Reply With Quote
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?
More nukes is a bad thing.....a very bad thing!
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?
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.
so has he announce anything?
didn't see it in this mornings headlines, so I'm guessing no...
Ahmad trolling mofos
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.http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/1...nuclear-iran/1Alarmists 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://www.theamericanconservative.c...ttack-iran-iv/As I’ve said before, I don’t think Israel is going to attack Iran. 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.theatlantic.com/politics/...r-that/252977/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.
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
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.
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.
I believe you misunderstood my comment, or more likely my drive-by posting has betrayed me again
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
This was not my intent. I believe that translating my comment as such is a stretch.
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.
Again, are sanctions helping? If so, how so?
Why?
Fair enough.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nuclear weapons are inherently scary. True.
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?
To me it implies that Israel is getting impatient, no more.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-14-2012 at 04:44 PM.
Go big or go home eh?
I see what you're driving at.
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.
You indicated that one way to conclude this would be when Israel attacks (presumably with US blessings):
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.
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?)
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.
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.
Look at the thread le. 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.
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/...=Google+Reader
Oh Lawdy!!
Meant to show that assassination of scientists, sanctions and Stuxnet aren't hindering technical advances.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...WFR_story.htmlIran 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.
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/...WFR_story.htmlThe 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, which Israel has openly threatened.
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.
sameHigh-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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...r-centrifuges/Mark Fitzpatrick, a non-proliferation expert at the International Ins ute 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.google.com/hostednews/ap/...630db5726c5f4cThe 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.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1mSZC3NIyIran 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.
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 Ins ute (SIPRI).http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...81E0RF20120215Analysts 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 Ins ute 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 ac ulated 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/...81E0QA20120215Iran'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.
not even South Korea will stop it's Iran oil imports at our request. how much blood did we spill for those assholes?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions