one ruled by Iran.

How about you?

 

[Count Iblis]

Iran is not obliged to suspend uranium enrichement according to any of the NPT rules. The Security Council did pass a resultin demanding that Iran do so and hen the IAEA is saying that Iran is not in compliance with that demand. But then the Security Council violated the rule that Chapte 7 reslution can only be adopted in case of clear and present threats to international peace and security.

So, what has happened is like the prosecutor bribing the jury and the judge in a trial. If that were to happen it would be bad, but you could try to overturn your sentence on appeal. However, in the case of iran, there is no appeal possible. Also, most of what Iran is accused of is that it is not accepting the sentence it received in this flawed process (i.e. suspension of uranium enrichment).

In ths repsect Iran is very similar to what happened to iraq. In both cases thr US and Britan were using the tactic of "dosier building" at the UN security council as a substitute for supplying real evidence. That then allows them to aregue on the basis of the size of the dosier, i.e. the number of UN resolutions the country is ignoring, instead of arguing on the basis of the evidence.

Every time Iran or previously Iraq were to violate a resolution, a new resolution would be passed. When Dr. Rice pushed for Iran's referral to the SC, I knew exactly that this would be the US tactic. It was claer by then (in 2005), that the US knew that further IAEA inspections would not uncover a weapons program, so time was running out for the US.

By getting Iran referred to the SC before all of the allegations could be debunked (e.g. that Iran was secretly producing highly enriched uranium etc. etc.) and passing a resolution, that resolution would be the stick to hit Iran with and to produce new resolutions against Iran.

When El Baradei later suggested that Iran should perhaps be allowed to have a small scale enrichment program, Dr. Rice erupted in anger and said that El Baradei's job is to simply check if Iran is complying with UNSC demands.

 

[Count Iblis]

My statement was made regarding the "civilized" nature of Iran v.s. Israel.

I for one would much rather live in a world ruled by Israel, as opposed to one ruled by Iran.

How about you?

A world ruled by Israel? Is the West Bank not large enough for Israel to build settlements?

 

[AhmedEzz]

I did answer your question. Perhaps not to your liking, but it was answered correctly and succinctly. Israel is our ally. Iran is not.

You deliberately ignored my question again, as if I am talking to myself "What is it that may interest people living in North America in a state that has nothing to do with it? Let alone give it unconditional support and grant it "ally" status ? What would Israel give in return? Its greetings?"

It is a fact that the IAEA has stated on numerous occasions that Iran is not in full compliance with it's obligations.
Evidently, given the past behavior of Iran, the IAEA must have made a judgement about the relative "seriousness" of the violations.


I never brought up military action, did I? In this thread?

Sorry mate but this whole 6-page thread is about taking a some sort of "righteous" military action against the bad Iran.


[/quote] Are you trying to turn this into an Iraq WMD thread?[/QUOTE]

I am pointing out that against ME countries, there are no red lines. Whatever the US or Israel wants *will* be done.

 

[AhmedEzz]

IAEA says North Korea is expelling its inspectors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_on_re_as/eu_nuclear_agency_nkorea

hmm, I am now waiting for the Israeli peace-loving politicians to come out and say that N.Korea should be bombed. N.Korea is even worse than Iran (it officially pursues nuclear weapons) but somehow, the thought of Israel bombing N.Korea is not on the agenda. If the answer is going to be "because Iran is a threat to Israel and not N.Korea" then is it those that threaten Israel are the ones who get bombed and prosecuted ? Because IF Iran is considered a threat to the international community then I BET that N.Korea is definitely more of a threat than Iran is. Yet, only Iran is the country that people want to be bombed...!

 

[mheslep]

Iran is not obliged to suspend uranium enrichement according to any of the NPT rules. The Security Council did pass a resultin demanding that Iran do so and hen the IAEA is saying that Iran is not in compliance with that demand. But then the Security Council violated the rule that Chapte 7 reslution can only be adopted in case of clear and present threats to international peace and security.

More misinformation. The SC violated no NPT rule, it is a deliberative international body, not a state member of the NPT.

Iran was found in violation of the NPT by the IAEA, not the US, not the UK, not 'the West'. Iran subsequently received sanctions from the UNSC and they should stay in place until Iran complies. When it does so, and only then, would it be entitled to all the nuclear development terms provided by the NPT.

 

[Count Iblis]

More misinformation. The SC violated no NPT rule, it is a deliberative international body, not a state member of the NPT.

Iran was found in violation of the NPT by the IAEA, not the US, not the UK, not 'the West'. Iran subsequently received sanctions from the UNSC and they should stay in place until Iran complies. When it does so, and only then, would it be entitled to all the nuclear development terms provided by the NPT.

Iran was found in violation of some safeguards agreements in 2003 on two very minor matters that have long since been cleared up. This has then been blown out of al proportions by the West, who pressured the IAEA to refer Iran to the security council.

If it is up to the West, Iran will never be entitled to all their rights they have under the NPT, because they want Iran to stop enriching uranium which is mottivated by the West wanting to prevent Iran from having the access to the technology necessary to make nuclear weapons.

Thing is that in a year or so, Iran will have obtained the capacity to enrich uranium at a fast enough rate to supply a few powerplants, and then they will suspend their enrichment activities anyway. They'll procceed with the constructions of the powerplants and then they may well decide that they can get enriched uranium from abroad cheaper than they can produce.

But they want to have the option of producing their own fuel in case the West blocks Iran from having access to nuclear fuel.

 

[russ_watters]

General issues first:

Russ more or less argued that Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear powerplant is a legal, sort of, law enforcement operation

Yes, that's actually quite a good paraphrase of that position of mine, though I don't think I'd use the term "law enforcement operation". It is problematic...

...and that Iran would be the aggressor if they would retalliate.

I have said nothing of the sort and that is not my position.

He actually argued that that Iran would not retalliate, so there would be no war.

Yes, and just so we're clear, whether they would doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether they should or whether it would be legal/just for them to do so.

The fact that an Israeli attack would, in fact, be an act of war, eludes him.

It most certainly does not. Quite obviously, any airstrike by anyone, anywhere, is an act of war. But it seems to me that you are applying a type of logic that doesn't have any relevance and is, in any case, wrong:
act of war = illegal
not an act of war = legal
Whether an act is an act of war or not or legal or not, these two things are not directly related. Acts of war can be legal or illegal and legal or illgal acts may or may not be acts of war.

The fact that Syrian and Iraq in the past chose not to retalliate is besides the point. There are reasons why they didn't do that.

Perhaps...

The case of Iran is diferent because you need quite a large scale bombing campaign.

Perhaps...

And unlike the Iraqi and Syrian rectors, the Iranian nuclear installations are not sectret...

Iraq's reactor was most certainly not secret! The French sold it to them openly!

..and the iranian people are in support of the nuclear program.

That's true, but that doesn't imply that they or their leaders would want to go to war over it.

So, as far as Iran would be concerned, an attack on their nuclear installatons would be no different as how the US would regard an attack on US nuclear installations.

The US has far greater capacity to respond than Iran does. If Iran went after Israel, it would be devastating to Iran and that is the main reason why Iran wouldn't do it. Iran isn't quite that suicidal.

So, very hypothetically, if Kim were somehow to fire CMBs and take out some targets in the US, would Obama then say: "Well, that's bad news, but we are not going to do anything against it."

Iran is not the US and has nowhere near the capacity to respond as we do. I realize they value honor, but to attack Israel would be suicidal. The leadership of Iran would not risk their own lives over it.

 

[math_04]

Well firstly, any Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear reactors would be disastrous due to the following reasons;

1. Iran has a lot of nuclear sites around the country in places like Natanz, Esfahan etc. It would be much more complicated than the Osirak strike; Iran would probably have a better anti aircraft defence system than Iraq had at the time plus the sheer logistics involved in an operation which would involve refuelling, planning multiple routes to attack all the reactors, a thorough intelligence gathering mission are all against the likelihood of a strike.

2. Iran would not back down and use its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas to wreck havoc on Israel's security. What happened in 2006 and recently in Gaza would be incomparable to what Israel would face if Iran ordered its proxies to attack Israel. Hezbollah already has rockets that can target Tel Aviv and Hamas will target the other cities. What you will see are thousands of rockets raining down on Israeli cities and guerilla warfare against Israeli soldiers. Do not underestimate Hezbollah, they stopped an Israeli attack in Lebanon and they will retaliate.

3. Iran has hundreds of Silkworm missiles hidden and they will use them to seriously disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Such an attack would send oil prices soaring and worsen the economic situation in the United States. It would also cause a major environmental disaster.

4. Iran may also use its proxies mainly Al Sadr in Iraq and other Shiite groups to create a hell hole for American troops in Iraq and casualties would mount.

Basically, I do not see any logic in attacking Iran when mostly, the real threat comes from radical elements within the Pakistani government or even countries like Saudi Arabia who funnel money to Sunni insurgent groups who then attack American and British soldiers. Iran can be a stabilising influence in the Middle East and it is time we stopped treating them like an enemy. Iran is not exactly an angel but still, we have lots to gain if we negotiate with them and too much to lose if Israel goes to war with them.

Iran would not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, it is not sucidal. It knows Israel would annihilate Iran with its own nukes. You should read Robert Baer's book The Devil we Know for more information, very enlightening book!

 

[russ_watters]

Except for the minor issue of failing to report the uranium from China and the plutonium extraction, there were no violations at all. So, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

So except for the violations, there were no violations? What sort of sillyness is this? You said:

Iran did not violate any agreements since negotiations started in 2003.

So either you weren't aware of the violations or you were being purposely deceitful in your argument and were hoping I wouldn't not notice.

Why not simply consider two hypothetical Irans:

1) Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons.

2) Iran does not want to produce nuclear weapons, it wants to be able to produce fuel for nuclear powerplants.

and analyze what the best strategy for both Irans would be.

Reasonable approach...

In case of 1) Iran would paradoxically be better off agreeing to the incentives deal. Just sign the deal, close down Natanz, get sanctions lifted. Then build a small enrichment facility in a secret location and produce the small amount of highly enriched uranium needed for a bomb over the course of several years.

If Iran is doing the enriching in secret, why does it matter if they accept a deal or not? Heck, wouldn't it be tougher to operate the enrichment program in secret with inspectors crawling all over the country (and keeping track of the fuel)? That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable argument for accepting a deal.

In case of 2) Iran wants to be able to generate the fuel in needs for a few 1000 megawatt powerplants that it intends to build in the future. It intends to do that within the NPT framework, so it will allow for inspections of the facility at Natanz. The number of centrifuges Iran needs is far larger than if they just wanted to make few bombs. To make sure Iran doesn't diver uranium for a weapons program and becase of general suspicions, Iran is willing to gree to iuntrusive inspections, provided, of course, the objections to Iran's enrichment program are dropped.

Because of these more intrusive inspections in case of 2) the hypothetical Iran that wants to make bombs in 1) would prefer not go go this route and do as I suggested above: Accept the incentives deal and then secretely violate that deal.

So you're saying that if Iran truly wants peaceful reactors and has nothing to hide, then they should accept and adhere to the NPT? And if they want weapons, they should pretend to adhere to the NPT but actually violate it. Since we know they don't adhere to the NPT, aren't you arguing against your own point? They are acting exactly as you say they would if they were really trying to produce nuclear weapons.

To see the difference between the necessary enrichment capacity needed to make a nuclear device and the capacity you need to produce fuel, consider this calculation.


A 15 kiloton nuclear bomb contains an amount of fissionable energy of about 6.3×10^13 joules. A 1000 megawatt nuclear powerplant will use this in a time of:


6.3×10^13 joules/(1000 megawatt)= 17.5 hours


So, Iran would need to be able to produce this amount of enriched uranium (to low levels) in less than 17.5 hours to power just a single 1000 megawatt powerplant.

No. Centrifuges in parallel can create large quantities of low enriched uranium and centrifugres in series can create small quantities of high enriched uranium. It isn't like each gram or joule of uranium takes the same amount of time to separate regardless of the amount of enrichment. It takes thousands of times longer to make enriched uranium, on a per joule basis.

[edit] It is also important to note that neither in a bomb nor in a reactor does all fissible material react.

 

[russ_watters]

Since someone else is replying and speaking for me, I'll respond myself...

"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.

I'm not following you there - I don't think anyone has mentioned egypt.

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.

And that worked ok* against Hussein in the '80s, but Israel today is not Iraq from the '80s.

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.

*It worked ok in the '80s but not great: Iran suffered hundreds of thousands of dead in the Iran/Iraq war.

By comparison, the US has lost 4300 since the beginning of the war, more than 90% of those due to the occupation. If we were to fight Iran, we'd immolate the Iranian military and lose only a couple hundred soldiers. We'd only lose more if we chose to occupy.

The math for Israel isn't quite as good, but they aren't that far from our capabilities (and exceed our will). Iran isn't stupid and they know that to go to war against the US or Israel (either one alone) would be suicidal.

US does not want an all-out-war ME , its against its interests.

Agreed, that's why we kept Israel out of the last two wars.

Israel on the other hand cares about one thing only, maintaining strategic advantage of being the only state with WMD.

Well, that and protecting themselves. An Iran with a nuclear bomb would be a serious threat.

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

It is a sticky question. Again, the Osirak attack is the model: there was some condemnation but not much and nothing came of it. As people knew that Iraq was a real threat, it was treated much as a case of vigilante justice. An attack on Iran for the same reason would likely get the same response.

And just so we're clear, attacking a country that did not attack yours is not automatically an illegal act - you (and CI, for that matter) do understand that, right?

My comment about russ's continuous criticism of every statement that rejects *any* of Israel's actions...

In this forum, people, including me, have heavy biases. I don't start many threads, I mostly just respond to them. So my criticism of anti-Israel statements is simply me holding a mirror up to you. Beside, think about it logically: what point is there in responding to something I agree with?

 

[mheslep]

... Iran would not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, it is not sucidal. It knows Israel would annihilate Iran with its own nukes. You should ...

You should tell it to Iran.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml

Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.

"[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.

and

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.
Ahmadinejad added that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - a reference to the 2006 war between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah militia.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/981727.html

 

[OmCheeto]

Because there is a huge tension between Egypt and Iran. The reason for that is Iran's new politics of trying to declare itself as a dominating power over the ME (besides Israel). Egypt has always been the main power in the ME. In pursue of this Iranian agenda, Iran supported sabotage acts carried by Hezbollah on Egypt. The terrorist cell was captured a few days ago. It clearly shows the intent of Iran towards us.

Interesting.

My Armenian-Russian friend stated today that this was all a political problem.

I of course, could not comprehend what he was talking about, as I do not understand politics.

Perhaps instead of shooting all the lawyers, we should shoot all the politicians. Then the engineers could run the world as it should be, logically.

 

[math_04]

Most of what Rafsanjani said is plain rhetoric just like Ahmadinejad's comments. The country has had plenty of opportunities to destablise the Middle East but it has restrained itself. The last thing Rafsanjani would want is to see all his wealth disappear in a mushroom cloud of destruction. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a schizophrenic lunatic but thankfully, he has very little power within Iran's power structure. Iran is led by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and there is another informal politburu which consists of powerful clerics and civilian advisors. It restrained the Shiite militia in Iraq and also when it figured out that the war in Lebanon was slowly growing out of control, ensured that Hezbollah agreed to a truce.

It acts like a rational power and a country that we can negotiate with unlike Al Qaeda or the growing Taliban insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are not rational but mindless terrorists and hopefully, Obama will understand that. We need Iran's help to stablise Iraq and even Afghanistan.

 

[Count Iblis]

So you're saying that if Iran truly wants peaceful reactors and has nothing to hide, then they should accept and adhere to the NPT? And if they want weapons, they should pretend to adhere to the NPT but actually violate it. Since we know they don't adhere to the NPT, aren't you arguing against your own point? They are acting exactly as you say they would if they were really trying to produce nuclear weapons.

No, what I'm saying is that the present behavior of Iran is consistent with Iran developing their nuclear program for the purpose of using nuclear energy, not for nuclear weapons. Whether or nor Iran "adheres to the NPT as judged of the West" is irrelevant, as the West is not a neutral observer here, it is part of the dispute.


Instead of arguing whether or not Iran has violated any treaty, which is a subjective judgement, we should look at what Iran actually has done, and what they have not done. We can do the same for the West and then find out what the motivations of both sides are by assuming that both sides are making their moves in a rational way.


If you look at the moves the West has made, it is quite clear that these moves are not really motivated by the small details of whether or not Iran's actions are violations of safeguard agreements. E.g. not notifying the IAEA about Natanz, was not a violation of any safeguard agreement because only some months before a facility is going to come on line do you have to report it.


Iran did violate a safeguard agreement when they acquired uranium from China and failed to notify the IAEA.Iran says tat this violation was caused by the fact that Iran could not obtain that uranium via the normal routes, because the US imposes sanctions on any company that deals with Iran on nuclear matters (which is a violation of the NPT on the part of the US).


Now, the West is not motivated to act against Iran on the point where they violated the NOT at all. The West is motivated by the facility at Natanz, which is not a violation of the NPT. So, what the West wants is to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology to enrich uranium on an industrial scale because that technology can also be used to make nuclear weapons. Even if Iran were to agree to many intrusive inspections, the West doesn't trust Iran to possesses this technology, because, hypothetically Iran could leave the NPT, kick out the inspectors and then make nuclear weapons.


Nicholas Burns, when interviewed oin BBC's HardTalk a few years ago, has made exactly this argument: Iran can never be trusted with the technology to enrich uranium. Then, if you have this mindset, then not only are you not interested in a neutral assessment of Iran's alleged violations of the NPT, you actually don't want such an assessment at all, because it could lead to a ""not guilty verdict" which would be disastrous for you.


So, this all explains why the US wanted to get Iran referred to the UNSC asap. The longer it would take, the more evidence about Iran's behavior would surface and then the US would have lost control over the issue. By getting Iran referred on the basis of speculations (e.g. the infamous powerpoint presentation at the IAEA boards of governments meeting) the US could get resolutions passed against Iran. Later when the speculations were debunked, Iran was already convicted and that conviction cannot be revoked without the consent of the US.


So, the West succeeded in this attempt to get Iran referred. The motivation being that they don't trust Iran to enrich uranium. That in turn is motivated by the hostile nature of US/Iranian relations. It would be absurd to assume that violations of the small print in the NOT are the key here. They are no more than munition used by the West in its dispute with Iran.


What about Iran's behaviour, what could be the motivations behind that? I think this can be most clearly understood by considering two hypothetical case:

1) How would you act if you were an Iranian leader who wants to make nuclear weapons?

2) How would you act if you were an Iranian leader who wants to have access to nuclear power?

Let's start with 2) first. Iran has a long history of making deals with the West in which the West did not stick to its part of the deal. E.g., In the early 1990s there were negotiations with the Bush adminstration and Iranian officials to get hostages released from Lebanon. Iran agreed to exert pessure on Hezbollah to get the hostages released. The US had agreed to release frozen Iranian funds held in the US. After Iran had complied with its part of the deal, the US cited anti-terror laws to not go ahead with its poart of the deal.

Another example is how a deal in which Iran suspened enrichment for two years pending negotiations with the EU-3 ended. After the EU-3 made the their final proposals which to Iran were unacceptable, Iran stopped with the suspension of enrichment activities. During the negotiations, Iran always made clear that they would negotiate about more transparency, more inspections, but not about suspending enrichment and that the suspension they currently were observing was pending the negotiations, as agreed before the negotiations started.

But as soon as the Iran started to enrich uranium again, the West considered that to be a breach of that temporary deal. Sucjh a statement by te West which is contradicst any deal signed with Iran will have dne nothing to convince Iran that the West can be trusted to stick to any future deal.


There are many similar examples (like e.g. the US blocking Iran's access to nuclear fuel onder the NPT). The bottom line is then that if iran is going to spend billions to build nuclear powerplants it better make sure it will have access to fuel to power those plants. Any deal signed with the West on such a matter isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Therefore, it is wise move for Iran to first master the technology to enrich uranium on an industrial scale and then go ahead with building powerplants.


Then let's consider 1). If I were the Iranian leader who is intent on making nuclear weapons, I would not feel confortable having a nuclear program that is open to inspections. Leaving the NPT is not a good option either because then Iran would come under even greater scrutiny. I would like to make nuclear weapons in a secret location. The world should look should not look at Iran. Iran should disapeear from the headlines.

How do I minimize the number of inspections? If I insist on having the right to enrich uranium and I ultimately win then it is realistic to assume that any such deal would include me having to to agree to many intrusive inspections. Then withdrawing from the NPT at that stage is going to be even more alarming to the world.

Since under Hypothesis 1) I'm less honest about my intentions than under Hypothesis 2), I can easily do the following: I sign the incentives deal with the West and then I secretly violate it.Under the incentives deal I have to close down Natanz. Economic sanctions are lifted. Everyone is happy and the West looks the other way.

Since I still have the knowledge to produce centrifuges, I can do that in a secret location. Since no intrusive country wide inspections with short notice have been agreed under the deal with the West, the World will be none the wiser.

Then Russ did make some objections about the centrifuges you need. However, it has been confirmed that Iran has already produced the amount of uranium it needs for abomb, albeit enriched to low levels. To enrich it to higher levels Iran could simply use their existing centrifuges, although that will take while. The point is that if you only want to make a bomb there is no time limit unlike if you produce fuel for powerplants.

 

[seycyrus]

No, what I'm saying is that the present behavior of Iran is consistent with Iran developing their nuclear program for the purpose of using nuclear energy, not for nuclear weapons. Whether or nor Iran "adheres to the NPT as judged of the West" is irrelevant, as the West is not a neutral observer here, it is part of the dispute..

Again, there is the direct implication the the IAEA is a mere puppet of the US. Which is ridiculous.

The blatant use of the phrase "the west" is intended to create a sense of conspiracy.

The UN is composed of several entities that do not have vested interest in subverting their interests to those of the US.

Have Russia, China etc. formally gone before the UN and protested the IAEA's statements regarding Iran and it's failure to comply with it's obligations? After a brief perusal of google, I would say the answer is "no"

Therefore, Iran's failure to adhere to the NPT "as judged by the United Nations" IS relevant.

If you look at the moves the West has made, it is quite clear that these moves are not really motivated by the small details of whether or not Iran's actions are violations of safeguard agreements. ...

It is not quite clear! That is a ridiculous assertion.

You conjecture about hypothesis number one makes the assumption that a perfect schemata would be implemented without error.

It is my contention that hypothesis #1 is correct, but has been poorly implemented by Iran. Iran is now in the process of trying to correct it's mistakes and achieve it's goal.

 

[AhmedEzz]

You seem to be very critical when it comes to Iran violating the NPT, while you seem abit more careless when Israel does not even join the NPT, does not allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected and when Israel violates international law and commits war-crimes during its conflicts. This is because you are biased, and I don't blame you. I DO blame you , however, when you try to put yourself in place of the judge. As if Israel gets to trial countries for attempting to develop their nuclear capabilities (let those be peaceful or otherwise)...You are a victim of your own reasoning, for if this was the case, then ANY country that violates a treaty would be referred to the SC and sanctions would be imposed or even bombed, let alone CONSTANTLY violating it.
This is immoral for fine *civilized* gentle men as yourselves..but hey, who cares (as long as Israel does what it wants)