Iran?

[ecoli]

It looks like Iran has a stupid leader who is saying very stupid' date=' outrageous things. So far, this is talk, so it should be handled with talk. I would be asking all these other Arab countries to condemn the SOB and his comments.[/quote']

 

Some of them have (see previous posts on the subject), but it hasn't stoppedA hmadinejad from stating anti-Semetic/Israel/Western things. Talk is well and good, but in this case, I'm not so sure how effective it is.

[5614]

ecoli: good point about keeping an eye and not starting a war preemptively, at the same time if you "keep an eye" for too long and, for example, Iran start by nuking Israel then you might say "Israel shoulda attacked first".

 

Now sure that is a mega-extreme, but it gets across a point (I hope!).

 

If you look back in Israel's history and the 6 Day War Israel's preemptive strike on the Egyptian (I don't think it was other country's) air force and how effective that was (so much so that some say it is one of the biggest factors effecting the outcome of the war) is an example of when a preemptive strike is a good start.

 

At the same time I do note that Israel had been observing and had a lot of intelligent on the war-to-come. Israel was certain there was going to be a war before the preemptive strike, this is obviously a good time to do such a thing.

 

Moving back to Iran the amount of intelligence that USA and Israel have is very important. On one hand I can't imagine they have much, but on the other hand Iran's status in the world is such that countries want to have spies inside Iran, I wonder what we (world outside of Iran) really do know...

[Bettina]

"Talk" is ok.....for most countries. For example, the US and Russia used to really threaten each other with words, and the cuban missile crisis proved that neither one was willing to risk a nuclear war. IMO both leaders had the brains to realize that no one would win with each side having a lot to lose.

 

Iran, is much different. They are clerical fascists who think in a much different way. I believe they will sell weapons to whoever wants to blow up Israel in the name of allah, or use them themselves. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

 

Going out on a limb, if I was Israel, I wouldn't wait.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

What I found a lot more interesting was Israel's response. After the previous politically correct responses Israel said:

"Iran's nuclear programme and its support of international terrorism represents not only a danger to Israel but for the entire Western civilisation... Thank God Israel has the means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of this extremist regime in Iran. There will be no second 'final solution'"

-- Raanan Gissin' date=' a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"'final solution'" obviously referring to the Holocaust.

[/quote']

 

Good post and thanks for the quote.

 

Just to add a brief counterpoint, I think it's worth pointing out that this rhetoric, in a sense, actually suggests that we're not quite "there" yet. If Israel strikes, it'll be before hot rhetoric, not after. That's their way.

 

Also I'm quite sure that Israel knows full well why the Iranian president is saying these things, and so long as they're not fanning any flames, is content for the moment to sit back and observe. This is not (yet) like the situation in 1967 when Israel struck first because it was glaringly obvious that they were about to be overrun.

 

But I do agree that should an actual weapons facility become identified, an air strike would not be a surprise.

[5614]

Just to add a brief counterpoint, I think it's worth pointing out that this rhetoric, in a sense, actually suggests that we're not quite "there" yet. If Israel strikes, it'll be before hot rhetoric, not after. That's their way.

I don't follow what you are saying at all.

 

You say "this rhetoric"... what rhetoric?

Who is "we"?

What do you mean "before hot rhetoric"?

 

Sorry, I'm lost!

[Ophiolite]

It isn't so much about how the "world" feels about us' date=' it is about if our actions will be justified. If we cannot justify our own actions, we may end up hating ourselves.

It looks like Iran has a stupid leader who is saying very stupid, outrageous things. [/quote']I love satire.

[Pangloss]

I do too, but that particular joke's a little dated. ;-)

 

5614: What I mean is that if Israel was going to strike they would have done so instead of issuing the statement that they did (with that particularly strong rhetoric).

[5614]

Pangloss: Ah I'm with you now.

 

IMO on one hand you're right on the other hand Israel was issuing a warning or threat.

[bascule]

For those of you who still think Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, they also bought the plans for casting an implosion lens from enriched uranium hexafluoride from the former head of the international nuclear black market, A.Q. Khan

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5424337,00.html

 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran received designs from the nuclear black market run by a Pakistani scientist showing how to cast highly radioactive uranium into a form that could be used to build the core of an atomic bomb, diplomats said Friday.

 

The revelations came as Iran said it had begun converting a second batch of uranium into gas, a step that brings it closer to producing the enriched uranium used to either generate electricity or build bombs.

 

The European Union, with U.S. support, has been calling on Iran to halt conversion since August. But the nation's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told state TV the country had started converting a second batch of uranium.

 

``This job is done and the plant is continuing its activity,'' Larijani said in the interview recorded late Thursday and broadcast Friday.

 

He added that Iran had informed the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency of the development.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that Iran received the detailed designs from the network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program. His network supplied Libya with information for its now-dismantled nuclear weapons program that included an engineer's drawing of an atomic bomb.

 

The document given to Iran showed how to cast ``enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms,'' said a confidential IAEA report. IAEA officials refused to comment on the implications of the finding.

 

But diplomats close to the agency said it could indicate a design for the core of a nuclear warhead. The report said Iran insisted it had not asked for the designs but was given them anyway by members of the nuclear network - something an official close to the agency said the IAEA was still investigating.

 

The diplomats requested anonymity in exchange for discussing the confidential report seen by The Associated Press. The document was prepared for Thursday's meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board, which could decide to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions for violating an international nuclear arms control treaty.

 

Most board nations are concerned that Iran has resumed uranium conversion - a precursor to enrichment - and has refused to meet all IAEA requests about a nuclear program that was clandestine for nearly 20 years until discovered three years ago.

 

The United States insists Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons, while Iran maintains its program is strictly for generating electricity.

 

The chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, Gregory L. Schulte, said Washington was ``very concerned'' about the find, along with the ``large cache of documents uncovered by the agency'' showing detailed instructions on how to set up uranium enrichment facilities.

 

``This opens new concerns about weaponization that Iran has failed to address,'' he told reporters.

 

The report said Iran had handed over black-market documents revealing detailed instructions on setting up the complicated process of uranium enrichment. Khan has acknowledged selling secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

 

One diplomat said on condition of anonymity that the information on designing the warhead core was less comprehensive than full documentation on how to make a weapon given Libya. But he said the find was important for the investigation of Iran's nuclear program and for an understanding of ``what the network could offer'' its customers.

 

The report also suggested Iran had something to hide, saying it continues to refuse access to a sensitive site where it could be storing equipment that could help investigators determine whether the military is running a secret nuclear program.

 

It said more transparency by Tehran was ``indispensable and overdue'' as agency inspectors try to determine if Iran's military secretly ran its own nuclear program parallel to a civilian one.

 

Inspectors needed access both to more details on Iran's enrichment activities and a site where it is believed to be warehousing equipment that could be used in a weapons program, the document said.

 

``There still remain issues to be resolved'' in connection with whether the military was supplied with centrifuge technology in the mid-1990s and then conducted secret enrichment activities between 1995 and 2002, it said.

 

The report said the key outstanding issues concerning Iran's nuclear program include whether the military was involved in enrichment, access to the military site where the ``dual use'' equipment was believed held and greater access to individuals involved in the enrichment program.

 

``Transparency measures should include the provision of information and documentation related to the procurement of dual-use equipment and permitting visits to relevant military-owned workshops and R&D locations thought run by the military,'' the report said.

 

The agency is ``still awaiting additional visits,'' both to the military site at Lavisan-Shian, just outside Tehran, and to Parchin, which IAEA inspectors visited for the second time a few weeks ago.

 

``These should include interviews on the acquisition of certain dual-use materials and equipment, and the taking of environmental samples from the above locations,'' the IAEA said.

 

Larijani said Iran refused to give inspectors access to Lavisan, on the northeastern outskirts of Tehran, last month.

 

``To visit some places, the inspectors' wish is not sufficient. They cannot force Iran to allow a visit to any place, particularly in military areas,'' Larijani said.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think anyone would deny that they want nuclear weapons, seeing as how they've said so. That doesn't mean they have any intention of using them. I know it also doesn't mean they DON'T intend to use them, but it still seems extremely unlikely. The entire function of nuclear weapons is dependent on their not being used, as we've seen in the Cold War. Russia, too, was full of fiery rhetoric. Just as China has been, and N. Korea is. There is no easier political move to make as a Middle Eastern leader than to drum up nationalistic support by condemning Israel. That is almost certainly all this will amount to. Also note that he never actually said he would use nuclear weapons on Israel, or even really directly threaten them, and so he can not do so without losing face. If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me.

 

Is the rhetoric troubling? Yes, it very much is. But only because it means the Iranian culture is still so conservative and jingoistic that the president can gain popularity by denying the Holocaust.

 

That being said, I do concede that it is not exactly the same situation as in other nations. They have a nominally religious government, and so what might be not an option for other governments by reason of being completely irrational might still be an option there. However, I have to believe that if they're smart enough to manipulate the people into gaining power, they're a bit more sophisticated than the average virgin-craving suicide bomber...

[Nevermore]

My second post (#18 above)' date=' even including the final sentence, had nothing at all to do with you, Nevermore. It was an observation about the larger political issues in play in international politics and how the present situation reflects history.

 

If you're referring to the previous post (#17), most of that is a direct refutation of your position, and the last line, again, is not about you. I don't see why I can't be allowed to make an observation about the world's tendency to blame Bush for the world's ills, and meanwhile let another Hitler rise to power. That's my point of view, and it's as valid as yours.

 

Rather than shooting the messenger, why don't you try and answer my question, and address the flaws I pointed out in your premises?

 

As for 'civilized discussion as to weather [sic'] or not the U.S. will invade Iran', might I remind you of your notion of what that means?

I have no premise to point out flaws in. I asked a question. I made no statments.

[Pangloss]

IMO on one hand you're right on the other hand Israel was issuing a warning or threat.

 

Oh yeah no question about it. If Iran does acquire nukes, all bets are off as far as Israel is concerned. They have their causus belli. That's the real stupidity of the Iranian president's statement.

[ecoli]

I don't think anyone would deny that they want nuclear weapons, seeing as how they've said so. That doesn't mean they have any intention of using them. I know it also doesn't mean they DON'T intend to use them, but it still seems extremely unlikely. The entire function of nuclear weapons is dependent on their not being used, as we've seen in the Cold War. Russia, too, was full of fiery rhetoric. Just as China has been, and N. Korea is. There is no easier political move to make as a Middle Eastern leader than to drum up nationalistic support by condemning Israel. That is almost certainly all this will amount to. Also note that he never actually said he would use nuclear weapons on Israel, or even really directly threaten them, and so he can not do so without losing face. If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me.

 

Well, he did say that Israel should be wiped off the map, and definately implied (if not directly state) that Iran should be the one to do it. If he wasn't talking about nuclear weapons, then I don't know what he was talking about. Certainly not Guerilla style warfare. I think stating that Iran wouldn't actually use the nukes is a hopeful statement, but possibly niave... I seriously hope you're right about this (I hope I'm more wrong about this more then anything else) and Iran won't use nukes, but the Iran has the leadership, the technology and intent to use nuclear weapons... Will Iran's fanaticism overcome it's good sense? I hope not, but something tells me it's better to be safe then sorry.

 

Is the rhetoric troubling? Yes, it very much is. But only because it means the Iranian culture is still so conservative and jingoistic that the president can gain popularity by denying the Holocaust.

 

Which he probably did so he can claim to be the only one who gets to kill 6 million Jews (which is about the population of Jews in Israel, actually)

 

However, I have to believe that if they're smart enough to manipulate the people into gaining power, they're a bit more sophisticated than the average virgin-craving suicide bomber...

 

Would you be willing to risk an entire nation of people on that assumption? Either way, this will turn out bad... mark my words.

[Pangloss]

I have no premise to point out flaws in. I asked a question. I made no statments.

 

That turns out not to be the case. Your original statement:

 

What makes you think they are devoloping nukes? They have nuclear power plants, but we have no reason to suspect that Iran is devoloping Nuke Weapons. And if they were, wouldn't Bush be waving proof in thier face? If they existed I'm sure our spy drones and commandoes would have atleast some evidence.

 

And so my questions back to you are:

 

1) What does a country that is exporting four million barrels of oil per day (in addition to whatever their internal energy needs are!) need with nuclear power?

 

2) How do you respond to Iran's own statements that they believe it is their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, and various subleaders (like the powerful ayatollahs) have said in the past that they intend to become a nuclear power? They say that is not the case now, but does that not give the international community valid reason for concern?

 

 

Again, the purpose of Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with electricity, but everything to do with a very different kind of "power".

[ecoli]

1) What does a country that is exporting four million barrels of oil per day (in addition to whatever their internal energy needs are!) need with nuclear power?

 

2) How do you respond to Iran's own statements that they believe it is their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons' date=' and various subleaders (like the powerful ayatollahs) have said in the past that they intend to become a nuclear power? They say that is not the case now, but does that not give the international community valid reason for [i']concern[/i]?

 

 

Again, the purpose of Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with electricity, but everything to do with a very different kind of "power".

 

I agree, we cannot, of course, assume that Iran actually has nuclear weapons yet or even if they did have them, if there would use them. But I definately would say that Iran's currently mentality coupled with their leader's public remarks makes the statement "reason for concern" a bit of an understatement.

[Nevermore]

That turns out not to be the case. Your original statement:

Think again, my original statement was:http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=232734&postcount=1

[Pangloss]

Well that first post ALSO contains a statement (which is probably why you just linked it instead of quoting it). But ok, that's easily addressed.

 

I have no premise to point out flaws in. I asked a question. I made no statments.

 

That turns out not to be the case. Your second statement in this thread:

 

What makes you think they are devoloping nukes? They have nuclear power plants, but we have no reason to suspect that Iran is devoloping Nuke Weapons. And if they were, wouldn't Bush be waving proof in thier face? If they existed I'm sure our spy drones and commandoes would have atleast some evidence.

 

And so my questions back to you are:

 

1) What does a country that is exporting four million barrels of oil per day (in addition to whatever their internal energy needs are!) need with nuclear power?

 

2) How do you respond to Iran's own statements that they believe it is their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, and various subleaders (like the powerful ayatollahs) have said in the past that they intend to become a nuclear power? They say that is not the case now, but does that not give the international community valid reason for concern?

 

 

Again, the purpose of Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with electricity, but everything to do with a very different kind of "power".

 

 

Now stop acting like Bill Clinton asking us to define "is", and stand behind what you wrote.

[bascule]

I just wanted to say:

 

I voted yes, but "invade" is the wrong word. If anything, I'm expecting precision air strikes... and "we" represents any number of interested (er, intimidated) parties...

[ecoli]

I just wanted to say:

 

I voted yes' date=' but "invade" is the wrong word. If anything, I'm expecting precision air strikes... and "we" represents any number of interested (er, intimidated) parties...[/quote']

 

Yes, I agree completely, though I voted no for almost exactly the same reason. I hope Americans' will rely more on precision bombing rather Guerilla tactics, which result in more dead troops.

[jeskill]

I voted "your a pinko commie" because I can't decide if America will invade Iran. I don't know if the States has the resources to do it, even if they wanted to.

 

IMO, if it did occur, an invasion of Iran might go a little smoother than the invasion of Iraq. I say this because it seems as if many Iranians are pro-American, if only to be anti-Iranian government. Two of my friends went to Iran on two separate occasions and met a lot of pro-American-Iranians. (Although, it could be that those were the only people who would talk to them.) One of my friends wrote this story about it.

[ecoli]

It seems as if your friend found the people to be quite friendly to Americans. I wonder if they would treat Israeli's the same way. Somehow, I don't think so.

[Sisyphus]

But they're nevertheless very critical of their own government, which is crucial. The existence of strong dissent makes extreme decisions far less likely. The only necessary condition needed to foil a plot to use a nuclear weapon is for somebody necessary to carrying it out to have some rational capacity. For, it can have only one result, and that is their own annihilation.

 

I don't think we should not be wary, or that we shouldn't be prepared to act. (We are probably not prepared to act, incidentally, because of the massive resource waste that is Iraq.) I just think it is very unlikely that we would actually need to. I suspect an internal government overthrow is more likely than a war with Israel, conventional or otherwise.

 

I also wish to draw attention back to the Iranian president's choice of words. He never said he would use nuclear weapons, only that Israel ought to be destroyed. This might seem like a petty difference, but it's actually quite important. For example, there are plenty of people I think ought to be killed, who deserve to die and whose deaths would make the world a better place. However, I'm not about to go out and shoot them all myself, or any of them.

[jeskill]

It seems as if your friend found the people to be quite friendly to Americans. I wonder if they would treat Israeli's the same way. Somehow, I don't think so.

 

I don't know if they would trouble him if he were Israeli. Him being jewish didn't pose a problem.

[ecoli]

I don't know if they would trouble him if he were Israeli. Him being jewish didn't pose a problem.

Well, being a Jewish American doesn't really mean that you'd stand out physically from any other American of European descent.

 

Being Israeli would be easier to identify (accent, certain mannerisms, etc.)

[jeskill]

Well' date=' being a Jewish American doesn't really mean that you'd stand out physically from any other American of European descent.

 

Being Israeli would be easier to identify (accent, certain mannerisms, etc.)[/quote']

 

 

True. Although he is pretty semitic-looking, hence why he was mistaken for a bearded muslim. I wonder if Iranians make that distinction between religion and politics? ie. may not like Israel, but no problems with jews. My instinct says the intellectuals do split the two, but I only have two Iranian friends that I've talked to about it and that's not a good sample size.

 

Let me rephrase that to make it more concise. The government is saying some intense anti-semitic and anti-Israeli stuff. But I wonder if it's indicative of the entire population.