Iran: The Point of No Return?
-
QuakerOats
-
ptown_trojans_1
QuakerOats;454121 wrote:Revised to 3 days.
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=185060
Repeat:
Oh God John Bolton. He is so wrong, as usual. The deal with the Russians for the fuel for the reactor involves the Russians taking back all spent fuel, which could be diverted for reprocessing plutonium. In addition to Russia taking back all the fuel from the reactor, the IAEA is safeguarding the reactor, meaning monitoring all fuel that goes in and out of the reactor. Plus, the fuel in there is only 3% enriched uranium, which Iran already has and any knowledge they may pick up from the reactor, they already learned from the Tehran Research Reactor.
What an idiot. The reactor doesn't matter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081301471.html
The Russians are just doing it, 1 cause the reactor is finally ready, and 2. to make money. -
IggyPride00
Turn our troops into sitting ducks over there?8 days to do something ...... -
BGFalcons82
When the Israeli's strike, no one will see it coming. I don't think they'll blink, twitch, nor flinch. And I seriously doubt if Obama's phone will ring at 3:00 am with Netanyahu asking for permission. If it rings, it will be to report the event, not stop it.
When articles like Bolton's come out, it makes me confident that nothing will happen. Maybe that's why he did it? -
IggyPride00
He sure as hell better tell the President, because our boys in the desert become sitting ducks if Israel attacks as Iran will fire on our guys in retaliation. This country will turn on Israel for sabotaging our war efforts and getting our kids killed with oil spiking to ungodly levels when our own defense department has said at best a strike slows Iran down, but doesn't stop the program. Worst case scenario is they don't even know where all the sites are, and then this really was a waste.And I seriously doubt if Obama's phone will ring at 3:00 am with Netanyahu asking for permission. -
BGFalcons82
As an American, I agree with you Iggy. If I was an Israeli, I would think that a call to Obama would be like calling Achmedinejad. Obama has done nothing to support Israel positions since the day he took the oath of office and they know it. Netanyahu is not going to put his country's future in the hands of Barack Hussein Obama. I think if GWB was in the White House, I would feel differently.
-
IggyPride00
Bush wanted no part of that. As I said in an earlier post, he called Krauthammer, Kristol, Bolton and that gang the "Bomber Boys" because of their obsession with attacking Iran no matter how severe the consequences or uncertainty it would even do anything. This is not a slam dunk like when Israel bombed Iraq and took out their reactor, as no one really knows how many sites their are or for that matter whether they have been fortified enough that a bombing campaign may not take them out.I think if GWB was in the White House, I would feel differently.
BHO is doing nothing to support Israel's positions because most of them are in direct conflict with our national security interests. General Patreaus of all people said as much.
We are really the only friend in the whole world Israel has, and Bibi had best think long and hard about whether launching a bombing campaign that best case scenario sets Iran back a few years is worth the consequence of the backlash and alienation that will come from the American people when our troops are dying and we're paying $5+ a gallon for gas bringing the world economy to a grinding halt. -
BGFalcons82
Iggy - My point is that relations with Israel were better under Bush. I sense a real lack of trust from Israel regarding the Obama Administration.
Speaking of which...is Hillary still employed? Is she in Peru or Botswana somewhere? How come nobody from the media wants to know her opinion? Odd, don't you think?
We may be their only friend, however from their POV, we aren't nearly as friendly as we used to be. If they get backed into a corner, they aren't going to lay down and let the PLO, Hammas, and the Iranians have their way with them. Not gonna happen. -
ptown_trojans_1
That is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Iran. The writer has no grasp of the technical nature of the IAEA or safeguards, how power reactors work or the Russian offer of assistance.
Comparing it to Kim Jong Ill makes no sense, as when the IAEA was there between 1994 and 2002 North Korea did not extract plutonium. It was after 2002, when the inspectors were gone that North Korea removed plutonium.
With the Bushehr reactor under safeguards, the IAEA can monitor the amount of fuel that goes in and comes out. Using equipment that measures the radiation level of the reactor pool and measuring the amount of LEU pellets that go into the reactor, the IAEA can ensure that Iran does not divert any fuel for weapons. Also, as mentioned, the Russians are taking back all the spent fuel, meaning the Iranians will not be able to extract any plutonium. The fuel in the reactor is low enriched uranium, 3.5%, which Iran is already using in their centrifuges. The fuel cannot be diverted to the centrifuges, as that makes no technological sense.
Also, India and Pakistan never fooled the IAEA as there were never safeguards agreements in place in the first place.(India just signed a limited safeguards agreement in 2008) Plus, those states are not party to the NPT, Iran is. But, no mention Israel either, which is odd.
The 2007 NIE has been beat to death, but essentially what we said was Iran since 2003 has not had an active weaponization program-meaning working on high explosives that can compress HEU and form a nuclear explosion. But, the IC has stated many times that Iran could change its mind, and that Iran continues to enrich uranium.
Finally, again, John Bolton has no idea what the hell he is talking about. He has no credibility in my mind. It is amazing how he just ignores the facts.
Edit: I'm not the only one who thinks Bolton is a complete and total idiot:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/18/reactor_reaction?page=full -
dwccrew
jmog;450020 wrote:I'm not saying Iran would or would not use nukes on Isreal.
However, if you and your neighbor do not get along and he told you if he had a gun he'd shoot you and your wife. Now, he's not starting a fist fight with you, however, if he ever got a gun wouldn't you believe he'd use it on you?
When Ahmadinejad said he'd like to whipe Israel off the face of the Earth, that sounds like a threat like "if I only had nukes" to a lot of people, Israel included.
Again, if Mexico REALLY hated us, and said they'd like to whipe the US off the face of the Earth. In the process of this they are getting close to nuclear weapons, you better believe I'd want our government/military to take action.
That's all I'm saying, I don't want the US to get involved, but if I were an Israeli, I'd want Israel to take action.
If I pre-eminently killed my neighbor because I feared he killed me (since he bought the gun and made the threats prior to the purchase of said gun), I'd still go to jail, wouldn't I? -
BGFalcons82
dwccrew;459992 wrote:If I pre-eminently killed my neighbor because I feared he killed me (since he bought the gun and made the threats prior to the purchase of said gun), I'd still go to jail, wouldn't I?
If your neighbor threatened every other day to remove you from the planet for a period of years, would you not be leery of his intentions once he acquired the technology and ability to do just what he promised? What if this neighbor told every newspaper, radio station, and TV station of his intent to wipe your butt off the earth, would you want to stop him before he did it? What if he flaunted his new technology and ability in front of your house and family and told you that you better watch out because he's got the wherewithall to finally take you out once and for all?
Would you call him and ask for a beer summit? -
ptown_trojans_1
BGFalcons82;460001 wrote:If your neighbor threatened every other day to remove you from the planet for a period of years, would you not be leery of his intentions once he acquired the technology and ability to do just what he promised? What if this neighbor told every newspaper, radio station, and TV station of his intent to wipe your butt off the earth, would you want to stop him before he did it? What if he flaunted his new technology and ability in front of your house and family and told you that you better watch out because he's got the wherewithall to finally take you out once and for all?
Would you call him and ask for a beer summit?
But, what if you told that neighbor that if they did anything, the rest of the neighborhood would destroy them? That the neighborhood watch has established a ring of containment around them to curb and limit their actions. If they crossed the established line, then the neighborhood would act in an appropriate fashion.
That is essentially what containment, deterrence would be. It is what I would argue, we need to strive toward. Not military action where we will have no control over the effects/outcome. With deterrence, you can at least control the situation and de-escalate any situation. -
BGFalcons82
ptown_trojans_1;460019 wrote:But, what if you told that neighbor that if they did anything, the rest of the neighborhood would destroy them? That the neighborhood watch has established a ring of containment around them to curb and limit their actions. If they crossed the established line, then the neighborhood would act in an appropriate fashion.
That is essentially what containment, deterrence would be. It is what I would argue, we need to strive toward. Not military action where we will have no control over the effects/outcome. With deterrence, you can at least control the situation and de-escalate any situation.
What rest of the neighborhood? Jordan? the Saudis? Palestinians? Egypt? Israel has no neighbors that would defend them, except for the outside possibility of Iraq, which is really "you know who" in disguise. What neighbor would defend Israel? You know the answer...and Obama is nowhere to be found in defending our best ally in the world.
Or are you arguing for sanctions? If you are, at what time in the history of mankind did they work to deter aggression? If you can find one, I'll find 5 times more that didn't work. -
ptown_trojans_1
The one common enemy the Israelis have with the region is Iran. Iran scares the shit out of the Saudis, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Turkey. All those counties have large U.S. military sales and equipment. The regional states want to maintain the status quo and that is not a hostile Iran. So, Iran would force them to becomce uneasy allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Containment would be an informal agreement between the U.S., Israel, Saudis, UAE, etc. that if Iran moves to strike any areas in the region, the U.S. will provide an umbrella of extended deterrence to ensure the Iranians are punished. This would include many options in the scale of escalation, from small surgical strikes to sanctions to full blown leadership attacks and even nuclear retaliation if Iran crossed that line.
It is not as ridge as NATO, more flexible and informal, but if you look at the current U.S. arms sales, you can easily see it. Missile defense systems in UAE, Qatar and Saudis, new aircraft, weapons,choppers, etc.
Also, the NATO led Aegis missile defense system can come into play, as well as the tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey in order to demonstrate U.S. extended deterrence. -
BGFalcons82
ptown_trojans_1;460032 wrote:The one common enemy the Israelis have with the region is Iran. Iran scares the shit out of the Saudis, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Turkey. All those counties have large U.S. military sales and equipment. The regional states want to maintain the status quo and that is not a hostile Iran. So, Iran would force them to becomce uneasy allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Containment would be an informal agreement between the U.S., Israel, Saudis, UAE, etc. that if Iran moves to strike any areas in the region, the U.S. will provide an umbrella of extended deterrence to ensure the Iranians are punished. This would include many options in the scale of escalation, from small surgical strikes to sanctions to full blown leadership attacks and even nuclear retaliation if Iran crossed that line.
It is not as ridge as NATO, more flexible and informal, but if you look at the current U.S. arms sales, you can easily see it. Missile defense systems in UAE, Qatar and Saudis, new aircraft, weapons,choppers, etc.
Also, the NATO led Aegis missile defense system can come into play, as well as the tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey in order to demonstrate U.S. extended deterrence.
I'm going to agree that this is the present policy being employed. I have no idea how long it will work, as the Muslim countries you claim will attack Iran in case of an attack against Israel would never happen. It is a loosely knit group that is held together with yarn, not steel wire.
As I wrote in an earlier thread some time ago, I believe Israel will attack when no one sees it coming. They will try to disrupt and difuse Iran as quickly as they possibly can. As long as it's being talked about though, it won't happen. The very second they see Achmedinejad with his finger on the trigger, bombers will be dispatched and only God knows what will happen next, in my humble opinion. -
ptown_trojans_1
Finger on trigger?
That is still years away. Besides, that would be the decision of the Ayatollah.
Not to mention delivery system issues.
There is still time for an informal network of extended deterrence to be firmly established.
Besides, if the bombs fly and Israel decides to strike, that brings unknown consequences. Once you pass that line, the situation is out of your control. It is better to not to strike and instead use various threats and penalties to ensure that you don't get in that situation. It is essentially what we did in the Cold War. We could have bombed in 1950, but decided instead to pressure the Soviets and contain them, thereby decreasing their desire to be in a situation to launch a strike.
Sorry, I've been reading a ton of Thomas Schelling, Mort Haplerin, Kissinger, Herman Kahn and Albert Wohsteller on deterrence theory and containment. -
BGFalcons82
ptown_trojans_1;460045 wrote:Finger on trigger?
That is still years away. Besides, that would be the decision of the Ayatollah.
Not to mention delivery system issues.
There is still time for an informal network of extended deterrence to be firmly established.
Besides, if the bombs fly and Israel decides to strike, that brings unknown consequences. Once you pass that line, the situation is out of your control. It is better to not to strike and instead use various threats and penalties to ensure that you don't get in that situation. It is essentially what we did in the Cold War. We could have bombed in 1950, but decided instead to pressure the Soviets and contain them, thereby decreasing their desire to be in a situation to launch a strike.
Sorry, I've been reading a ton of Thomas Schelling, Mort Haplerin, Kissinger, Herman Kahn and Albert Wohsteller on deterrence theory and containment.
No need to apologize. Containment and deterrence may work, but I have my doubts. It did not work with the tyrants of our time....I'll not name them, but if they slaughtered their own by the thousands, you can insert their name here. I don't know if Achmedinejad is like them or not, but the Ayatollahs have no problem provoking the West. I agree in that it's a big game of "chicken", but I don't think the Israelis like to play it...their mode has been to end it before it starts. -
dwccrew
BGFalcons82;460029 wrote:What rest of the neighborhood? Jordan? the Saudis? Palestinians? Egypt? Israel has no neighbors that would defend them, except for the outside possibility of Iraq, which is really "you know who" in disguise. What neighbor would defend Israel? You know the answer...and Obama is nowhere to be found in defending our best ally in the world.
Or are you arguing for sanctions? If you are, at what time in the history of mankind did they work to deter aggression? If you can find one, I'll find 5 times more that didn't work.
The fact that you say Israel is our best ally in the world is all I really need to know about your thoughts or knowledge in this matter. Israel a stronger ally than the UK? Please! They are our strongest ally in the Mid-East, not the world.
And as far as Israel's neighbors defending them, there would be no need. IMO, if Iran were to actually use a nuke against Israel, other countries would attack Iran, not in defense of Israel, but to stop what would be the annihilation of the ME. The fallout would be great. The other ME countries do not want anyone using nukes in their neighborhood. -
ptown_trojans_1
One of the best articles I've read on the reactor at Bushehr and how it is a non-issue:
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/24/the_real_meaning_of_bushehr -
Writerbuckeye
You sure do put a lot of faith in the IAEA, Ptown. It's faith I do not share. -
ptown_trojans_1
It's not faith, it's the knowledge of safeguards and the nature of the Iranian enrichment program.
You have to separate the Busheher reactor and the uranium enrichment plant as they are not related if we are talking weapons.
The IAEA inspections at the enrichment plants I have some faith in the IAEA to measure all output coming from the centrifuges. But, also know that Iran are some shady characters and could hide further enrichment facilities or have other facilities that make higher enriched uranium.
Then there is the Bushehr plant where the uranium in the reactor is low grade, the same as in the centrifuges pretty much. The reactor, the same as a regular power reactor, has been in the work for years, since the 1970s and has Russian scientists working at it. The fuel does not get enriched, it fissions and produces plutonium. That plutonium is weapons grade.
But, there are several things that make the plant not a big deal. 1. The Russians are taking back all the fuel. All the uranium and plutonium produced will go back to Russia where it will be converted to fuel for them.
2. The IAEA has a very elaborate system that measures the amount of fuel that goes in and comes out of the reactor. That includes closed circuit cameras, random On-Site Inspections, radioactive detectors that measure radionuclides and the amount of plutonium being produced. It is a system that the IAEA knows well as it does in every nuclear powered country in the world.
The nuclear reactor inspections and monitoring has a better history of detecting cheating than trying to detect enrichment violations. So, I have faith in this aspect, as it is a pretty air tight system.
3. Even if Iran did remove the plutonium, they would have to reprocess it. That takes a huge facility, with very large signatures that the U.S. and other intelligence agencies would surely see. If Iran is building a nuclear weapon, they are going the uranium route, with the centrifuges and not the plutonium route, which would require reprocessing.
So, yes, I have some faith in the IAEA in safeguarding reactors, but not so much in inspecting enrichment. -
Footwedge
Our 16 intelligence agencies reported in 2007 that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons ambitions in 2003. This was very disappointing news to the Americans that can't get enough wars.Writerbuckeye;460980 wrote:You sure do put a lot of faith in the IAEA, Ptown. It's faith I do not share.
The IAEA keeps a very close eye on the activities of Iran and has pretty much confirmed that the US intel agencies were right.
Of course the IAEA also confirmed that Saddam Hussein had no WMD's in February of 03...and that didn't stop the Islamophobes from going to war over there. -
majorspark
The IAEA are useful idiots. They will be played like a fiddle by the Iranians just like the North Koreans played them. The Iranians will let them watch and when they are ready to begin implementing their formally secret program they will give the IAEA the boot, just like the North Koreans did.
They will then play footsie with the west negotiating for years to get the inspectors back in. All the while putting the finishing touches on their nuclear weapons ambitions. I am not advocating the use of force, but absent force the results will be the same.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/inspectorsrecall20030103.html -
BGFalcons82
Once again...spot on. The inspectors are TOOLS and are played like TOOLS. Those that believe them are equal TOOLS. Time bought = time needed to acquire nuclear capabilities. Let's try sanctions!! They are soooooo successful.....NOT.majorspark;462944 wrote:The IAEA are useful idiots. They will be played like a fiddle by the Iranians just like the North Koreans played them. The Iranians will let them watch and when they are ready to begin implementing their formally secret program they will give the IAEA the boot, just like the North Koreans did.
They will then play footsie with the west negotiating for years to get the inspectors back in. All the while putting the finishing touches on their nuclear weapons ambitions. I am not advocating the use of force, but absent force the results will be the same.