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

[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.