Iran Is Warned Over Nuclear ‘Deception’ [Archive]

View Full Version : Iran Is Warned Over Nuclear ‘Deception’

Nbadan

09-25-2009, 01:13 PM

Obama got his ducks in a row by canceling a missle defense shield that didn't work and could some day be accomplished cheaper, now those concessions are paying off against Iran...

Iran Is Warned Over Nuclear ‘Deception’

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/09/25/world/25nuke.4-600.jpg

PITTSBURGH — President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France accused Iran on Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years.

Appearing before reporters in Pittsburgh, Mr. Obama said that the Iranian nuclear program “represents a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the nonproliferation regime.” President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, appearing beside Mr. Obama, said that Iran had a deadline of two months to comply with international demands or face increased sanctions

“The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said, standing beside Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy. “The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.”

The extraordinary and hastily arranged joint appearance by the three leaders — and Mr. Obama said that Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany had asked him to convey that she stood with them as well — adds urgency to the diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its suspected ambition to build a nuclear weapons capacity. The three men demanded that Iran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, which is said to be 100 miles southwest of Tehran, near the holy city of Qum.

Wild Cobra

09-25-2009, 01:17 PM

I doubt it.

I heard on the news this morning on my drive home that Iran is closer to making weapons grade uranium than anyone thought!

boutons_deux

09-25-2009, 01:29 PM

Mutual Assured Destruction better keep the Iranians peaceful.

I don't even want to think about the consequence of Israel hitting Iran. It won't be as simple as Israel hitting Saddam's Osirak.

ChumpDumper

09-25-2009, 01:31 PM

I doubt it.

I heard on the news this morning on my drive home that Iran is closer to making weapons grade uranium than anyone thought!And how do they know that?

Maybe their thinking is wrong now.

CosmicCowboy

09-25-2009, 01:45 PM

DarrinS

09-25-2009, 01:46 PM

I never thought I'd see the day when the French president made our own look weak.

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 01:48 PM

I never thought I'd see the day when the French president made our own look weak.How'd Sarko do that?

DarrinS

09-25-2009, 01:50 PM

How'd Sarko do that?

He gave Accchhkkkkkasdmflakjsdflajsdlfkjjad a deadline.

Nbadan

09-25-2009, 01:56 PM

Boy, you are even dumber than I thought. Notice it was just the US, Britain, and France. Nowhere is there a Soviet quid quo pro (much less China) to join in this little slap on the wrist.

Should I draw you a map?

Kremlin quickly joined in denouncing the deception:

Iran's construction of a uranium enrichment plant violates decisions of the United Nations Security Council. The International Atomic Energy Agency must investigate this site immediately, and Iran must cooperate with this investigation. Russia will assist in this investigation by any available means. Russia remains committed to a dialogue with Iran on the nuclear issue, and urges Iran to provide proof of its commitment to a peaceful nuclear program by the October 1 meeting of the P5-plus-1.

MSNBC (
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com /)

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 02:16 PM

He gave Accchhkkkkkasdmflakjsdflajsdlfkjjad a deadline.In a joint announcement Sarko got to play tough. Behind the scenes, he plays the good cop.

You're not really too familiar with this issue, are you D?

TeyshaBlue

09-25-2009, 02:23 PM

NoOptionB

09-25-2009, 02:32 PM

At first I was trying to knock things off the bucket list before 2012.

Now it's before Iran - Israel WWIII.

NoOptionB

09-25-2009, 02:35 PM

LOL @ you gentlemen thinking Russian WORDS are going to change anything. Iran is one of their main arms consumers.

Neville, Neville, paging Neville?

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 02:44 PM

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 02:46 PM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-23/how-to-keep-iran-in-check-without-war/full/

nuclearfm

09-25-2009, 02:48 PM

I doubt it.

I heard on the news this morning on my drive home that Iran is closer to making weapons grade uranium than anyone thought!

Uh wtf? I think you mean enough material for a weapon. They have enrichment technology, it just requires a massive contribution and time to reach weapons grade enrichment and amount.

Theoretically, they could have had it last year (oct 08) if they lined up their ducks. However, they toss away a lot of energy possibilities and money with it.

That's factual information. ^ notice my label, I didn't pick that for any reason. I know what I'm talking about.

nuclearfm

09-25-2009, 02:52 PM

LOL @ you gentlemen thinking Russian WORDS are going to change anything. Iran is one of their main arms consumers.

Neville, Neville, paging Neville?

Russia will sell to anyone who pays. Mostly those who get turned down by other means.

hope4dopes

09-25-2009, 04:30 PM

I never thought I'd see the day when the French president made our own look weak. It's been rumored that Obama is planning on using his OUTDOOR voice on Iran.

Wild Cobra

09-25-2009, 04:55 PM

It's been rumored that Obama is planning on using his OUTDOOR voice on Iran.
I know. He's not willing to use the same voice he scolds his daughters with.

DarrinS

09-25-2009, 04:56 PM

It's been rumored that Obama is planning on using his OUTDOOR voice on Iran.

He's going to give them a stern "talking to", without preconditions.

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 05:06 PM

He's going to give them a stern "talking to", without preconditions.The game has changed, Darrin. The Iranians got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. That's why they tried to beat Obama to the punch this morning.

If the pleasant sounds coming from the Russians and the Chinese turn out to be anything more than noise (a very big if admittedly), the Iranians could have to agree to very intrusive monitoring, or face the "crippling" sanctions HRC already promised them.

clambake

09-25-2009, 05:27 PM

what do you suggest, choo choo? that we give them more missles?

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 05:32 PM

Darrin characterizes an ad hoc, pants-down spanking of Iran at the G-20 as Presidential weakness. Classic.

symple19

09-25-2009, 05:33 PM

LOL @ you gentlemen thinking Russian WORDS are going to change anything. Iran is one of their main arms consumers.

Neville, Neville, paging Neville?

this

Yonivore

09-25-2009, 05:42 PM

The game has changed, Darrin. The Iranians got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. That's why they tried to beat Obama to the punch this morning.

If the pleasant sounds coming from the Russians and the Chinese turn out to be anything more than noise (a very big if admittedly), the Iranians could have to agree to very intrusive monitoring, or face the "crippling" sanctions HRC already promised them.
You know, this all sounds good but, I think Obama would be a whole hell of lot more credible if he hadn't been sucking Ahmadinejad's cock for the past year.

clambake

09-25-2009, 05:43 PM

guess what yoni's thinking about...

Yonivore

09-25-2009, 05:46 PM

guess what yoni's thinking about...
No need...I'm thinking what a dumb ass of a president we have.

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 05:53 PM

K6Ep1nmwWU0

Crookshanks

09-25-2009, 05:54 PM

Obama's to do list:
1. Appease
2. Appease
3. Apologize
4. Blame Bush
5. Talk about how great things are now that I'm in charge
6. Appease some more and then give another apology for bad, bad America

clambake

09-25-2009, 05:58 PM

Obama's to do list:
1. Appease
2. Appease
3. Apologize
4. Blame Bush
5. Talk about how great things are now that I'm in charge
6. Appease some more and then give another apology for bad, bad America

i heard hannity on the radio, too.

i thought the funny part was newt talking about the importance of god. that was funny as hell coming from him. don't you agree, stanks?

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 06:45 PM

G-8 ultimatum (http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/24/g-8-iran-has-3-months-to-stop-uranium-enrichment-2/): 3 months to stop enrichment.

Wild Cobra

09-25-2009, 06:52 PM

G-8 ultimatum (http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/24/g-8-iran-has-3-months-to-stop-uranium-enrichment-2/): 3 months to stop enrichment.
Is he going to care once he can sell a bomb to the highest bidder?

Winehole23

09-25-2009, 07:04 PM

That's not what Iran wants the bomb for.

mogrovejo

09-25-2009, 07:43 PM

Obama got his ducks in a row by canceling a missle defense shield that didn't work and could some day be accomplished cheaper, now those concessions are paying off against Iran...

Huh? Why? If anything, doesn't this mean that the optimistic assumptions about the developmental stage of Iran's military program used to justify the cancellation of the MDS may be wrong?

jack sommerset

09-25-2009, 07:52 PM

So far the Obamas are handling this right. Let England and France talk the smack this time. Israel will be the ones who fuck them up when needed.

hope4dopes

09-25-2009, 08:15 PM

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."

clambake

09-25-2009, 08:17 PM

that was boring the first time, micca.

hope4dopes

09-25-2009, 08:21 PM

jack sommerset

09-25-2009, 08:21 PM

that was boring the first time, micca.

I got to tell you "micca" is way past boring.

mogrovejo

09-25-2009, 08:28 PM

I gotta say watching benjiman netenyahu give the U.N. human rights council a bitch slapping yesterday was beautiful. It really made me ashamed that our nation has not been able to produce a similar leader. I think his speech will be remembered as a benchmark of the era. If you get a chance catch it on youtube.

I don't like Nethaniau, but that was truly an amazing speech. Whoever wrote that should be working for a finer politician. I echo your recommendation and I think people of all political leanings can appreciate it.

nuclearfm

09-25-2009, 08:43 PM

I've been watching this Iranian deal for a very long time. I have to say, this new enrichment plant is the real deal. These guys are asking to be eliminated. It's only a matter of time. No wonder Israel was planning a preemptive strike.

Yonivore

09-25-2009, 09:08 PM

ChumpDumper

09-25-2009, 11:10 PM

I'm glad Bush got really tough with Iran.

He was so effective in deterring their newcular program.

MannyIsGod

09-26-2009, 01:29 AM

34°56'37.88"N Lat. 50°45'33.66"E Lon.

There will be a crater there soon.

No - there won't be. Destroying a plant the US has known about for over a year does nothing to prevent these plants from popping up in other places in the country (if they aren't there already - read comments from Gates today). Its completely short sighted thinking. Not to mention that as much unrest as there is inside that country right now against the sitting government, any US or Israel attack would be about the most counterproductive action possible because it would instantly united the people to support the government they currently hate.

I'm not surprised that many of you refuse to give Obama credit here but so far he's playing the foreign policy game very well. Its no surprise that the Russians came out against this publicly today and there is no way the US didn't have this planned for some time now. They've known about the plant for a good deal of time and I have no doubts this was brought up recently in the decision over the ABM shield.

Continue with the hate if you guys want, but unbiased observers are giving credit where credit is due. This administration managed to catch Iran with its pants down and gain the support of countries it needs to solve this problem.

Winehole23

09-26-2009, 03:34 AM

that was boring the first time, micca.Don't be stingy, clambake: it's boring all the time.

Winehole23

09-26-2009, 03:55 AM

34°56'37.88"N Lat. 50°45'33.66"E Lon.

There will be a crater there soon.More wishful thinking.

NoOptionB

09-26-2009, 07:58 AM

Here's what we do.

U.S. and France go to Iran and say "look guys, we are done not respecting you. We now see the light. We want you to join us as a world superpower."

"As a token of our gratitude, we give you the gift of the great Hadron Collider."

Move it from France to under Iran. Put a bug in the system that produces a black hole when turned on. Wait for it to suck in the entire Middle East, then send in Blackwater to shut it off.

Mission Accomplished.

hope4dopes

09-26-2009, 11:01 AM

Don't be stingy, clambake: it's boring all the time.

Yeah well solzhenityen doesn't have the pecs that Obama does, so I guess you'd loose inetrest.Obama is articulte? you're such a putz.

TacoCabanaFajitas

09-26-2009, 11:05 AM

I'm not sure how anyone can spin this as anything less than great planning and maneuvering by the Obama administration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33029659/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times//

PITTSBURGH - On Tuesday evening in New York, top officials of the world nuclear watchdog agency approached two of President Obama’s senior advisers to deliver the news: Iran had just sent a cryptic letter describing a small “pilot” nuclear facility that the country had never before declared.

The Americans were surprised by the letter, but they were angry about what it did not say. American intelligence had come across the hidden tunnel complex years earlier, and the advisers believed the situation was far more ominous than the Iranians were letting on.

That night, huddled in a hotel room in the Waldorf-Astoria until well into the early hours, five of Mr. Obama’s closest national security advisers, in New York for the administration’s first United Nations General Assembly, went back and forth on what they would advise their boss when they took him the news in the morning. A few hours later, in a different hotel room, they met with Mr. Obama and his senior national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, to talk strategy.

The White House essentially decided to outflank the Iranians, to present to their allies and the public what they believed was powerful evidence that there was more to the Iranian site than just some pilot program. They saw it as a chance to use this evidence to persuade other countries to support the case for stronger sanctions by showing that the Iranians were still working on a secret nuclear plan.

3 dramatic days of diplomacy
It was three dramatic days of highly sensitive diplomacy and political maneuvering, from an ornate room at the Waldorf, where Mr. Obama pressed President Dimitri A. Medvedev of Russia for support, to the United Nations Security Council chamber, where General Jones at one point hustled his Russian counterpart from the room in the middle of a rare meeting of Council leaders.

General Jones told his counterpart, Sergei Prikhodko, that the United States was going to go public with the intelligence. Meanwhile, in the hallways of the United Nations and over the phone, American and European officials debated when, and how, to present their case against Iran to the world.

European officials urged speed, saying that Mr. Obama should accuse Iran of developing the secret facility first thing Thursday morning, when he presided over the Security Council for the very first time. It would have been a stirring and confrontational moment. But White House officials countered that it was too soon; they would not have time to brief allies and the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Mr. Obama did not want to dilute the nuclear nonproliferation resolution he was pushing through the Security Council by diverting to Iran.

In the end, Mr. Obama stood on the floor of the Pittsburgh Convention Center on Friday morning, flanked by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and called the Iranian facility “a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the nonproliferation regime.”

Added Mr. Brown, “The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.”

This account of the days leading up to the announcement on Friday is based on interviews with administration officials and American allies, all of whom want the story known to help support their case against Iran.

U.S. gains ‘leverage’
The Iranians have continued to assert that their nuclear program has peaceful intentions. And while American officials say the secretive nature of the program lends support to the view that it is truly an expanding weapons program, even United States intelligence officials acknowledge that there is no evidence that Iran has taken the final steps toward creating a bomb.

There was “a fair amount at anger” within the administration over Iran’s disclosure, a senior administration official said. But there was also some satisfaction. A second senior official said: “Everybody’s been asking, ‘Where’s our leverage?’ Well, now we just got that leverage.”

Administration officials said that Mr. Obama had two goals in going public: to directly confront Iran with the evidence, and to persuade wavering nations to take a hard line on Iran.

In fact, the makings of the administration’s strategy was hatched months before, when the White House first came to believe that the complex, built into a mountain on property near Qum controlled by Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards, might be a part of the nuclear program. Over time, the file that intelligence officials accumulated on the facility developed as a cudgel, a way to win over wary allies and test if the Iranians were being truthful in their disclosures.

Senior intelligence officials said Friday that several years ago American intelligence agencies under the administration of George W. Bush discovered the suspicious site. The site was one of Iran’s most closely guarded secrets, the officials said, known only by senior members of Iran’s nuclear establishment. The officials said that housing the complex on the base gave it an extra layer of security.
Spying on the covert site
Mr. Obama was first told about the existence of the covert site during his transition period in late 2008, White House officials said, after he had been elected but before he was inaugurated. But it was not until earlier this year that American spy agencies detected the movement of sensitive equipment into the facility — a sign, they believed, that whatever work was involved was nearing its final stages.

American officials said Friday that the facility could have been fully operational by next year, with up to 3,000 centrifuges capable of producing one weapon’s worth of highly enriched nuclear material per year.

“Over the course of early this year, the intelligence community and our liaison partners became increasingly confident that the site was indeed a uranium enrichment facility,” a senior administration official said. He said that Mr. Obama received regular intelligence updates on the progress of the site.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The officials said that they developed a detailed picture about work on the facility from multiple human intelligence sources, as well as satellite imagery. A senior official said that intelligence was regularly shared among American, British and French spy agencies, and that Israeli officials were told about the complex years ago. They were not more specific about when they first learned about it.

At some point in late spring, American officials became aware that Iranian operatives had learned that the site was being monitored, the officials said.

As the administration reviewed its Iran policy in April, Mr. Obama told aides at one point that if the United States entered into talks with Iran, he wanted to make sure “all the facts were on the table early, including information on this site — so that negotiations would be meaningful and transparent,” a senior administration official said.

As the summer progressed, British, French and American officials grew more worried about what Iran might do now that it was aware that security at the complex had been breached.

In late July, after the mass protests over Iran’s disputed election had died down, Mr. Obama told his national security team to have American intelligence officials work with their British and French counterparts to secretly put together a detailed presentation on the complex.

“That brief would be deployed in the case of a number of contingencies,” the administration official said. “If Iran refused to negotiate, in the case of a leak of the information, and even an Iranian disclosure.” Mr. Obama asked his aides to have the presentation ready by the General Assembly meeting.

“We could not have negotiations of any meaning if we were only going to talk about overt sites and not covert sites,” a senior administration official said.

Game plan changes
As late as last weekend, American officials were still uncertain about when to publicly present the intelligence about the secret enrichment facility. The game plan changed Tuesday, when officials from the nuclear watchdog agency informed the Americans that Iran had sent the letter describing the “pilot” facility.

At his meeting at the Waldorf the next morning, Mr. Obama decided that he would personally tell Mr. Medvedev, the Russian president, when they met Wednesday afternoon for a previously scheduled meeting. Mr. Obama also spoke with Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Brown. Meanwhile, Jeff Bader, a senior White House adviser for China, informed his Chinese counterparts.

On Thursday, while Mr. Obama was leading the Security Council meeting, General Jones left his seat behind Mr. Obama, walked over to Mr. Prikhodko, the Russian national security adviser, and whispered in his ear. Mr. Prikhodko got up and followed General Jones out of the room. Minutes later, General Jones sent an aide back to get his Chinese counterpart as well.

Administration officials said they were gratified with Russia’s reaction — Mr. Medvedev signaled he would be amenable to tougher sanctions on Iran. The Chinese, one administration official said, were more skeptical, and said they wanted to look at the intelligence, and to see what international inspectors said when they investigated.

The lessons of the Iraq war still lingered.

“They don’t want to buy a pig in a poke,” the senior administration official said.

Wild Cobra

09-26-2009, 11:25 AM

34°56'37.88"N Lat. 50°45'33.66"E Lon.

There will be a crater there soon.
OK, we can watch this spot:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/satellite%20view/IraqNuclearFacility.jpg (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=34.943856N+50.75935E&sll=35.604277,51.512146&sspn=0.002102,0.003347&ie=UTF8&ll=34.943912,50.760173&spn=0.002608,0.005681&t=h&z=18)

Just wish these were updated daily!

ChumpDumper

09-26-2009, 01:19 PM

What, Israel is going to fly over Iraq to get to Iran?

PEP

09-26-2009, 01:25 PM

What, Israel is going to fly over Iraq to get to Iran?
What do you think?

ChumpDumper

09-26-2009, 01:29 PM

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Is Israel going to fly over Iraq?

PEP

09-26-2009, 01:30 PM

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Is Israel going to fly over Iraq?
What do you think though, you have to have some sort of inclination of what you think they might do.

I think they have the balls to do it and would the US shoot them down?

Shastafarian

09-26-2009, 01:31 PM

I think they have the balls to do it and would the US shoot them down?

Shoot them down? They'd likely get permission from the U.S.

PEP

09-26-2009, 01:36 PM

Shoot them down? They'd likely get permission from the U.S.
Do you really think this administration would give them the green light to do that?

Lets hope this guy isnt doing any advising.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133515

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for U.S. President Barack Obama, has called on the president to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast. Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981, is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Maryland.

ChumpDumper

09-26-2009, 01:36 PM

What do you think though, you have to have some sort of inclination of what you think they might do.That's why I have trouble seeing its happening.

Maybe some of you geopolitical military experts can tell me how this would work.

PEP

09-26-2009, 01:41 PM

That's why I have trouble seeing its happening.

Maybe some of you geopolitical military experts can tell me how this would work.
I would be willing to bet they would do it. I think they see it as not having much choice if they think the US/UK/France/etc aren't going to do anything militarily to Iran. Lose/lose for them either way. If they do it they'll be condemned by the UN (not really a big deal) but I think other allies might be a bit more aggressive on Israel by doing sanctions/etc. Not to mention possible terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel by Hezzie/etc.

clambake

09-26-2009, 01:44 PM

so israel should dictate what the US, France and UK should do?

PEP

09-26-2009, 01:49 PM

so israel should dictate what the US, France and UK should do?
Why would Israel dictate to what they should do? UK/US/etc arent facing the possible use of a nuke on their soil, they have to take whatever action they think necessary.

Nbadan

09-26-2009, 02:27 PM

We've known about Iran's secret 2nd site for years, this has more to do with new assessments that Iran is getting closer to the possibility of having enough enriched uranium to build a bomb and the technological capabilities of doing so....this talk of Iran having the possibility of putting a bomb on a missile is bullshit - it takes years to modify a nuclear weapon to make it missile capable...

....If Iran wanted to destroy Israel it could have done so years ago with biological/chemical weapons.....so the real threat isn't Iran attacking Israel, although that's what you'll hear in the M$M and wing-nut news...

clambake

09-26-2009, 02:28 PM

this is one of the dumbest arguments of modern times.

Aggie Hoopsfan

09-26-2009, 02:40 PM

Chump,

I believe Saudi Arabia will probably look the other way while the Israelis fly over their air space en route to Iran.

MannyIsGod

09-26-2009, 02:44 PM

Any attack would be the most counterproductive action you could possibly take and would ensure that you will not stop an Iranian nuclear program. As it is you're likely not going to stop it because of the way its viewed in that country (EVERYONE wants it) but if Israel is stupid enough to attempt this (is it even within their flight range? I would doubt it) then they'd be fucking the US fairly badly. Although, they've fucked us repeatedly in the past and we still do whatever they want, so who knows if that even matters.

Nbadan

09-26-2009, 02:52 PM

Of course Israel will take action...they've been testing Iranian radar capabilities in the occupied regions and they finally think they have it right.....so, they've only got a certain period of 'go-time' until Iran makes the argument moot....

Nbadan

09-26-2009, 02:59 PM

Also, the political atmosphere in Israel makes it very likely that the Prime Minister, although not a Lukid, will need to take action out of 'political neccessity'

Nbadan

09-26-2009, 03:51 PM

The head of Iran's nuclear program said he was "shocked" by the West's angry reaction to news that his country is opening a second uranium enrichment facility, which he said was disclosed a year earlier than required by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, state television reported Saturday....

New Iran uranium enrichment site raises concerns

...

The Iranians claim to have withdrawn from an agreement with the IAEA requiring them to notify the agency about their intent to build any new nuclear facilities and to be subject only to a six-month notification requirement. Ahmadinejad said Friday the plant was 18 months from being operational.

But the IAEA says Tehran cannot unilaterally withdraw from that bilateral agreement.

...

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090926/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nuclear_iran)

ChumpDumper

09-27-2009, 03:01 AM

Chump,

I believe Saudi Arabia will probably look the other way while the Israelis fly over their air space en route to Iran.I see that's what happened when they bombed the Iraqi reactor back in 1981. I don't know the range of today's Israeli jets loaded with whatever bunker busters would be needed for the job; it seems like quite a long flight even to Bushehr, to say nothing of the inland sites like Qom.

sabar

09-27-2009, 05:38 AM

antimvp

09-27-2009, 07:04 AM

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/israel%20f16.jpg

time to bomb in 3, 2, 1

NoOptionB

09-27-2009, 08:40 AM

fuuuuuuuuuuu here comes $10 gas

Wild Cobra

09-27-2009, 10:51 AM

Shoot them down? They'd likely get permission from the U.S.
Are you joking? They wouldn't need permission, they'd just do it. We wouldn't shoot them down. Politicians would denounce them, but the military would smile and say "wish our CiC had the balls to let us do that."

Wild Cobra

09-27-2009, 10:57 AM

so israel should dictate what the US, France and UK should do?
Israel has stepped up and attacked when it comes to attacking nations with enrichment technology, that also endorse terrorism. I would be surprised if they don't attack. I think they'll just wait and let as much money and resources go in as they can, waiting until just before it's operational.

I also predict they won't ask our permission. They'll just tell us their flight plan so we aren't surprised. When their birds are on the radar, our people will say, "It's no problem. It's just the Israeli's on a training exercise."

Wild Cobra

09-27-2009, 11:01 AM

Why would Israel dictate to what they should do? UK/US/etc arent facing the possible use of a nuke on their soil, they have to take whatever action they think necessary.
Absolutely.

Wild Cobra

09-27-2009, 11:06 AM

this talk of Iran having the possibility of putting a bomb on a missile is bullshit - it takes years to modify a nuclear weapon to make it missile capable...

....If Iran wanted to destroy Israel it could have done so years ago with biological/chemical weapons.....so the real threat isn't Iran attacking Israel, although that's what you'll hear in the M$M and wing-nut news...
Would you please stop talking out your ass. It really stinks.

It doesn't take shit to put a nuke on a rocket.

Weaponizing chemical and biological agents is harder. Israel's citizenry is also prepared with protective gear.

Iran probably wouldn't use the nuke themselves, but likely find a Jihadist to carry it in and set it off in a large city.

Wild Cobra

09-27-2009, 11:10 AM

MannyIsGod

09-27-2009, 12:44 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if they have one of our B-2 Bombers and F-117's to escort it. I don't think they'd have a hard time even with older birds.

:lol @ B-2 as an "escort". The idea of an F-117 escort is only slightly less funny.

MannyIsGod

09-27-2009, 12:46 PM

Pretty sure Israel has the range to strike targets. Their deep strike F-15s range at ~1100 nautical miles with ordnance and they are capable of refuel from aircraft that have 2000-4000+ nautical mile range. Fighters would take off with low fuel and refuel a few hundred miles out to full. They make it easy. I wouldn't be surprised to wake up to that news.

They do have the refuel capabilities to make it now. I read up on it this weekend. They've been running training exercises for the range for some time now.

In any event, Israel attacking is unlikely. They've known about this site for some time just as the US has and they've yet to do anything. They're not going to get American support and I think the people in DC actually realize how bad a strike would be long term in Iran.

nuclearfm

09-27-2009, 01:18 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if they have one of our B-2 Bombers and F-117's to escort it. I don't think they'd have a hard time even with older birds.

the F-117 is retired... Secondly, those aren't fighter/attack escorts.

:bang

ChumpDumper

09-27-2009, 01:31 PM

They do have the refuel capabilities to make it now. I read up on it this weekend. They've been running training exercises for the range for some time now.The article I read in the WSJ showed three possible routes of attack. I guess the one going over Syria and Kurdistan might be the least problematic, but flying over any part of Iraq could lead to some pretty negative repercussions there.

In any event, Israel attacking is unlikely. They've known about this site for some time just as the US has and they've yet to do anything. They're not going to get American support and I think the people in DC actually realize how bad a strike would be long term in Iran.Right, there are three other sites in plain view besides Qom. Are they going to hit them all?

Heath Ledger

09-27-2009, 11:20 PM

They do have the refuel capabilities to make it now. I read up on it this weekend. They've been running training exercises for the range for some time now.

In any event, Israel attacking is unlikely. They've known about this site for some time just as the US has and they've yet to do anything. They're not going to get American support and I think the people in DC actually realize how bad a strike would be long term in Iran.

If you think Israel likely won't attack you are sadly mistaken. In a recent poll 66 percent of israelis are for a pre-emptive strike on Iran. It's only a matter of when. There is no need to rush at the moment because they know the plants wont make anything weapons ready for some time and they can strategically plan their course of attack. Shit is going to hit the fan.

Poll: 66% of Israeli Jews back attack on Iran

By Aluf Benn

Tags: Nuclear Weapons, Barack Obama

A large majority of Israeli Jews support military action aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a survey sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League.

According to the poll, co-sponsored by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, a large majority of those who support a move by the army said they would maintain their support even if the Obama administration opposed it.

An overwhelming majority also said they believed close relations with the United States were essential for ensuring Israel's security.
Advertisement
The survey, administered by the Maagar Mochot research institute, involved 610 respondents, constituting a representative sample of Israeli Jews over the age of 18.

Asked about military action against Iran, 66 percent said they approved of it, 15 percent said they were opposed and 19 percent said they did not know. Among those who said they approved army action, 15 percent said they would change their minds if the United States opposed it, while 75 percent said they would not. The rest said they did not know or gave other answers.

Focusing on Israeli-U.S. relations in the Obama era, the survey revealed concern over possible erosion of U.S. support for Israel, and over a rapprochement between the United States and Arab countries at the expense of Israel.

Sixty percent of the respondents said they had a "positive" or "very positive' attitude toward President Obama. However, only 38 percent said they thought his attitude to Israel was friendly - in contrast to 73 percent of respondents in a 2007 poll, who defined the attitude of the previous president, George W. Bush, as friendly.

Asked whether reconciliation with the Arab and Muslim world would come at the expense of Israel's interests, 63 percent said they believed it would; 71 percent, however, said the interests of the United States and Israel were "similar" or "complemented each other."

Most Israelis, according to the poll, follow the news in America, mainly through the Israeli media.

Winehole23

09-27-2009, 11:33 PM

We have what, 100,000 or so troops in Iraq, right?

Winehole23

09-27-2009, 11:35 PM

War in the Persian Gulf would likely do what to the price of energy in a worldwide recession?

Winehole23

09-27-2009, 11:36 PM

Could it lead to a wider regional war?

Nbadan

09-27-2009, 11:40 PM

Could it lead to a wider regional war?

The threat is that there are many groups, including groups in S.A., that could cause problems...not saying they will, just that they might...the greater threat is what Iran can do to make sailing in the Persian Gulf much riskier...

TDMVPDPOY

09-28-2009, 12:11 AM

dunno why you guys wanna start another war when you got 2 on-going wars not even finished which is stretching ur countrys debt.

i doubt an attack iran is going to be swift and over quick like clintons admin on iraq early in the 90s where the campaign was over in a matter of weeks....

america is better off allowing israel to do the dirty work since they receive money from you guys every year while doing jackshit besides starting petty wars against neighboring countries who dont have the capacity to fight back.

i doubt syria will allow american planes to use its airspace to go launch an attack into iran.

NoOptionB

09-28-2009, 09:04 AM

dunno why you guys wanna start another war when you got 2 on-going wars not even finished which is stretching ur countrys debt.

That's how we roll!

hater

09-28-2009, 09:12 AM

woudn't be surprised at all with an Islaeli attack. thas is their modus operandi.

actually I see this as the more likely scenario, Israel taking it on their own. Sooner or later.

when that happens, the loser in all this will be USA.

mogrovejo

09-28-2009, 10:16 AM

We have what, 100,000 or so troops in Iraq, right?

War in the Persian Gulf would likely do what to the price of energy in a worldwide recession?

Could it lead to a wider regional war?

If you aprioristically remove the threat of military intervention, you won't stop Iran from continuing to develop their program in the long-run.

I think the US Administration approach will more or less be "close your eyes and maybe the problem will disappear". That's their favourite modus operandis, as there's too much heterogeneity inside the Administration, they don't really have strategies (wasn't Obama supposed to have a "stronger, broader, etc." strategy "to win" the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan? After all, he doesn't have a clue about what to do, those were just words) or a doctrine about these issues, they are overinfluenced by polls and the President is unexprienced and more comfortabel with words than with actions. I think that in the next 4 years the US will be more comfortable as a follower than as a leader, pretty much like in the late 70s (that's not necessarly bad).

Iran fired two of the longest-range missiles in its arsenal today ahead of a confrontation with foreign powers over a previously undisclosed secret nuclear facility later this week.

The Revolutionary Guard is reported to have successfully launched a Shahab-3 and a Sejil missile, both of which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads with a range of up to 1,200 miles – which would put Israel, most Arab states and parts of Europe, including much of Turkey, within its range.

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said of the firings: “This exercise has a message of friendship for friendly countries.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6851981.ece

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 10:43 AM

:lol @ B-2 as an "escort". The idea of an F-117 escort is only slightly less funny.
It wasn't important for me to double check the rolls of these planes. Just to point out that Israel might be using them. The B-2 has an extraordinary range of almost 7,000 miles. The F-117 has over a 1000 mile range and can carry the appropriate bombs as well. I thought it had a longer range. Oh well.

Who knows. Maybe they have a bunker-buster cruise missile they can launch from one of their submarines.

Bottom line, it doesn't much matter. I believe Israel will take action. Even if it's a real dangerous mission.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 10:45 AM

the F-117 is retired... Secondly, those aren't fighter/attack escorts.

:bang
What if we sold a few to Israel? Just because we retired ours, doesn't mean they did the same. In fact, that increases the chance of us giving some up to our allies!

ChumpDumper

09-28-2009, 11:39 AM

Israel has no strategic bombers and no F-117s.

The sub angle is a slight possibility, but there's no telling if they can even accommodate their longer range missiles, or if those missiles can carry a bunker-buster warhead.

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 11:42 AM

It wasn't important for me to double check the rolls of these planes. Just to point out that Israel might be using them. The B-2 has an extraordinary range of almost 7,000 miles. The F-117 has over a 1000 mile range and can carry the appropriate bombs as well. I thought it had a longer range. Oh well.

Who knows. Maybe they have a bunker-buster cruise missile they can launch from one of their submarines.

Bottom line, it doesn't much matter. I believe Israel will take action. Even if it's a real dangerous mission.

What if we sold a few to Israel? Just because we retired ours, doesn't mean they did the same. In fact, that increases the chance of us giving some up to our allies!

You're a fucking moron. Just stop.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 11:44 AM

You're a fucking moron. Just stop.
Why?

It's fun to see your face change colors. especially when you cannot offer reasonable explanations why I could be wrong.

Heath Ledger

09-28-2009, 11:46 AM

Israel has the resources to retrofit any kind of payload they want coming from their subs. They have time, money and the motivation to get it done.

It is safe to say that if Israel sits idle sooner or later a suitcase bomb will show up in their backyard. Probably about 90 percent to happen.

I just do not see them doing nothing about this, they will see where diplomacy leads first but Iran seems more than willing to defy the world to become a world super power.

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 11:47 AM

If you aprioristically remove the threat of military intervention, you won't stop Iran from continuing to develop their program in the long-run.

I think the US Administration approach will more or less be "close your eyes and maybe the problem will disappear". That's their favourite modus operandis, as there's too much heterogeneity inside the Administration, they don't really have strategies (wasn't Obama supposed to have a "stronger, broader, etc." strategy "to win" the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan? After all, he doesn't have a clue about what to do, those were just words) or a doctrine about these issues, they are overinfluenced by polls and the President is unexprienced and more comfortabel with words than with actions. I think that in the next 4 years the US will be more comfortable as a follower than as a leader, pretty much like in the late 70s (that's not necessarly bad).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6851981.ece

How has Israel's bombing worked out in preventing shit so far? I hear they were able to bomb Hezbollah out of existence in Lebanon. Oh and then they followed that with bombing Hamas out of existence in Gaza.

You can't stop Iran with a few bunker busting bombs. The entire country wants a nuclear program. You can't stop them. They KNOW what a strategic boost they would get from this and thats exactly why they want it. Bombing them will only reinforce that idea.

There's an idea in so many people that you can change everything in the world and no matter how many times that idea is rebuffed they still cling to it. Sure, lets see those bombs drop. It'll buy Israel a year or two more of so called safety and probably another generation of animosity from the Iranians. Its not bad enough they have done the same in Lebanon and Gaza so they should also do it in Iran.

How many bombs will Israel drop before they wonder why it doesn't work?

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 11:48 AM

What if we sold a few to Israel? Just because we retired ours, doesn't mean they did the same. In fact, that increases the chance of us giving some up to our allies!

:lol
What if we had a teleportation experiment that sent an F-117 back in time to Nazi Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment_II
:lmao

Heath Ledger

09-28-2009, 11:49 AM

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 11:51 AM

Why?

It's fun to see your face change colors. especially when you cannot offer reasonable explanations why I could be wrong.

My face hasn't changed colors. Its been brown this time. You keep advocating shit thats retarded. You don't think I can tell you why you're wrong?

F117 and B2's as escorts: The biggest advantage of these planes moron, is that they're stealth aircraft. Sending them in as "escorts" with other aircraft which are not stealth kinda defeats the purpose of using a stealth aircraft. Can you figure out why?

Sub launched cruise missiles: Not accurate enough and not effective on hardened underground target. Just a stupid suggestion.

There's a reason they've been practicing a tactical mission with tactical aircraft. Maybe you can figure it out.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 11:52 AM

My face hasn't changed colors. Its been brown this time. You keep advocating shit thats retarded. You don't think I can tell you why you're wrong?

F117 and B2's as escorts: The biggest advantage of these planes moron, is that they're stealth aircraft. Sending them in as "escorts" with other aircraft which are not stealth kinda defeats the purpose of using a stealth aircraft. Can you figure out why?

Sub launched cruise missiles: Not accurate enough and not effective on hardened underground target. Just a stupid suggestion.

There's a reason they've been practicing a tactical mission with tactical aircraft. Maybe you can figure it out.

You're not open minded enough. Read my previous post^

Anything is possible. :lmao

Spursfan092120

09-28-2009, 11:55 AM

Sad as it is, when I saw this thread title, this is the first thing that came to mind.

vlHEJtflcmo

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 11:56 AM

I like how all of a sudden Manny the aspiring weather guy is all of a sudden the military expert. Damn man you are a jack of all trades. Online poker phenom, weather guy, military expert and professional post critic douche bag. Calling the guy a fucking moron? Little out of line.

Lets see I don't agree with what you have to say so you sir are a fucking moron.

I like how all of a sudden Health Ledger, the aspiring Ron Popiel is all of a sudden a military expert. Damn man you are a jack of all trades. Vegas 1-2 poker phenom, Stun Gun expert, military expert, and professional post critic douche bag. Defending Wild Cobra? Little out of line.

You see what I did there? Either prove what I've said about the military stuff is wrong or stfu imo.

Winehole23

09-28-2009, 12:08 PM

If you aprioristically remove the threat of military intervention, you won't stop Iran from continuing to develop their program in the long-run. Not suggested. In fact, Obama suggests the opposite now. "All options are on the table," says Mr. Obama.

I think the US Administration approach will more or less be "close your eyes and maybe the problem will disappear". That's their favourite modus operandis, as there's too much heterogeneity inside the Administration, they don't really have strategies (wasn't Obama supposed to have a "stronger, broader, etc." strategy "to win" the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan? After all, he doesn't have a clue about what to do, those were just words) or a doctrine about these issues, they are overinfluenced by polls and the President is unexprienced and more comfortabel with words than with actions. I think that in the next 4 years the US will be more comfortable as a follower than as a leader, pretty much like in the late 70s (that's not necessarly bad). Much depends on whether Russia and China will go along with UN sanctions. If they do, the US has a credible stick hand. If not, more of the good cop/bad cop routine.

Besides plunging the whole region into war *preemptively*, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would do little more than put off the inevitable for a few more years, and what could better demonstrate the positive need for nuclear armaments to Iran than a premptive Israeli attack?

Personally, I have a hard time seeing why preemptive attack is a better strategy than containment plus sanctions and, if possible, very intrusive inspections. It seems to me we're closer to acheiving that now than we have been in a long time. Three months (per the G-8 ultimatum upstream) doesn't seem too long to wait to determine whether we've reached the end of the current track.

Winehole23

09-28-2009, 12:10 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6851981.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6851981.ece)

Tens of thousands of US troops lie within range of Iranian missiles right now.

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 12:13 PM

I just don't understand how militarizing that area any fucking more is a good idea. What happens when Iran decides to hold all tanker traffic hostage? What happens when the Strait of Hormuz becomes an area Iran decides to let a few missiles fly?

In case you guys haven't noticed, Iran has leverage.

nkdlunch

09-28-2009, 12:13 PM

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 12:13 PM

true. but millions and milllions of Arabs lie within range of USA missiles right now.

You missed the point he was making.

Winehole23

09-28-2009, 12:14 PM

It is safe to say that if Israel sits idle sooner or later a suitcase bomb will show up in their backyard. Probably about 90 percent to happen.Is there any such thing as a suitcase bomb?

I just do not see them doing nothing about this, they will see where diplomacy leads first but Iran seems more than willing to defy the world to become a world super power.Iran will never be a super power. But a nuclear device could make them regionally important.

We deterred and contained the USSR successfully for over forty years. What makes you think Iran couldn't be similarly managed?

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 12:16 PM

Spheres of influence is a hard pill to swallow for today's NeoCon.

nkdlunch

09-28-2009, 12:18 PM

You missed the point he was making.

nope

Heath Ledger

09-28-2009, 12:48 PM

I like how all of a sudden Health Ledger, the aspiring Ron Popiel is all of a sudden a military expert. Damn man you are a jack of all trades. Vegas 1-2 poker phenom, Stun Gun expert, military expert, and professional post critic douche bag. Defending Wild Cobra? Little out of line.

You see what I did there? Either prove what I've said about the military stuff is wrong or stfu imo.

Your missing the point dumbass you called someone a fucking moron because you disagreed with his post.

For your information, I was an electronics tech in the Navy and I worked on Missile systems, radar equipment, sonar tech equipment, crypto equipment etc.

You can pretend to be mr. know it all armchair general all you want. But I can assure you what you read about and what is actual truth are totally different than actual reality.

You see what I did there?

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 12:51 PM

Your missing the point dumbass you called someone a fucking moron because you disagreed with his post.

For your information, I was an electronics tech in the Navy and I worked on Missile systems, radar equipment, sonar tech equipment, crypto equipment etc.

You can pretend to be mr. know it all armchair general all you want. But I can assure you what you read about and what is actual truth are totally different than actual reality.

You see what I did there?

You'd think they'd require you to be able to read before joining the Navy. Here's a hint: I didn't call WC a moron because I disagreed with him.

Oh and what was I wrong about?

B2s will be used as escorts now? Isreal's going to attack this target with sub launched cruise missiles? We're going to sell Israel F117s?

I don't need to be commander in fucking chief to know stupidity when I see it.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:04 PM

Is there any such thing as a suitcase bomb?

Yes. Although Iran is about a century away from that.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:07 PM

You'd think they'd require you to be able to read before joining the Navy. Here's a hint: I didn't call WC a moron because I disagreed with him.

Oh and what was I wrong about?

B2s will be used as escorts now? Isreal's going to attack this target with sub launched cruise missiles? We're going to sell Israel F117s?

I don't need to be commander in fucking chief to know stupidity when I see it.

A+

Morons defending morons.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:11 PM

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:19 PM

F117 and B2's as escorts: The biggest advantage of these planes moron, is that they're stealth aircraft. Sending them in as "escorts" with other aircraft which are not stealth kinda defeats the purpose of using a stealth aircraft. Can you figure out why?

Yes, I know they are stealth aircraft. We all make mistakes from time to time. The escort thought was mine. So what.

Do you walk on water?

Sub launched cruise missiles: Not accurate enough and not effective on hardened underground target. Just a stupid suggestion.

Bullshit.

The new cruise missiles use the latest in GPS technology. There's also no reason keeping them from flying to a high altitude just before the target and either having a bunker buster built in, or being the carrier for one.

There's a reason they've been practicing a tactical mission with tactical aircraft. Maybe you can figure it out.

Have I said otherwise? Maybe you can figure out that misdirection is a also a common military tactic. Make the enemy believe one thing, wasting their resources to prepare for such an event, then catch them off guard with a different tactic.

You're the fucking moron.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:19 PM

Looks like we are in complete agreement on this issue.

Figures.

Suitcase bomb prophecies from a country who has not even successfully tested a nuclear weapon...

You guys might as well preach how likely liza minelli's next laugh is likely vaporizes the country of Israel. It's about the same odds.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:22 PM

In case you guys haven't noticed, Iran has leverage.
Only because pussies are allowed to vote and be politicians.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:23 PM

Only because pussies are allowed to vote and be politicians.

and neoconservativism comes out of the cellar...

Hi again!

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:24 PM

Is there any such thing as a suitcase bomb?
Absolutely.

Nuclear bombs can be made pretty small. I could tell you how small, but then I'd have to kill you, or go to jail.

Opps... Go to jail anyway if I was caught.

clambake

09-28-2009, 01:25 PM

play soldiers lol

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:26 PM

Absolutely.

Nuclear bombs can be made pretty small. I could tell you how small, but then I'd have to kill you, or go to jail.

Opps... Go to jail anyway if I was caught.

:lmao Sure buddy. (WC now is nuclear scientist thanks to the internet)

DarrinS

09-28-2009, 01:27 PM

Winehole23

09-28-2009, 01:30 PM

If yes, absolutely, perhaps you can give a link that verifies it.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:32 PM

Figures.

Suitcase bomb prophecies from a country who has not even successfully tested a nuclear weapon...

You guys might as well preach how likely liza minelli's next laugh is likely vaporizes the country of Israel. It's about the same odds.
I doubt they would get to that level myself, but who knows with all the leaks we have had over the last few years. The technology isn't as hard as knowing how to do it. Once the secret is out...

Besides, it doesn't have to be the latest and greatest. Ever see the movie "The Manhattin Project (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/)" where a High School kid makes a nuclear bomb?

They can really be made that size! Not small enough to fit in a suitcase, but easily portable.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:33 PM

If yes, absolutely, perhaps you can give a link that verifies it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

The most prominent one in USA arsenal has been the Davy Crockett. It has long since been retired. There have been rumors of missing Soviet suitcase nukes, but based largely on rhetoric and no factual proof.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:35 PM

:lmao Sure buddy. (WC now is nuclear scientist thanks to the internet)
No, I don't have the background to make one. However, working in the nuclear theater under EUCOM, I had plenty of briefings.

DarkReign

09-28-2009, 01:38 PM

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:41 PM

No, I don't have the background to make one. However, working in the nuclear theater under EUCOM, I had plenty of briefings.

Apparently you were told widely available information in your briefs. Size is pretty common knowledge.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

The most prominent one in USA arsenal has been the Davy Crockett. It has long since been retired. There have been rumors of missing Soviet suitcase nukes, but based largely on rhetoric and no factual proof.
Cool wiki link.

Three major problems exist in making small nuclear bombs that I am aware of. A reflector device capable of reflecting enough boson energy back within, large enough explosive to compress smaller cores to a critical mass, and a strong enough alloy to hold the implosion and still be relatively thin and light. Other radioactive isotopes are used to help as well.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:45 PM

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:45 PM

Apparently you were told widely available information in your briefs. Size is pretty common knowledge.
I didn't say how small I was briefed about, did I...

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:49 PM

I'm just going to make a few points, before WC, Heath and whoever keeps playing this G.I. JOE fantasy game.

1. Suitcase nukes are really really hard to make.
2. They don't cause that much damage. You're better off just using a truck/fertilizer bomb. It's cheaper and easier (just bulky).
I agree, unless you want to leave a poisoned area.

Who said it had to be a miniature one anyway? The scenario in "The Sum of All Fears (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164184/)" was inside a vending machine.

Thing is, it could be any size, and be a threat. Larger is just much harder to place where you want in a highly secured area.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:52 PM

Cool wiki link.

Three major problems exist in making small nuclear bombs that I am aware of. A reflector device capable of reflecting enough boson energy back within, large enough explosive to compress smaller cores to a critical mass, and a strong enough alloy to hold the implosion and still be relatively thin and light. Other radioactive isotopes are used to help as well.

What the hell? No. You have bits of pieces there, but overall no. Just no.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 01:55 PM

What the hell? No. You have bits of pieces there, but overall no. Just no.
I know. I just know some of the unclassified parts of making it. I didn't claim that was the complete story now, did I?

Do you often jump to conclusions?

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 01:58 PM

I know. I just know some of the unclassified parts of making it. I didn't claim that was the complete story now, did I?

Do you often jump to conclusions?

The parts you described are unclassified but the way you describe them is false. It's one thing to say to limit something in content and quite another to just be wrong.

clambake

09-28-2009, 02:04 PM

2 times that wc has expressed his love for that movie, lol.

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 02:19 PM

The parts you described are unclassified but the way you describe them is false. It's one thing to say to limit something in content and quite another to just be wrong.
Is it my usage of "boson" that has you going on?

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 02:28 PM

:lmao Did WC really just use the Sum of All Fears as a reference?

MannyIsGod

09-28-2009, 02:29 PM

If you wanted to leave a poisoned area you don't need a nuclear weapon. All you need is the nuclear material they already have and a conventional weapon.

You see what I mean about how easy it is to point out your stupidity?

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 02:34 PM

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 02:49 PM

Is it my usage of "boson" that has you going on?

Partly, you completely missed the point of the reflector which is to reflect neutrons. Boson and Neutron scatter are two entire different things. Boson response and structural integrity has more to do with a tamper. Secondly, radioactive materials not necessarily need to be used.

Heath Ledger

09-28-2009, 03:06 PM

clambake

09-28-2009, 03:07 PM

new law: no more suitcases.

Heath Ledger

09-28-2009, 03:10 PM

suitcase suitcase suitcase.

nuclearfm

09-28-2009, 03:31 PM

Suitcase bomb as in dirty bomb not tactical nuke fuckwad.

So now you're saying that they could use a dirty bomb to destroy Israel?

:lol

Wild Cobra

09-28-2009, 06:54 PM

Partly, you completely missed the point of the reflector which is to reflect neutrons. Boson and Neutron scatter are two entire different things. Boson response and structural integrity has more to do with a tamper. Secondly, radioactive materials not necessarily need to be used.
Well, I meant baryons. So so many years since I studied this. I failed at trying to throw you. Since a neutron is a type of baryon, I thought I would see how you responded by being less specific, but like I said, I used the wrong matter group...

mogrovejo

09-28-2009, 07:58 PM

Sarkozy about Obama and Iran, mocking the idealistic rethoric:

The people of the entire world are listening to what we're saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches, but we live in a real world, not a virtual world.

We say: reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said, “I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].” Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.

http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article1432

I think Obama may be popular among other guys, but US allies are starting to wear thin on his indecisiveness, unilateralism and lack of commitment. A shift on Afghnistan just a couple of months after asking them to follow America in the troops increase and a few weeks later an unilateral shift in the shield defense system will just aggravate the problem.

ChumpDumper

09-28-2009, 08:05 PM

So what is France going to do about anything?

Heath Ledger

09-28-2009, 08:45 PM

If you consider contaminating a large area to the point where its inhabitable around where a dirty bomb goes off for years to come,(destroying Israel) sure. Don't be such a fucktard.

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 08:55 AM

Partly, you completely missed the point of the reflector which is to reflect neutrons. Boson and Neutron scatter are two entire different things. Boson response and structural integrity has more to do with a tamper. Secondly, radioactive materials not necessarily need to be used.

Nuclear, I think you're missing one of the biggest differences between a conventional bomb and a nuclear one, which is the political one.

It's one thing for a conventional bomb, such as a fertilizer truck bomb, to go off. But a nuke going off, even a small one, would send (unwarranted) terror throughout the populace. It would have much more of a effect politically/psychologically than the actual destructive effect.

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 08:56 AM

Sarkozy about Obama and Iran, mocking the idealistic rethoric:

http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article1432

I think Obama may be popular among other guys, but US allies are starting to wear thin on his indecisiveness, unilateralism and lack of commitment. A shift on Afghnistan just a couple of months after asking them to follow America in the troops increase and a few weeks later an unilateral shift in the shield defense system will just aggravate the problem.

If Sarkozy is so concerned, why doesn't he start his own damn war?

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 08:58 AM

Well, I meant baryons. So so many years since I studied this. I failed at trying to throw you. Since a neutron is a type of baryon, I thought I would see how you responded by being less specific, but like I said, I used the wrong matter group...

WC, I don't think you'll be able to convince anyone online that you were trying to "trick" NukeFM, and you just didn't make a mistake.

After all, we have no way to test your credibility. Of anyone, you should know about double-checking sources. :D

mogrovejo

09-29-2009, 09:26 AM

If Sarkozy is so concerned, why doesn't he start his own damn war?

You have to ask that to him. I'm just pointing out how US allies are starting to wear thin on the current Administration unilateralist policies and undecisiveness. Don't you agree with Sarkozy words?

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 09:37 AM

You have to ask that to him. I'm just pointing out how US allies are starting to wear thin on the current Administration unilateralist policies and undecisiveness. Don't you agree with Sarkozy words?

Slightly, but I also think that it's our decision whether to back things up or not. Sarkozy has been bitching about Obama since he snubbed him at some meeting. I'm fine with letting the international community determine whether or not they can 'trust' us, and I'm not quite ready to let Sarkozy determine whether they do or not.

Frankly, I'll be GLAD if nations trust us less. Maybe they won't ask us to defend them as much, or for economic help.

Bartleby

09-29-2009, 09:43 AM

Sarkozy has been bitching about Obama since he snubbed him at some meeting.

Bingo.

It's hilarious how all of sudden conservatives act like they give a shit what France thinks/says.

mogrovejo

09-29-2009, 09:44 AM

Slightly, but I also think that it's our decision whether to back things up or not. Sarkozy has been bitching about Obama since he snubbed him at some meeting. I'm fine with letting the international community determine whether or not they can 'trust' us, and I'm not quite ready to let Sarkozy determine whether they do or not.

Frankly, I'll be GLAD if nations trust us less. Maybe they won't ask us to defend them as much, or for economic help.

I thought it was Obama who went to Europe a couple of months ago asking for more military help from European countries in Afghanistan.

I also thought this Administration wouldnt' be unilateralist. However, I can't remember of a more unilateralist American administration since Hoover's presidency.

It's just that they're full of surprises and one never knows what the hell are they doing. I don't think this is only a problem to US allies or the international community. The thing is: do you trust this administration words? For example, do you trust that this administration indeed has a strategy for Afghanistan?

Bartleby

09-29-2009, 09:45 AM

However, I can't remember of a more unilateralist American administration since Hoover's presidency.

You've forgotten "the Decider" already?

mogrovejo

09-29-2009, 09:46 AM

clambake

09-29-2009, 09:49 AM

so...you forgot.

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 10:21 AM

I thought it was Obama who went to Europe a couple of months ago asking for more military help from European countries in Afghanistan.

And do you think we'll get any noticeable amount? Until we do, I really don't care what Sarkozy says.

I also thought this Administration wouldnt' be unilateralist. However, I can't remember of a more unilateralist American administration since Hoover's presidency.

I would say that attacking Iraq with the help of only UK and a few token soldiers from other nations is somehwat unilateralist.

It's just that they're full of surprises and one never knows what the hell are they doing. I don't think this is only a problem to US allies or the international community. The thing is: do you trust this administration words? For example, do you trust that this administration indeed has a strategy for Afghanistan?

I'm fine with unilateralism as long as we're not doing something stupid, like invading a country. But changing our mind about whether to install a missile defense shield for another country with our own money? Yeah, I'm ok with that.

Again, I'm ok with the international community trusting us less; maybe they'll ask less of us.

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 10:23 AM

Hmmm.... it's amazing the heavy use of ad hominem and strawman arguments over here.

Just for the record, as a rule I don't answer to people that use them; I'm not used to have conversations with that kind of person.

Eh, I'm not saying, per se, that Sarkozy is a blowhard, therefore his opinion must be wrong. But I'm certainly implying that it may color his opinions.

Again, even if we ARE seen as flaky, what are the explicit negatives associated with that, Mogro?

DarkReign

09-29-2009, 10:55 AM

It's just that they're full of surprises and one never knows what the hell are they doing. I don't think this is only a problem to US allies or the international community. The thing is: do you trust this administration words? For example, do you trust that this administration indeed has a strategy for Afghanistan?

I dont trust my government, period.

Red, Blue, Green...doesnt matter. The sooner Americans just band together in their complete distaste for their government, the better off we will be.

Instead we have cheerleaders and infinite patience with one's chosen doctrine, whatever it may be. Because the President is a <insert affiliation here> and I support <same affiliation here>, then I will defend their policy with vigor.

Supporting a candidate over another is great, more power to you. But after the election your loyalties to that candidate should be completely suspended from your conscience and every move they make criticized.

Just an opinion.

nuclearfm

09-29-2009, 01:42 PM

Nuclear, I think you're missing one of the biggest differences between a conventional bomb and a nuclear one, which is the political one.

It's one thing for a conventional bomb, such as a fertilizer truck bomb, to go off. But a nuke going off, even a small one, would send (unwarranted) terror throughout the populace. It would have much more of a effect politically/psychologically than the actual destructive effect.

I know that. Terror is one thing but deaths are another. A dirty bomb may not even cause any deaths. I'd take superficial terror over deaths.

nuclearfm

09-29-2009, 01:46 PM

If you consider contaminating a large area to the point where its inhabitable around where a dirty bomb goes off for years to come,(destroying Israel) sure. Don't be such a fucktard.

That's impossible to do without developing substantial nuclear technology (enough to get a nuclear weapon). Worst case scenario, there is a mild cleanup. You can't contaminate that badly without a substantial nuclear production program. I suggest you just shutup on this, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 01:51 PM

I know that. Terror is one thing but deaths are another. A dirty bomb may not even cause any deaths. I'd take superficial terror over deaths.

Eh, I don't know. Superficial terror oftens leads to horrible law that violates civil rights/liberties. Not to mention the effect that distrust of one's neighbor can have on a population.

MannyIsGod

09-29-2009, 02:02 PM

That's impossible to do without developing substantial nuclear technology (enough to get a nuclear weapon). Worst case scenario, there is a mild cleanup. You can't contaminate that badly without a substantial nuclear production program. I suggest you just shutup on this, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

:lol

Ouch.

ChumpDumper

09-29-2009, 02:58 PM

I'll ask again: What is France going to do about anything anywhere?

Wild Cobra

09-29-2009, 03:12 PM

WC, I don't think you'll be able to convince anyone online that you were trying to "trick" NukeFM, and you just didn't make a mistake.

After all, we have no way to test your credibility. Of anyone, you should know about double-checking sources. :D
I did make a mistake. I did want to see his reaction since a neutron is a type of baryon, but I used the wrong word. I don't care if you believe me or not.

mogrovejo

09-29-2009, 08:24 PM

And do you think we'll get any noticeable amount? Until we do, I really don't care what Sarkozy says.

How exactly do you expect to get any noticeable amount if nobody can trust this Admnistration strategy?

I would say that attacking Iraq with the help of only UK and a few token soldiers from other nations is somehwat unilateralist.

At least it was supported by a fair bunch of countries and the support of many others was seeked.

I'm fine with unilateralism as long as we're not doing something stupid, like invading a country. But changing our mind about whether to install a missile defense shield for another country with our own money? Yeah, I'm ok with that.

Maybe you are. But the problem isn't exactly the changing of mind, rather the way it was changed. In the domain of military and diplomatic relationships, countries like the US are supposed to have some reliability and to try concert their positions with their allies to a reasonable degree.

Again, I'm ok with the international community trusting us less; maybe they'll ask less of us.

Maybe they'll also provide you less. But the problem is that this administration announced that their approach would be the exact opposite. After all, what's your position relatively to a more unilateralist or multilateralist approach and what's the position of the Admninistration?

Eh, I'm not saying, per se, that Sarkozy is a blowhard, therefore his opinion must be wrong. But I'm certainly implying that it may color his opinions.

Again, even if we ARE seen as flaky, what are the explicit negatives associated with that, Mogro?

That comment wasn't directed to you or about Sarkozy. I find the theory that Sarkozy decides his diplomatic stances because of some alleged snub from Obama or that he holds some kind of grudge against him that influences his speechs so far-fetched and childish (especially considering he held the same view even before Obama was elected) that I wouldn't lose time mentioning it, except to clarify this point.

Ask yourself how your behaviour would change towards a contractor, a business partner, a co-worker, etc that you perceived as flaky.

You haven't answered this question: The thing is: do you trust this administration words? For example, do you trust that this administration indeed has a strategy for Afghanistan?

LnGrrrR

09-29-2009, 10:15 PM

How exactly do you expect to get any noticeable amount if nobody can trust this Admnistration strategy?

I don't, making wars of convenience rather impossible. See how that works? :)

At least it was supported by a fair bunch of countries and the support of many others was seeked.

In spirit, yes. But the US obviously determined the majority of policy and did the heavy lifting.

Maybe you are. But the problem isn't exactly the changing of mind, rather the way it was changed. In the domain of military and diplomatic relationships, countries like the US are supposed to have some reliability and to try concert their positions with their allies to a reasonable degree.

Yes, but my definition of reasonable is, say, if the US changes its mind about putting a US-funded missile defense, that's the US's business. Unless it was to be located in France, who cares what they say?

George Washington spoke of keeping this country disentangled from allegiances, both allies and enemies. I think he was spot on.

Maybe they'll also provide you less. But the problem is that this administration announced that their approach would be the exact opposite. After all, what's your position relatively to a more unilateralist or multilateralist approach and what's the position of the Admninistration?

My position is we shouldn't go to war unilaterally unless we have either A) been attacked or B) have solid evidence that we are going to be attacked and it's presented to the people. And by "going to be attacked" I mean in the near future, not some nebulous 10 years down the road.

The Administration has obviously taken a multilateralist approach. Is this a misstep? Perhaps in the eyes of France, but Russia seems to have appreciated it.

That comment wasn't directed to you or about Sarkozy. I find the theory that Sarkozy decides his diplomatic stances because of some alleged snub from Obama or that he holds some kind of grudge against him that influences his speechs so far-fetched and childish (especially considering he held the same view even before Obama was elected) that I wouldn't lose time mentioning it, except to clarify this point.

Why do you think politicians are immune to the same sort of bias that everyday humans are susceptible to?

Ask yourself how your behaviour would change towards a contractor, a business partner, a co-worker, etc that you perceived as flaky.

If a coworker reneged on a deal he had with another company in order to gain favor with a different company, that's his business. If he does that to me, then I'll look into it.

You haven't answered this question: The thing is: do you trust this administration words? For example, do you trust that this administration indeed has a strategy for Afghanistan?

I trust they have SOME sort of strategy. I don't think it's static by any means and will be dictated by conditions on the ground and changing scenarios.

Do I trust the administration's word? Not wholeheartedly, of course. Obama's shown no love for civil liberties, for instance. I believe him when he says he wants to push health care, because his actions have backed him up. That's when I'll believe him; when he takes action to back his words up.

mogrovejo

09-29-2009, 10:50 PM

Yes, but my definition of reasonable is, say, if the US changes its mind about putting a US-funded missile defense, that's the US's business. Unless it was to be located in France, who cares what they say?

Well, there's the problem of assuming commitments just to unilaterally disregard them.

George Washington spoke of keeping this country disentangled from allegiances, both allies and enemies. I think he was spot on.

I could respect that if that was the philosophy of this administration. Hard to believe when the President was just campaigning among his allies asking for military support.

The Administration has obviously taken a multilateralist approach. Is this a misstep? Perhaps in the eyes of France, but Russia seems to have appreciated it.

That's far from obvious. Do you only apply multilateralism to enemies but not to allies?

[QUOTE]Why do you think politicians are immune to the same sort of bias that everyday humans are susceptible to?

I don't. I'm just immune to unreasonable theories about that.

If he does that to me, then I'll look into it.

Right.

I trust they have SOME sort of strategy.

Is that a leap of faith or something else?

Nbadan

09-29-2009, 11:35 PM

The same people who warned us about the FAILED Iraq-WMD connections are sounding alarms about the media exaggerating the Iranian nuclear threat....

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, reaffirmed Monday that a date would soon be set for the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the planned nuclear enrichment facility near Qom about which the Iranian government informed the IAEA on Monday a week ago.

If Iran really does permit full, ongoing IAEA inspections of the facility, then it cannot be used for weapons production. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted Sunday that Iran cannot use the Natanz plant for bomb-making because it is being regularly inspected by the UN.

Scott Ritter, an experienced inspector himself, dispels the myths about the new Qom facility and urges against new economic sanctions on Iran as counter-productive. Greater transparency and more inspections should be the demand of the West, he says.

Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/29-10)

Nbadan

09-30-2009, 12:10 AM

Oh, oh, Chumpy...

SAUDIS WILL LET ISRAEL BOMB IRAN NUCLEAR SITE
Sunday September 27,2009
By Gordon Thomas and Camilla Tominey

INTELLIGENCE chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.

The head of MI6 discussed the issue in London with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Saudi officials after British intelligence officers helped to uncover the plant, in the side of a mountain near the ancient city of Qom.

The site is seen as a major threat by Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Details of the talks emerged after John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, told a meeting of intelligence analysts that “Riyadh certainly approves” of Israel’s use of Saudi airspace.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband acknowledged that the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East was “particularly potent” and refused to rule out military action altogether but he insisted: “We are 100 per cent focused on a diplomatic solution.”

Gordon Brown, US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have warned Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he must allow in weapons inspectors or face more sanctions.

Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/130251/Saudis-will-let-Israel-bomb-Iran-nuclear-site)

ChumpDumper

09-30-2009, 03:09 AM

Thanks. Just wondering how they would do it.

Seems like they would have to do it several times.

LnGrrrR

09-30-2009, 08:15 AM

Well, there's the problem of assuming commitments just to unilaterally disregard them.

You make it sound as if there's no difference between changing your mind on a decision after rationally weighing in on the subject, and just casually changing your mind for no reason.

I could respect that if that was the philosophy of this administration. Hard to believe when the President was just campaigning among his allies asking for military support.

Again, that was my personal belief, not necessarily the Administrations. Tell me, besides the missile defense, how many other instances have there been where we've changed our stance?

That's far from obvious. Do you only apply multilateralism to enemies but not to allies? [quote]

Not sure what you mean by this.

[quote=mogrovejo;3714336] I don't. I'm just immune to unreasonable theories about that.

How is it unreasonable? What leads you to believe that Sarkozy is a rational man at all times, or that personal biases can't reflect what he says/shares?

At the least, why do you take what he says at face value, without thinking that he may have other reasons for disparaging US relations?

Is that a leap of faith or something else?

It's a general assumption. Are you stating that you think Obama DOESN'T have any strategy? :lol

Winehole23

03-30-2014, 10:14 PM

some historical context from a new book by Gareth Porter

If you take politicians and the mainstream media seriously, you believe that Iran wants a nuclear weapon and has relentlessly engaged in covert efforts to build one. Even if you are aware that Iran signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, you may believe that those who run the Islamic Republic have cleverly found ways to construct a nuclear-weapons industry almost undetected. Therefore, you may conclude, Democratic and Republican administrations have been justified in pressuring Iran to come clean and give up its “nuclear program.”

But you would be wrong.

Anyone naturally skeptical about such foreign-policy alarms has by now found solid alternative reporting that debunks the official narrative about the alleged Iranian threat. Much of that reporting has come from Gareth Porter, the journalist and historian associated with Inter Press Service (http://www.ipsnews.net/). Porter has done us the favor of collecting the fruits of his dogged investigative journalism into a single comprehensive and accessible volume, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1935982338/futuoffreefou-20).

A grain of truth can be found at the core of the official story. Iranian officials did indeed engage in secret activities to achieve a nuclear capability. But it was a capability aimed at generating electricity and medical treatments, not hydrogen bombs.

Porter opens his book by explaining why Iran used secretive rather than open methods. Recall that before the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran was ruled by an autocratic monarch, the shah. The shah’s power had been eclipsed in the early 1950s by a democratically elected parliament. Then, in 1953, America’s Eisenhower administration sent the CIA in to foment civil discord in order to drive the elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, from office and restore the shah’s power.

During his reign, the shah, a close ally of the United States and Israel, started building a nuclear-power industry — with America’s blessing. Iran’s Bushehr reactor was 80 percent complete when the shah was overthrown.

When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became Iran’s supreme leader in 1979, he cancelled completion of the reactor and stopped related projects. But “two years later, the government reversed the decision to strip the [Atomic Energy Organization of Iran] of its budget and staff, largely because the severe electricity shortages that marked the first two years of the revolutionary era persuaded policymakers that there might be a role for nuclear power reactors after all,” Porter writes.

The new regime’s goals were “extremely modest compared with those of the shah,” Porter adds, consisting of one power plant and fuel purchased from France. Take note: the Iranian government did not aspire to enrich uranium, which is the big scare issue these days.
Iran brought the IAEA into its planning process, Porter writes, and an agency official, after conducting a survey of facilities, “recommended that the IAEA provide ‘expert services’ in eight different fields.” Porter notes that the IAEA official said nothing about an Iranian request for help in enriching uranium, “reflecting the fact that Iran was still hoping to get enriched uranium from the French company, Eurodif.”

Had things continued along this path, Iran today would have had a transparent civilian nuclear industry, under the NPT safeguard, fueled by enriched uranium purchased from France or elsewhere. No one would be talking about Iranian centrifuges and nuclear weapons. What happened?

The Reagan administration happened.

Continuing the U.S. hostility toward the Islamic Republic begun by the Carter administration, and siding with Iraq when Saddam Hussein’s military attacked Iran, the Reagan administration imposed “a series of interventions … to prevent international assistance of any kind to the Iranian nuclear program.” Not only did President Reagan block American firms from helping the Iranians; he also pressured American allies to participate in the embargo. This was in clear violation of the NPT, which recognizes the “right” of participating states to acquire nuclear technology for civilian purposes.

No wonder Iran turned to covert channels, most particularly A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani who “was selling nuclear secrets surreptitiously.” This would have been the time for Iran to buy weapons-related technology — however, Porter writes, “there is no indication that [Khan’s Iranian contact] exhibited any interest in the technology for making a bomb.”

This is indeed a manufactured crisis.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-iranian-threat-that-never-was/