Ahmadinejad: Major nuclear announcement expected within days

[Agloco]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/11/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Saturday that the nation will reveal "several major achievements in the nuclear domain" within days, state media reported.

Ahmadinejad did not offer details during his announcement at a rally to mark the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

But he slammed "hegemonic powers," accusing them of pressuring the nation on the nuclear front.

In the near future, Iran's nuclear demands will be met by the nation's scientists, Ahmadinejad said at the Tehran event broadcast on Press TV

"Today you see that the Iranian nation has become nuclear and can supply many of its demands," he said. "And God willing, in next few days, the whole world will witness the inauguration of several major achievements in the nuclear domain.

[mouse]

How large is your wet spot?

[TDMVPDPOY]

mahmoud "come at me bro" to israel

[Spurs da champs]

I'm sure you're praying it's a nuke, eh?

[boutons_deux]

boogeyman's gonna get us!

Oh Lawdy, what I'm goan do?

[Goran Dragic]

lol Iranian boogeyman

[Winehole23]

lol boutons in blackface

[Agloco]

I'm sure you're praying it's a nuke, eh?

:lol

Why would I hope for that?

[Spurs da champs]

:lol

Why would I hope for that?

Because you're an ignoramus on that subject.

[Borat Sagyidev]

:lol

Why would I hope for that?


:lol


iesXUFOlWC0

[SA210]

boogeyman's gonna get us!

Oh Lawdy, what I'm goan do?

:lmao

[Agloco]

Because you're an ignoramus on that subject.

Of course.

Any more middle school insults you'd care to share with the peanut gallery?

[Agloco]

:lol


iesXUFOlWC0

:toast

[TDMVPDPOY]

http://on.msnbc.com/xfSFS7
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10369793-report-saudi-arabia-to-buy-nukes-if-iran-tests-a-bomb
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/saudi-arabia-threatens-to-go-nuclear-in-weeks-if-iran-gets-bomb/story-e6frfku0-1226267920647#ixzz1m9aaWE48
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/saudi-arabia-threatens-to-go-nuclear-in-weeks-if-iran-gets-bomb/story-e6frfku0-1226267920647

looks like the saudis want to buy a nuke also if iran successfully makes one....so whose selling?

[Agloco]

http://on.msnbc.com/xfSFS7
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10369793-report-saudi-arabia-to-buy-nukes-if-iran-tests-a-bomb
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/saudi-arabia-threatens-to-go-nuclear-in-weeks-if-iran-gets-bomb/story-e6frfku0-1226267920647#ixzz1m9aaWE48
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/saudi-arabia-threatens-to-go-nuclear-in-weeks-if-iran-gets-bomb/story-e6frfku0-1226267920647

looks like the saudis want to buy a nuke also if iran successfully makes one....so whose selling?

Another consequence of allowing nations to freely pursue nuclear arms. One that's simply dismissed out of hand (or more likely not even considered) by many on this board. The Turks will be close behind no doubt.

[mercos]

The domino theory. A nuclear arms race in the middle east would be bad news for everyone.

[Nbadan]

Pakistan and India have been at war for years in Kashmir and both have nuclear weapons...yet, both are still around..this will just level the playing field in the middle east....

[ElNono]

The domino theory. A nuclear arms race in the middle east would be bad news for everyone.

Everyone in the middle east...

[lefty]

Yawn .....

[Iranian BoogeyMan]

:devil:devil:devil

Muahahahahaha! I know I've been saying stuff like this the past decade but this time it's real!

I'm gonna get you guys!! Booooooooooooooooo

[TDMVPDPOY]

Pakistan and India have been at war for years in Kashmir and both have nuclear weapons...yet, both are still around..this will just level the playing field in the middle east....

the problem is pakistan backed by the chinese, and you yanks who need them more then they need you in the war on terrorism....look how many times india has hold back while the mumbai bombins etc were all done from wankers from pakistan....imo just let them take each other out....

[Wild Cobra]

Pakistan and India have been at war for years in Kashmir and both have nuclear weapons...yet, both are still around..this will just level the playing field in the middle east....
Would you expect that to continue under a "Shah of Pakistan" or "Shah or India?"

[boutons_deux]

MAD will continue to work perfectly.

US and Israel simply hate to be intimidated by a nuclear enemy (which is really what non-proliferation is all about), and they know they will be, just like NK. US/UK oilcos can kiss that Iranian oil good bye.

[Winehole23]

Another consequence of allowing nations to freely pursue nuclear arms. One that's simply dismissed out of hand (or more likely not even considered) by many on this board. The Turks will be close behind no doubt.Earlier you suggested RP turns a blind eye to Iran without any citation or support, now you say posters wish to allow the ME to pursue nuclear arms freely.

Who has suggested this?

[Winehole23]

Also, a cite on RP's stance on Iran would be nice. My impression is that he's for negotiation and (possibly) eventual normalization.

[Babu]

Pakistan and India have been at war for years in Kashmir and both have nuclear weapons...yet, both are still around..this will just level the playing field in the middle east....

More nukes is a bad thing.....a very bad thing!

[Winehole23]

Everyone in the middle east...There already is an arms race. Preventing it isn't an option. We can only try to manage it.

How does one prevent countries from consummating their own technical competence?

[Winehole23]

Saber rattling and sanctions have been pursued to the exclusion of bona fide negotiation so far. Deterrence and containment are undersold as viable options, and the craziness of Iran, (an NPT signatory that allows IAEA inspections inside its own country, unlike the other nuclear power in the region, which developed the bomb in secret, is not party to international anti-proliferation protocols, and still officially denies its nukes exist) -- is routinely overhyped.

[TDMVPDPOY]

so has he announce anything?

[Winehole23]

didn't see it in this mornings headlines, so I'm guessing no...

[cheguevara]

:lol Ahmad trolling mofos

:lol wait for it, wait for it

[Winehole23]

The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, on attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Stupid it may be, but it's also the hottest trend since the iPhone. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last year that if Iran proceeds toward acquiring a nuclear arsenal, "we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the same thing.


The Republican presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) strain to outdo each other in bellicose rhetoric. Mitt Romney says, "If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon." Newt Gingrich promises, "Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon." Rick Santorum is prepared to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.


The United States and Israel are keeping their powder dry, but that could change anytime. A report in The Washington Post said, "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May, or June."


The prevailing wisdom among policymakers, in short, bears an eerie resemblance to the Iraq consensus of 2002. We and the Israelis allegedly faced an intolerable peril from a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction and a lust for aggression. Fortunately, we were told, it was nothing that a short, sudden military attack wouldn't solve.


But in Iraq, it turned out the solution was anything but quick or easy—and the danger was vastly exaggerated. And in Iran? Ditto.


"The working assumption that it is possible to totally halt the Iranian nuclear project by means of a military attack is incorrect," Dagan recently told The New York Times. "There is no such military capability. It is possible to cause a delay, but even that would only be for a limited period of time."


Another prominent Mossad veteran, Rafi Eitan, said the attack would delay Iran's nuclear program "not even three months."


Americans may be led to assume we will pay no price. But Iran has innumerable options for "asymmetric" retaliation—attacking our ships in the Persian Gulf, sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan or the United States, and ordering its Lebanese Hezbollah ally to rain rockets on Israel. We may find that fighting a war with Iran is like making love to a gorilla: You don't stop when you're done; you stop when the gorilla is done.


Why is everyone so eager to plunge into another war? Because of another false fear: that a nuclear-armed Iran will use its new arsenal to obliterate the Jewish state or bully its neighbors.


This panic requires a total disregard for everything we have learned during the nuclear age. Over the past 60 years, assorted enemies and rivals have acquired nuclear stockpiles: the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan and North Korea. All of them have learned that they are useless as offensive weapons against other nuclear states and their allies.



Alarmists insist that an Iranian bomb would set off a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey hastening to get their own. But they already face a worrisome neighbor with a nuclear arsenal: Israel. None has seen the need for a comparable deterrent.


The world has seen the rise of one nuclear state after another without the outbreak of nuclear war or nuclear blackmail. Yet this one, we are told, will change the world in ways we cannot tolerate. We've heard that warning before. It's still wrong.http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/13/false-fears-about-a-nuclear-iran/1

[Winehole23]

As I’ve said before, I don’t think Israel is (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/03/israel-is-not-going-to-attack-iran/) going to (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/06/israel-is-not-going-to-attack-iran-ii/) attack Iran (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/06/israel-is-not-going-to-attack-iran-iii/). Starting a regional war that jeopardizes Israel’s relationship with its patron and invites massive retaliation would be risky enough if there was some chance of lasting success. To do this for the sake of setting back Iran’s nuclear program by a few years and practically guaranteeing the the outcome it is meant to prevent makes no sense at all. It certainly does not serve Israel’s interest. Just because something is not in a state’s interest doesn’t automatically mean that the state won’t do it, but I wouldn’t assume that Israel’s government is as foolish as its public rhetoric sometimes suggests.


Barnett actually gives us a reason not to expect war with Iran:

Since there is zero chance of America rerunning the Iraq war, U.S. and Israeli air and unconventional attacks will, at best, push Iran’s weaponization date back several years. But, frankly, our targeting strategy will likewise prioritize damaging the regime’s capacity to control its population, because unless an Arab Spring-like uprising ensues, or an acceptable regime infighter emerges victoriously with a “grand bargain” in hand, we will simply have to “rinse and repeat” at some future date.
Put another way, an attack on Iran will not produce the desired result of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program, and everyone understands this ahead of time. Why would Israel or any state decide on a course of action that they knew in advance would fail to resolve the issue?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/13/israel-is-not-going-to-attack-iran-iv/

[Winehole23]

George H.W. Bush got the Japanese citizens to write a check for $13.5 billion to the U.S. to pay for the first Gulf War. He was perhaps the last fiscally responsible war-time U.S. President.

Wars cost lots and lots of money -- and if a substantial chunk of the GOP crowd wants these wars and feels that it is in our national interest to have them, then by all means they should start lining up some of the wealthiest in the country who are helping to agitate for these conflicts to pay more in taxes for them. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/iran-war-would-cost-trillions-will-the-gop-pay-more-taxes-for-that/252977/

[Agloco]

Earlier you suggested RP turns a blind eye to Iran without any citation or support


....a cite on RP's stance on Iran would be nice. My impression is that he's for negotiation and (possibly) eventual normalization.

Indeed he is. I know that he's stated his concern about their acquiring one, but on the same token there's no information coming from him as to how to prevent it or if in his opinion it's even necessary. At the end of the day, Pauls policy is non-interventionist and IMO that's tantamount to turning a blind eye. Failing diplomacy, what then? Granted I don't search the web as much as some, but I haven't seen any information which details his "plan B" regarding Iran. Apologies if he's explicitly stated this somewhere. Although, knowing you WH you would have simply obviated the need for this discussion by hitting me over the head with it up front :lol

I'm remembering the the debate where Ron Paul states that he would talk to the Iranians. Unfortunately, he doesn't refute the assertion of the moderator that his policy on Iran is one of: "If they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that's their right. No sanctions, no effort to stop them."

Pauls response: "No, I think that makes it much worse."

This exchange begins at 1:51.

bAXBevBcwHU

Who knows? Perhaps he was just dialed into giving a pre-canned response. That moment was a chance for clarity though. What I need from him (or anyone) is that yes, he will oppose any effort by Iran to obtain weapons and will use any reasonable means at our disposal, up to and including some sort of intervention. I'm unsure of how effective diplomacy alone would be at this stage. I also don't understand how he will reconcile a policy of "minding our own business" with seeing that Iran does not continue its nuclear aspirations, something that in his own words he's admitted to being afraid of and that everyone should be afraid of.


now you say posters wish to allow the ME to pursue nuclear arms freely.

Who has suggested this?

I believe you misunderstood my comment, or more likely my drive-by posting has betrayed me again :lol. Allow me to clarify. I stated:


Another consequence of allowing nations to freely pursue nuclear arms. One that's simply dismissed out of hand (or more likely not even considered) by many on this board. The Turks will be close behind no doubt.

ie IMO that freely allowing nations (admittedly, I should have specifically stated Iran) to build nuclear weapons might spark a regional arms race, has not been considered by many here (WH excluded of course :lol). Yes, there's plenty of room for debate over this (the Israel has them already argument, for instance).


now you say posters wish to allow the ME to pursue nuclear arms freely.

This was not my intent. I believe that translating my comment as such is a stretch.

[Winehole23]

Indeed he is. I know that he's stated his concern about their acquiring one, but on the same token there's no information coming from him as to how to prevent it or if in his opinion it's even necessary. There is the question of whether it's even possible to prevent it. Mossad higher ups think military action will do no more than delay Iran's nuclear capabilities. Short of annihilating a country, how does one prevent it from doing what it is technically capable of doing? Sanctions are arguably counterproductive: they steel the resolve of Iran's theocrats and they feed the nationalist feelings of Iranians against foreign meddlers.

I'm remembering the the debate where Ron Paul states that he would talk to the Iranians. Unfortunately, he doesn't refute the assertion of the moderator that his policy on Iran is one of: "If they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that's their right. No sanctions, no effort to stop them."Again, are sanctions helping? If so, how so?

I also don't understand how he will reconcile a policy of "minding our own business" with seeing that Iran does not continue its nuclear aspirations, something that in his own words he's admitted to being afraid of and that everyone should be afraid of. Why?

This was not my intent. I believe that translating my comment as such is a stretch.Fair enough.

[ElNono]

There already is an arms race. Preventing it isn't an option. We can only try to manage it.

How does one prevent countries from consummating their own technical competence?

I don't know that you necessarily can or really, have the authority to... It's the same old argument you hear when you flip the coin... "America has a right to defend itself", etc etc etc...

Ultimately, what I was pointing out that, at this time, the nuclear race in the Middle East only affect the Middle East. I don't believe they have transcontinental capabilities.

[Agloco]

There is the question of whether it's even possible to prevent it. Mossad higher ups think military action will do no more than delay Iran's nuclear capabilities. Short of annihilating a country, how does one prevent it from doing what it is technically capable of doing?

I propose that the only way to find out is to take action. Such is my problem with Pauls approach, as much as I would like to buy into it. IMO ultimately, this will require an intervention of some sort. Deep down, I feel that the diplomacy ship has sailed and we've missed it by a country mile (although I think we should at least try. I don't see a justifiable reason for not doing so). I don't believe annihilating an entire country is warranted or necessary though. What to do exactly? <punt> I'm not in a position to answer that. I have to believe that there is some middle ground to be had though.


Sanctions are arguably counterproductive: they steel the resolve of Iran's theocrats and they feed the nationalist feelings of Iranians against foreign meddlers.

No idea here. However I'd ask what sort of action do you believe would induce Iran to abandon it's aspirations at this point, if not sanctions?



Why?

That was a quote from Paul. However....

Should people fear nuclear weapons in general? I'd yes. What say you?

It would stand to reason then that people should also fear Iranian nuclear weapons. Or anyone else's for that matter.



Again, are sanctions helping? If so, how so?

Are we at the proper time point to make an honest assessment? Not being evasive here, I don't truly know. When do you evaluate that?

I do know that the US and the international community continue to urge Israel to give the sanctions time to work. To me this implies that we haven't reached that point yet.

[Winehole23]

I propose that the only way to find out is to take action. Such is my problem with Pauls approach, as much as I would like to buy into it. IMO ultimately, this will require an intervention of some sort. Deep down, I feel that the diplomacy ship has sailed and we've missed it by a country mile (although I think we should at least try. I don't see a justifiable reason for not doing so). I don't believe annihilating an entire country is warranted or necessary though. What to do exactly? <punt> I'm not in a position to answer that. I have to believe that there is some middle ground to be had though. The middle ground is politically dangerous terrain, given all the hype and fear-mongering related to Iran. Even on an anonymous bulletin board such as this one, where there are no consequences for staking out politically unpopular views, posters avoid the middle ground in favor of acting tuff.

No idea here. However I'd ask what sort of action do you believe would induce Iran to abandon it's aspirations at this point, if not sanctions?I don't think sanctions will ever do it. To the extent that sanctions cause real hardship for Iranians and destabilize the Iranian state, I think they are bringing us closer to war and further from a solution.

Had we found some way to start normalizing in the wake of 9/11, when Khatami was helping us round up bad guys from Afghanistan and his moderate government seemed open to closer ties with the US, we might have considerably more influence in Iran than we do now.

I think dropping sanctions and cultivating closer commercial and high level ties with Iran would still be way more effective than sanctions and hawkish posturing, but honestly, who knows? I sure don't.


Should people fear nuclear weapons in general? I'd yes. What say you?

It would stand to reason then that people should also fear Iranian nuclear weapons. Or anyone else's for that matter.Nuclear weapons are inherently scary. True.

Are we at the proper time point to make an honest assessment? Not being evasive here, I don't truly know. When do you evaluate that? That's a good point. An equally good one is, at what point can one conclude that they're not working, or do we just keep saying give them more time, ad infinitum?

I do know that the US and the international community continue to urge Israel to give the sanctions time to work. To me this implies that we haven't reached that point yet.To me it implies that Israel is getting impatient, no more.

[Agloco]

The middle ground is politically dangerous terrain, given all the hype and fear-mongering related to Iran. Even on an anonymous bulletin board such as this one, where there are no consequences for staking out politically unpopular views, posters avoid the middle ground in favor of acting tuff.

Go big or go home eh? :lol

I see what you're driving at.



I don't think sanctions will ever do it. To the extent that sanctions cause real hardship for Iranians and destabilize the Iranian state, I think they are bringing us closer to war and further from a solution.

Had we found some way to start normalizing in the wake of 9/11, when Khatami was helping us round up bad guys from Afghanistan and his moderate government seemed open to closer ties with the US, we might have considerably more influence in Iran than we do now.

I think dropping sanctions and cultivating closer commercial and high level ties with Iran would still be way more effective than sanctions and hawkish posturing, but honestly, who knows? I sure don't.

Well, I'll point out that Irans nuclear ambitions began before sanctions were in place. Seems to me that removing them only takes the brakes off of the freight train at this point. Treating whatever caused them to aspire to this in the first place might be more beneficial (while keeping sanctions in place). However, I can also see how your suggestion for commercial ties and high level diplomacy might gain some favor with them.

It really boils down to their intent. Most seem to believe that it is benign.



That's a good point. An equally good one is, at what point can one conclude that they're not working, or do we just keep saying give them more time, ad infinitum?

You indicated that one way to conclude this would be when Israel attacks (presumably with US blessings):


To me it implies that Israel is getting impatient, no more.

I meant that as a light hearted joke, but in all seriousness the exact measures of effectiveness are wholly subjective to be sure and will not be agreed upon by all parties involved. This, I believe, highlights a rather problematic limitation for sanctions. You also point out that they serve to polarize populations against foreign influences. I agree with that as well.

At this point, I would have to ask: Historically, how politically "effective" have sanctions been and what socioeconomic ramifications have they had on the populations of the countries sanctioned?

I should bother to look this up at some point, but I am admittedly a bit tied up for the foreseeable future.

[Winehole23]

It really boils down to their intent. Most seem to believe that it is benign. Living in the US, I would have to say my impression is the exact opposite: most seem to think Iran is evil on a Hitlerian scale. Mine is somewhere in between. I certainly don't think Iran is benign, but I don't think Iran is motivated by strictly evil intentions either. Rational self-interest (geostrategic) covers it much better. Nuke capability will get Israel and the USA off their backs.

(BTW, What happened to the last dictatorial regime that gave up nuclear weaponization?)

You indicated that one way to conclude this would be when Israel attacks (presumably with US blessings): I don't think attacking Iran is in the best interests of Israel or the US. It could be catastrophic for all involved, considering no more than foreseeable impact on energy prices.

At this point, I would have to ask: Historically, how politically "effective" have sanctions been and what socioeconomic ramifications have they had on the populations of the countries sanctioned? I think I see what you're referring to. If US/EU sanctions lead to regime change, it seems doubtful to me that the succeeding government will be more pro-western and less inclined to develop deterrent capabilities. The exact reverse seems more likely, tbh.

[Winehole23]

Seems to me that removing them only takes the brakes off of the freight train at this point.Look at the thread title. Sanctions might have been counterproductive, encouraging Iran to accelerate the process, if for no other reason than to deter socially and politically painful sanctions. It's just possible sanctions have greased the skids.

[boutons_deux]

Is this "it"?

Iran to load own nuclear fuel rods in Tehran reactor

Iran will load domestically made nuclear fuel rods into its Tehran Research Reactor on Wednesday for the first time to keep it running, a senior official told a national news agency.

Tehran had announced in January that it had successfully manufactured and tested fuel rods for use in nuclear power plants, a move to show that international sanctions are failing to stop it making advances in nuclear know-how and to strengthen its hand in any renewed negotiations with six world powers.

"The first home-made nuclear fuel roads will be loaded in the Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor in the presence of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-iran-nuclear-rods-idUSTRE81E0EZ20120215?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F +US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Oh Lawdy!!

[Winehole23]

Meant to show that assassination of scientists, sanctions and Stuxnet aren't hindering technical advances.


Iran has started loading fuel rods into an aging nuclear reactor used to make medical isotopes and is set to formally declare that an underground bunker complex for uranium enrichment is now fully operational, Iranian state media reported on Wednesday.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-activates-nuclear-reactor-says-underground-bunker-is-fully-operational/2012/02/15/gIQAHN2WFR_story.html


What implications, if any, does self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle have for inspections? The Reuters article suggests it gives Iran a political fulcrum, but doesn't say what.


The announcement about the underground bunker involves the Fordo enrichment site, near the central city of Qom, which Iran says has become fully operational. Iran says that it wants to secure parts of its enrichment activities at Fordo in order for its nuclear program to survive a hostile military air strike (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/219963.html), which Israel has openly threatened (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-officials-concerned-by-israel-statements-on-iran-threat-possible-strike/2012/02/02/gIQA9gpflQ_story.html).

Israel and its Western allies charge that the moving of centrifuges to a mountain site said to be impregnable by bunker-busting bombs is a sign that Iran is trying to hide parts of its nuclear program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-activates-nuclear-reactor-says-underground-bunker-is-fully-operational/2012/02/15/gIQAHN2WFR_story.html


High-ranking officials from the IAEA are scheduled to visit Iran on Tuesday for a second round of talks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-activates-nuclear-reactor-says-underground-bunker-is-fully-operational/2012/02/15/gIQAHN2WFR_story.html), possibly signaling that Iran is ready to provide more transparency on the intentions of its nuclear program. Such transparency is a key demand by the United Nation in recent resolutions against Iran. same

[Winehole23]

Mark Fitzpatrick, a non-proliferation expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, told CBS News that the Iranians have been talking for years about a third generation of centrifuges, but there is little tangible evidence to suggest they have actually even progressed to that stage - let alone a functional fourth generation.



"It's probably a lot of hyperbole," Fitzpatrick said of Wednesday's announcement. He has not heard of a fourth-generation centrifuge in Iran and doubts one even exists there.


Asked whether Iran actually has the capacity to "break out" a nuclear weapons program from its current enrichment and reactor facilities, he said that even if the regime ignored Western threats and decided to enrich uranium to the weapons grade level - 80 percent or higher - it would still take more than a year to cobble together a crude nuclear weapon.


While the production of the uranium fuel plates is a significant milestone for Iran, the material involved is only viable for use in creating medical radioactive isotopes and indicates no advances in a clandestine weapons program that the U.S. and its allies insist Iran is pursuing.



Fitzpatrick said the locally produced rods are "clearly for producing isotopes for medical purposes; it's nothing to do with nuclear weapons."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57378108/iran-claims-new-advanced-nuclear-centrifuges/

[Winehole23]

The development came as Iran said Wednesday it cut oil exports to six European countries — the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Portugal — in response to recent new European Union sanctions.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiNkwYk2DNYt1CHwPgAcm7GN4m4A?docId=056de8ca1 3594c19a4630db5726c5f4c

[Winehole23]

Iran has said it is forced to manufacture nuclear fuel rods, which provide fuel for reactors, on its own since international sanctions ban it from buying them on foreign markets. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/15/international/i043422S62.DTL#ixzz1mSZC3NIy

[Winehole23]

If Iran eventually succeeded in introducing modern centrifuges for production, it could significantly shorten the time needed to stockpile enriched uranium, which can generate electricity or, if refined much more, nuclear explosions.


Tehran has worked for several years to perfect faster, more reliable centrifuge machines than the 1970s-vintage P-1 model it now uses to refine uranium.
Western analysts were skeptical of the proclaimed advances.


"We have seen this before. We have seen these announcements and these grand unveilings and it turns out that there was less there than meets the eye. I suspect this is the same case," said Shannon Kile at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).



Analysts remained doubtful that Iran would be able to operate the research reactor with its own special fuel.


"As usual, the announcement surely is exaggerated.


Producing the fuel plates ... is not so hard. But the plates have to be tested for a considerable period before they can be used safely in the reactor," said Mark Fitzpatrick of London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.


"If Iran is really running the reactor with untested fuel plates, then my advice to the residents surrounding the building would be to move somewhere else. It will he unsafe."


Spent fuel can be reprocessed into plutonium, the alternative key ingredient in atomic bombs. But Western worries about Iran's nuclear program have focused on its enrichment program, which has accumulated enough material for up to several bombs, in the view of nuclear proliferation experts.


Analysts say the fuel rod development itself will not put Iran any closer to producing nuclear weapons, but could be a way of telling Tehran's adversaries that time is running out if they want to find a negotiated solution to the dispute.


The most recent talks between world powers and Iran failed in January 2011 because of Tehran's unwillingness to discuss transparent limits on enrichment, as demanded by several U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 2006.


But Iran said recently it is ready to hold fresh talks with no preconditions. "We will also a reply to the EU's foreign policy chief (about nuclear talks) today," Baqeri said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-iran-idUSTRE81E0RF20120215

[Winehole23]

Iran's Oil Ministry denied state media reports on the Islamic state stopping its crude exports to six European countries on Wednesday.

"We deny this report ... If such a decision is made, it will be announced by Iran's Supreme National Security Council," a spokesman for the ministry told Reuters.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-iran-oil-europe-idUSTRE81E0QA20120215

[cheguevara]

not even South Korea will stop it's Iran oil imports at our request. how much blood did we spill for those assholes? :lol

[boutons_deux]

France's oil industry is predicting $8 - $10/gallon, with about 70% of the pump price being taxes.

[Agloco]

Look at the thread title. Sanctions might have been counterproductive, encouraging Iran to accelerate the process, if for no other reason than to deter socially and politically painful sanctions. It's just possible sanctions have greased the skids.

If I didn't have firsthand knowledge, I'd gladly concede this point. Based on that however, I simply don't see that as being the case. My "alarmist" views are based on a bit more information than the average bear has at their disposal.


Meant to show that assassination of scientists, sanctions and Stuxnet aren't hindering technical advances.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-activates-nuclear-reactor-says-underground-bunker-is-fully-operational/2012/02/15/gIQAHN2WFR_story.html

In line with what I stated above, I'll gladly concede this point as well provided that you can demonstrate that the progress we are witnessing is unimpeded relative to the progress we would have witnessed had none of those acts occurred. I won't go so far as to claim the opposite is occurring either, I'm simply pointing out the peril of assuming a negligible effect here.

IMO the acts of killing scientists and planting the Stuxnet thing have yet to yield fruit (assuming they ever will....)




What implications, if any, does self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle have for inspections? The Reuters article suggests it gives Iran a political fulcrum, but doesn't say what.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-activates-nuclear-reactor-says-underground-bunker-is-fully-operational/2012/02/15/gIQAHN2WFR_story.html

This is correct, as far as I understand the politics of it. Iran may now claim the enrichment activities as a natural part of the process of producing fuel for the reactors. Plutonium produced by reprocessing may likewise be used for MOX reactors in the future. They've always done so, but now they have an actual product to show the world. Its basically a case for plausible deniability.

IMO, Iran still needs to justify why it requires the volume of centrifuges that it does to produce fuel for the few reactors it has. They're being run day and night.


High-ranking officials from the IAEA are scheduled to visit Iran on Tuesday for a second round of talks, possibly signaling that Iran is ready to provide more transparency on the intentions of its nuclear program. Such transparency is a key demand by the United Nation in recent resolutions against Iran.

:tu and :td at the same time. If Iran is serious about being open, why is the second round even necessary? (its more like the tenth round, but who's counting at this point...)

Until said transparency is in place, I won't hold my breath. Been there, done that.


Mark Fitzpatrick, a non-proliferation expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, told CBS News that the Iranians have been talking for years about a third generation of centrifuges, but there is little tangible evidence to suggest they have actually even progressed to that stage - let alone a functional fourth generation.

"It's probably a lot of hyperbole," Fitzpatrick said of Wednesday's announcement. He has not heard of a fourth-generation centrifuge in Iran and doubts one even exists there.

Agreed. I've worked with Mark before and for the most part the thinking is that Iran is simply flapping its wings in an effort to fan the flames and create more chaos.

That said, it's not all about how modern the equipment is. First and second gen centrifuges are perfectly capable of performing this task as well, albeit with less efficiency. This is where the volume of centrifuges that the Iranians possess becomes worrisome. The sheer size of the facilities leaves one asking many questions.



Asked whether Iran actually has the capacity to "break out" a nuclear weapons program from its current enrichment and reactor facilities, he said that even if the regime ignored Western threats and decided to enrich uranium to the weapons grade level - 80 percent or higher - it would still take more than a year to cobble together a crude nuclear weapon.

A guess tbh. And tbh, my guess would be as valuable as his at this point so I won't bother.


While the production of the uranium fuel plates is a significant milestone for Iran, the material involved is only viable for use in creating medical radioactive isotopes and indicates no advances in a clandestine weapons program that the U.S. and its allies insist Iran is pursuing.

Fitzpatrick said the locally produced rods are "clearly for producing isotopes for medical purposes; it's nothing to do with nuclear weapons."

He's probably correct........for now. They must crawl before they walk. Unfortunately this does nothing to debunk the theory that Iran is in pursuit of a weapon, nor does it address the rapidity with which it might be doing so.

In short, grab a beer and some popcorn. Enjoy the show.

[Agloco]

not even South Korea will stop it's Iran oil imports at our request. how much blood did we spill for those assholes? :lol

Weren't they slowed down?

[Winehole23]

If I didn't have firsthand knowledge, I'd gladly concede this point. Based that however, I simply don't see that as being the case. My "alarmist" views are based on a bit more information than the average bear has at their disposal. Ok. I understand why you can't say much more than that.

In line with what I stated above, I'll gladly concede this point as well provided that you can demonstrate that the progress we are witnessing is unimpeded relative to the progress we would have witnessed had none of those acts occurred. I won't go so far as to claim the opposite is occurring either, I'm simply pointing out the peril of assuming a negligible effect here. I did not do so.

Operative words: "meant to show," by which I meant to emphasize the propaganda value of the announcement.

IMO the acts of killing scientists and planting the Stuxnet thing have yet to yield fruit (assuming they ever will....)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-iran-usa-stuxnet-idUSTRE81D24Q20120214

This is correct, as far as I understand the politics of it. Iran may now claim the enrichment activities as a natural part of the process of producing fuel for the reactors. Plutonium produced by reprocessing may likewise be used for MOX reactors in the future. They've always done so, but now they have an actual product to show the world. Its basically a case for plausible deniability. Thanks for fleshing this out. :tu

IMO, Iran still needs to justify why it requires the volume of centrifuges that it does to produce fuel for the few reactors it has. They're being run day and night. Is there anything besides a nuclear weapons program that could account for it?

Until said transparency is in place, I won't hold my breath. Been there, done that.What would that transparency consist of? Or, if you like, how is Iran not transparent now?

That said, it's not all about how modern the equipment is. First and second gen centrifuges are perfectly capable of performing this task as well, albeit with less efficiency. This is where the volume of centrifuges that the Iranians possess becomes worrisome. The sheer size of the facilities leaves one asking many questions. What questions, if you don't mind?

A guess tbh. And tbh, my guess would be as valuable as his at this point so I won't bother.Fair enough.

[Winehole23]

Iran is turning to barter - offering gold bullion in overseas vaults or tankerloads of oil - in return for food as new financial sanctions have hurt its ability to import basic staples for its 74 million people, commodities traders said Thursday.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-iran-wheat-idUSTRE8180SF20120209

[Borat Sagyidev]

Another consequence of allowing nations to freely pursue nuclear arms. One that's simply dismissed out of hand (or more likely not even considered) by many on this board. The Turks will be close behind no doubt.

Mutually assured destruction sure stopped much of Europe and the western world from going to war post WWII. Pretty good consequence IMO.

Not to say more weapons are good, but the respect that ensued because of that capability was unparalleled. Maybe that respect route should be attempted. Hmm.


I propose that the only way to find out is to take action. Such is my problem with Pauls approach, as much as I would like to buy into it. IMO ultimately, this will require an intervention of some sort. Deep down, I feel that the diplomacy ship has sailed and we've missed it by a country mile (although I think we should at least try. I don't see a justifiable reason for not doing so). I don't believe annihilating an entire country is warranted or necessary though. What to do exactly? <punt> I'm not in a position to answer that. I have to believe that there is some middle ground to be had though.

Intervention is exactly why we have problems with Iran today. Rather than pushing for non-petroleum energy (nuclear included) we have supported un-democratic processes and dictators open to oil privatization in that state and beyond.




No idea here. However I'd ask what sort of action do you believe would induce Iran to abandon it's aspirations at this point, if not sanctions?


What aspirations? Nuclear power aspirations? Independence from a western world that has largely sought control?

Where is the evidence they are making HEU or plutonium pits and that they want to use them in a weapon? If it exists, then why isn't it public?

Iranians, especially the young do not like their government. However, they have motivation to distrust the west by continued measures of control.

Most Americans don't like their government either, but that doesn't mean they would allow it to get bullied around by foreign powers.



Should people fear nuclear weapons in general? I'd yes. What say you?

I do know that the US and the international community continue to urge Israel to give the sanctions time to work. To me this implies that we haven't reached that point yet.

The sanctions will only embolden them to continue their own independence. Does anyone realize why Iran is under a Islamic theocracy right now?

Someone once said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That guy was a moron.... :nerd



If I didn't have firsthand knowledge, I'd gladly concede this point. Based on that however, I simply don't see that as being the case. My "alarmist" views are based on a bit more information than the average bear has at their disposal.

Firsthand knowledge? Really. I've been to IAEA Vienna and Seibersdorf a couple of times for briefings as a Army reserve and "special guest" with DIA personnel before officially active and deployed in Iraq. I found some of the radiation laboratory practices questionable there, like leaving Am241 sources in proximity next to a gamma spec...because "it's a alpha emitter" REAL GENIUS there. (for those not familiar, Am241 also emits gamma)

Some of those bright folks didn't know the difference between Farsi and Arabic, but that's another story.

There was concern that Iran had negotiated with Iraq to to remove some nuclear weapons materials before the US invasion. Both the DIA and IAEA suspected this. Turned out to be completely bogus, no trace of special nuclear material anywhere...as everyone now knows. My first hand knowledge happened to be on the ground in Iraq with a team equipped with an array of radiation detectors.

This kind of bogus intelligence is why I left nuclear non-proliferation work in the first place. Some of those DIA and IAEA guys (not saying you) love to monopolize the view, indicate a grave threat to humanity and civilization...
yet end up harming people instead

1 million+ Iraqis displaced, 100,000+killed (some say many more) in the name of "freedom"

How many Iranians are suffering thanks to sanctions now?

That's really going to win Iranian support for openness with the west.

What do I know though, I don't work for any govt intelligence agency. We should trust the experts.




Is there anything besides a nuclear weapons program that could account for it?


The pending depletion of petroleum and the need for a domestic power source?
Hmm. Naw. They want to blow up all of their holy sites (Israel included) with nuclear weapons instead, since they adore them so much.

[DarrinS]

Firsthand knowledge? Really. I've been to IAEA Vienna and Seibersdorf a couple of times for briefings as a Army reserve and "special guest" with DIA personnel before officially active and deployed in Iraq. I found some of the radiation laboratory practices questionable there, like leaving Am241 sources in proximity next to a gamma spec...because "it's a alpha emitter" REAL GENIUS there. (for those not familiar, Am241 also emits gamma)

There was concern that Iran had negotiated with Iraq to to remove some nuclear weapons materials before the US invasion. Both the DIA and IAEA suspected this. Turned out to be completely bogus, no trace of special nuclear material anywhere...as everyone now knows. My first hand knowledge happened to be on the ground in Iraq with a team equipped with an array of radiation detectors.

This kind of bogus intelligence is why I left nuclear non-proliferation work in the first place. Some of those DIA and IAEA guys (not saying you) love to monopolize the view, indicate a grave threat to humanity and civilization...
yet end up harming people instead.




Bradley Manning? Is this you?

[Winehole23]

The Wall Street Journal is troubled (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203358704577235421949357032.html?g rcc=f5fdb4f64f674692e82556e7db310be0Z9&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion) that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not irrational:

In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel’s main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn’t likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran’s retaliation. It’s as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran’s rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.
Viewed more soberly, Gen. Dempsey’s statement was an attempt to reduce worsening tensions and to state the merely obvious. A “successful” Israeli strike will delay Iran’s nuclear program by just a few years, and the U.S. has good reason to be concerned about retaliation against our forces in response to an action that would be widely perceived as U.S.-supported and approved, so there is no reason to incur dangerous risks by launching an attack that isn’t going to achieve its objective. Reinforcing the impression that an Israeli attack is inevitable gives Iran the incentive to concede nothing and to assume that the diplomatic track is nothing more than a distraction. If the U.S. were not openly discouraging Israel from attacking, Iranian hard-liners would conclude that nothing can be done to satisfy Israel and the U.S. in any case, so they may as well brace for what is coming.


The WSJ makes the same slippery use of the word rational that I was discussing yesterday:

This would be the same rational Iran that refuses to compromise on its nuclear plans despite increasingly damaging global sanctions, and the same prudent actor that has sent agents around the world to bomb Israeli and Saudi targets, allegedly including in a Washington, D.C. restaurant.
Is it actually irrational for a government that perceives enrichment as a national right to continue to insist on that right despite intense pressure from other governments to give it up? Not really. If the Iranian government perceives the nuclear program as important for Iranian national interests, why is it going to sacrifice those interests to satisfy avowedly hostile states? Let’s understand that Iran is not just being called on to compromise, but to capitulate completely on enrichment. It is possible to be rationally self-interested and nationalistic at the same time. Even rational actors have non-negotiable positions that they are unwilling to abandon.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/21/iran-and-rational-regimes-ii/

[Winehole23]

Micah Zenko provides (http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/02/17/iranian-nuclear-program-rhetoric-and-reality/#cid=soc-twitter-at-blogs-iranian_nuclear_program_rhetor-021712) a reality check on Iran, its nuclear program, and a possible Israeli attack on Iran:

In other words, according to the heads of the IC [Intelligence Community] and DIA: 1) against all odds, the supposedly “mad Mullahs” of Tehran are endowed with the capacity for rational human thought, and thus there might be diplomatic or economic inducements that could compel an agreement on outstanding questions regarding the nuclear program; 2) the United States has at least a year; 3) Iran is not looking to start a war with the United States; and 4) Israel has not yet decided to undertake a preemptive war with Iran.
Debating the rationality of Iran’s government with people convinced (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/20/still-in-denial-on-iran) of its self-destructive irrationality sometimes seems futile. For one thing, those who insist on portraying Iran’s regime as insane and suicidal are very slippery in the way they use the word rational. According to them, a rational regime would never be antagonistic or threaten other states as Iran has been, and from there they leap to the conclusion that a state that is antagonistic is therefore willing to invite its own destruction. They make this leap even when all the evidence points to a regime intent on preserving itself. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that the Iranian government is the only one on the planet that is unwilling to preserve itself and incapable of knowing what its self-interest is.



U.S. and Israeli media regularly discuss how and when to start an unprovoked war against Iran to punish it for its “crime” of enriching uranium. The American and Israeli governments leave the door open to starting that war. Despite the significant costs such a war would impose on the U.S., Israel, the region, and world, it is not the governments contemplating how to start this war that are considered to be acting irrationally. Instead, it is still the Iranian leadership that is viewed as unhinged and dangerous.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/20/iran-and-rational-regimes/

[Agloco]

Travels have taken me far and wide, and will continue to do so for some time. I'll attempt to continue our dialogue as I can.



I did not do so.

Operative words: "meant to show," by which I meant to emphasize the propaganda value of the announcement.

Ah, I mis-understood. Apologies.



Is there anything besides a nuclear weapons program that could account for it?

In the short term, one could make a strong case for them simply wanting to get their nuclear program up and running in the shortest amount of time possible. Sure, that's plausible. But now that the reactor is up and running we still see centrifuges being put in place daily and run 24/7. Not sure where I can go with that......

Perhaps a massive effort for Iran to become the worlds leading exporter of medical radioisotopes? That might sound sarcastic, but that's really all I can come up with. Enriching to 20% doesn't take much so they'll have a lot of it lying around at this pace. Many times more than would be needed for domestic medical isotope production. That said, I'm all ears as to what other possibilities exist.



What would that transparency consist of? Or, if you like, how is Iran not transparent now?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

For starters the inspectors who were in invited could be allowed to inspect the key facilities and equipment (read: military) that they were there to look at in the first place. From experience, this was implicit in the visitation agreement and hashed out before the news was made public. Most people are led to believe that research facilities are the only ones which are fair game but the scope of inspections are quite broad, and necessarily so.

This cat and mouse game is nothing new to me. Hence my statement towards the beginning of this thread about not holding my breath until full disclosure is had.

A simple explanation as to exactly how much uranium is being enriched to 20% would be a good start point.



What questions, if you don't mind?

Boiling it down: scope. I alluded to the fact that Iran's facilities and production were disproportionate to the goals they have set out publicly. Now with each passing report or incident comes new evidence that enrichment continues unabated and, by some accounts, has increased in tempo. I can't honestly say that I'm surprised.

As an aside, this sort of thing is better spoken about over a beer and brisket tbh. :hat

[MannyIsGod]

Bradley Manning? Is this you?

Did you serve, Darrin? Its bad enough you're a stupid shit, but now you're calling people who actually served traitors out of a political vendetta? All kidding and joking on this forum aside, you seem like a petty excuse for a man.

[Winehole23]

Travels have taken me far and wide, and will continue to do so for some time. I'll attempt to continue our dialogue as I can. I appreciate the reply. Thanks.

Ah, I mis-understood. Apologies. Eh, don't sweat it. It's so easy to go astray online. Like life, you can't ever really untangle it.

In the short term, one could make a strong case for them simply wanting to get their nuclear program up and running in the shortest amount of time possible. Sure, that's plausible. But now that the reactor is up and running we still see centrifuges being put in place daily and run 24/7. Not sure where I can go with that......
Is is unusual or conspicuous to run centrifuges continuously, 24/7?

Perhaps a massive effort for Iran to become the worlds leading exporter of medical radioisotopes? That might sound sarcastic, but that's really all I can come up with. Enriching to 20% doesn't take much so they'll have a lot of it lying around at this pace. Many times more than would be needed for domestic medical isotope production. That said, I'm all ears as to what other possibilities exist. That Borat poster suggested domestic power generation, Is he full of it?

For starters the inspectors who were in invited could be allowed to inspect the key facilities and equipment (read: military) that they were there to look at in the first place. From experience, this was implicit in the visitation agreement and hashed out before the news was made public. Most people are led to believe that research facilities are the only ones which are fair game but the scope of inspections are quite broad, and necessarily so. Is it customary or usual for NPT signatories to submit to inspection of military facilities by the IAEA and so forth, upon demand? Honest question. I have no idea what the right answer is...

This cat and mouse game is nothing new to me. Hence my statement towards the beginning of this thread about not holding my breath until full disclosure is had. Who is the cat and who is the mouse! :lol:toast

A simple explanation as to exactly how much uranium is being enriched to 20% would be a good start point. which is the technical threshold for what, please?

Boiling it down: scope. I alluded to the fact that Iran's facilities and production were disproportionate to the goals they have set out publicly. Now with each passing report or incident comes new evidence that enrichment continues unabated and, by some accounts, has increased in tempo. I can't honestly say that I'm surprised. As a matter of national pride, why should they stop?

As an aside, this sort of thing is better spoken about over a beer and brisket tbh. :hat+1

[boutons_deux]

US Intelligence Community: Iran Is Not Actively Building a Nuclear Weapon

this intelligence assessment was released in the past 48 hours:

As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/02/25/us-intelligence-community-iran-is-not-actively-building-a-nuclear-weapon/

[jack sommerset]

That takes a load off my mind, buttons. Great post and thank the good lord he is watching out for us. God bless.

[boutons_deux]

Go thump your Bible, but will not protect you from your I-love-wars-I-dont-fight-or-pay-for paranoia.

[Goran Dragic]

:devil:devil:devil

Muahahahahaha! I know I've been saying stuff like this the past decade but this time it's real!

I'm gonna get you guys!! Booooooooooooooooo
:lmao

[Winehole23]

greasing the skids for a deal?

http://www.newsweek.com/iran-and-hezbollah-omitted-us-terror-threat-list-amid-nuclear-talks-314073

[boutons_deux]

greasing the skids for a deal?

http://www.newsweek.com/iran-and-hezbollah-omitted-us-terror-threat-list-amid-nuclear-talks-314073

could be. What deal is made, the Repugs are already calling it a "bad deal", because anything from Obama is bad.

If a deal is made, and analysis shows it really reduces the Iranian nuclear bomb threat, it will be a huge win for Obama and Kerry, and a head-exploder for the Repugs, who would rather have a nuclear-armed Iran than an Obama-disarmed Iran.

[Agloco]

I appreciate the reply. Thanks.
Eh, don't sweat it. It's so easy to go astray online. Like life, you can't ever really untangle it.
Is is unusual or conspicuous to run centrifuges continuously, 24/7?
That Borat poster suggested domestic power generation, Is he full of it?
Is it customary or usual for NPT signatories to submit to inspection of military facilities by the IAEA and so forth, upon demand? Honest question. I have no idea what the right answer is...
Who is the cat and who is the mouse! :lol:toast
which is the technical threshold for what, please?
As a matter of national pride, why should they stop?
+1

Wine, I've realized about 2 years too late that I never got the chance to respond to you on this. I'll work on something in the coming weeks. Travel should allow for more leisure time soon. My apologies.

[pgardn]

could be. What deal is made, the Repugs are already calling it a "bad deal", because anything from Obama is bad.

If a deal is made, and analysis shows it really reduces the Iranian nuclear bomb threat, it will be a huge win for Obama and Kerry, and a head-exploder for the Repugs, who would rather have a nuclear-armed Iran than an Obama-disarmed Iran.

Republicans seemed dead set on exploding them.

This is a country that actually is Westernized enough thru the young folk to come around to sanity.
I don't believe in the long run Iran is nearly as radicalized as what we have let loose in ISIS.
This population is not nearly as backwards as some would make them.