Iran

[bascule]

So is this broken nuclear seal stuff freaking anyone else the f*ck out?

[Phi for All]

It seems they are saying, "Two years ago we promised the world we'd stop walking down this path, but it's a nice path for us and we've decided to start walking down it again." It also seems that this nuclear research has become a "source of national pride", according to Iranian news network Khabar's report from the Iranian parliament.

 

I would imagine the Iranians you don't see on TV are not feeling national pride. I would imagine they are probably as freaked out as we are.

[Rebiu]

Is Iran outmaneuvering the US politically? I predict Israel will attempt to destroy the facilities and will fail. Iran will use it as justification for a nuclear weapons program to counter the obvious hostile nuclear neighbor.

[ecoli]

I predict Israel will attempt to destroy the facilities and will fail.

 

They've stated publicly that they wouldn't try it. You'd think that if they were going to try, they wouldn't mention the situation at all, don't ya think?

[Phi for All]

Is Iran outmaneuvering the US politically? I predict Israel will attempt to destroy the facilities and will fail.

I can see the reasoning behind this, but this time it's not just the US. Why would Israel risk the attempt alone when so many other countries are against Iran's nuclear program?

[insane_alien]

Israel doesn't have to do anything triggerhappy yanks like G.W.Bush will sort them out. Then convieniently find out after that it was all innocent and merely electricity production.

[Pangloss]

Israel doesn't have to do anything triggerhappy yanks like G.W.Bush will sort them out. Then convieniently find out after that it was all innocent and merely electricity production.

 

Oh yes, it's always George Bush's fault. So conveniently evil, those American Republicans.

 

Iran exports something like four million barrels of oil per day. The idea that they NEED nuclear power is ludicrous.

 

Even more ludicrous is the idea that the fight to stop Iran from producing nuclear power is being lead by the United States. It's actually being lead by EUROPEAN powers. And it's China and Russian who will stop diplomacy from working, by using their veto power to stop the Security Council from enforcing any diplomatic efforts through sanctions/boycots/etc.

[Jim]

Oh yes' date=' it's always George Bush's fault. So conveniently evil, those American Republicans.

 

Iran exports something like four [i']million[/i] barrels of oil per day. The idea that they NEED nuclear power is ludicrous.

 

Even more ludicrous is the idea that the fight to stop Iran from producing nuclear power is being lead by the United States. It's actually being lead by EUROPEAN powers. And it's China and Russian who will stop diplomacy from working, by using their veto power to stop the Security Council from enforcing any diplomatic efforts through sanctions/boycots/etc.

 

If anything, the Iraq invasion makes the threat of military action against Iran credible (just as it did for Libya). It may turn out that nothing would have detered Iran but it will help the international community's leverage.

 

If I were Bush, I would be pressuring the international community big time. They were contending they could have solved Iraq if we'd just given them another 12 years. We don't have 12 years to deal with this issue but any solution here will have to be international.

[5614]

Is Iran outmaneuvering the US politically? I predict Israel will attempt to destroy the facilities and will fail. Iran will use it as justification for a nuclear weapons program to counter the obvious hostile nuclear neighbor.

Then you underestimate the Israeli Military, if Israel strikes I predict they will completely destroy everything they set out to destroy.

 

The stand-in Prime Minister (for Sharon) has already been briefed on the Iranian situation and before Sharon's stroke he had visited military leaders regarding the situation.

 

Israel will not leave nukes in the hands of the Iranians for it's own safety.

[patcalhoun]

Is Iran outmaneuvering the US politically? I predict Israel will attempt to destroy the facilities and will fail. Iran will use it as justification for a nuclear weapons program to counter the obvious hostile nuclear neighbor.

 

I like to think Israel isn't Wile E. Coyote, and that they'll keep trying until they succeed.

[ecoli]

Then you underestimate the Israeli Military, if Israel strikes I predict they will completely destroy everything they set out to destroy.

 

Indeed, the Israeli Air force and intellegence agencies are quite good.

[Pangloss]

Practically reading my mind, today the "EU3" (Britain, Germany and France) called for greater international pressure against Iran.

 

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4c23e6c4-8399-11da-9017-0000779e2340.html

 

This isn't about George Bush, in any way, shape or form. And efforts to paint this issue with the "ABB" brush will continue to fail.

[LazerFazer]

Alright, those of you who've read my other posts might have noticed I'm especially vocal towards action against ANY Arab state, but on this one, I have to agree with the 'rest of the world', as it may be.

 

Iran has proven they cannot be trusted to just do as they say they will, and with the comments made by their President (who, even though he IS one person, he is ALSO in control of their military), they do pose a threat. Perhaps the Iranian president has changed, or perhaps he put up a facade just to get elected, but from what I can see not all Iranians agree with him, especially not on this issue. For ths reason, I DON'T agree on imposing sanctions. Generally, they hurt the population more than the government. Afterall, if the government was able to get nuclear secrets without people knowing, then how the hell can we expect them NOT to get other things which are 'banned' by sanctions? From what I've read, and from what I've gathered by living in the Middle East for almost 10 years of my life, it seems like this is just a power-play by Iran, but nonetheless should be taken seriously. The best deal, in my opinion, would be to allow Iran to continue nuclear enrichment, in their own country, but only at specified sites, and under the watchfull eye of the IAEA. At least that way Iran doesn't feel slighted at not being allowed to enrich uranium on their own land, Iran gets their nuclear 'power' and we, the International Community, can be assured that they are not persuing bomb-level enrichment. Again, this seems like Iran trying to assert itself in the international community, and perhaps we need to concede a bit, and just allow them to do their damn enrichment in their own country, but in accordance with the stipulations set out above.

 

LazerFazer

[Jim]

Alright' date=' those of you who've read my other posts might have noticed I'm especially vocal towards action against ANY Arab state, but on this one, I have to agree with the 'rest of the world', as it may be.

 

Iran has proven they cannot be trusted to just do as they say they will, and with the comments made by their President (who, even though he IS one person, he is ALSO in control of their military), they do pose a threat. Perhaps the Iranian president has changed, or perhaps he put up a facade just to get elected, but from what I can see not all Iranians agree with him, especially not on this issue. For ths reason, I DON'T agree on imposing sanctions. Generally, they hurt the population more than the government. Afterall, if the government was able to get nuclear secrets without people knowing, then how the hell can we expect them NOT to get other things which are 'banned' by sanctions? From what I've read, and from what I've gathered by living in the Middle East for almost 10 years of my life, it seems like this is just a power-play by Iran, but nonetheless should be taken seriously. The best deal, in my opinion, would be to allow Iran to continue nuclear enrichment, in their own country, but only at specified sites, and under the watchfull eye of the IAEA. At least that way Iran doesn't feel slighted at not being allowed to enrich uranium on their own land, Iran gets their nuclear 'power' and we, the International Community, can be assured that they are not persuing bomb-level enrichment. Again, this seems like Iran trying to assert itself in the international community, and perhaps we need to concede a bit, and just allow them to do their damn enrichment in their own country, but in accordance with the stipulations set out above.

 

LazerFazer[/quote']

 

Maybe we can all come to agree on the policy that military action is required where an unstable and hostile leader of a foreign country is not adverse to the use of terrorist methods and has the realistic potential of acquring WMDs? Does anyone disagree with this as a general matter of policy subject to the constraint that, when time is available, less drastic means should be used before resorting to such military action? Another limitation would be that military action has to be feasible.

[doG]

The situation with Iran is quite troublesome. They really don't need to refine nuclear fuel since Russia has guaranteed all they could need. This really makes their intent questionable. OTOH, a trigger happy approach will not be good either. China has become the second largest energy consumer in the world and Iran is their biggest supplier. Any attack on Iran that destabilizes the energy supply to China is an attack on China. This situation has enourmous potential to create a real worldwide conflict.

[Pangloss]

That's an excellent observation, doG, but don't underestimate China's diplomatic skill and real-world political approach. They were showing signs this week of being willing to not only increase pressure on Iran but to consider even more serious approaches. China may find that it has more to gain by approving military action against Iran than by standing in its way. They hold a very powerful position, and they're well aware of it.

 

But yes, there's no question they'll be keeping an keen eye on their oil supply.

[LazerFazer]

Well, good points have been brought up here lately. I disagree with military action completely though. I believe that wars only hurt the general population. Maybe the Israeli policy of targeted assasination is a better approach, but then there are probably some statutes in some international agreements against that. Not entirely sure tho. It DOES appear that the Iranian population doesn't completely agree with the stance that their leader is taking, and this could open the possibility for an internal overthrowing of the government... hopefully peacefully.

 

As for the issue of being allowed to refine and/or enrich Uranium, Iran believes that they do have the right to refine uranium for peaceful purposes. According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes is allowed. Iran views not being allowed to refine their own fuel as an attack on their sovereignty.

 

What I'm really concerned about is their threat to end inspections if referred to the Security Council. That could prove to be a big mistake on the part of the Iranian government.

 

LazerFazer

[deltanova]

I was reading the political bit of the newspaper thingie, and ran into a cartoon that i particuarly thought was funny, obviouly less funny with out the picture but here goes:

 

Reporter: "Will you go invade Iran?"

 

Mr Bush: "Hell no, they have weapons of mass destruction"

 

sorry for the bad attempt but hey

[5614]

"I was reading the political bit of the newspaper thingie"... anyway, and it (The Sunday Times) said that Israel had moded F-15s (Israel mods most of the stuff that it buys) and special units briefed and ready for action. Although from the way the paper put this it didn't sound like official news (ie. released by the government) although it probably is correct.

 

Either way it then went on to talk about if Israel did attack (approx 40 different installations, some underground hence the special forces) then the consequences are unpredictable.

 

Apparently Iran has chemical weapons, what if it used these? What if Arab countries got annoyed and retaliated against Israel? What if the Arab countries were relieved that Iran didn't have nukes and backed Israel? What if groups like Hamas just used it as an excuse to attack Israel?

 

There are so many unknowns that the Sunday Times suggested that America would have to act because it was too politically risky for Israel to do.

[Pangloss]

I believe that wars only hurt the general population.

 

And thus, were you a diplomat, you would always fail in any international diplomatic foreign policy endeavor. Always.

 

And there is not one diplomat in the United Nations who doesn't understand this from the hair on their head to the tips of their toes.

[Bettina]

Just remember, the president of Iran is a puppet controlled by religious fanatics which is far more dangerous. Iran is out to build a weapon and if I was Israel, I would never let that happen...no matter what.

 

Bettina

[bascule]

Iran is out to build a weapon and if I was Israel, I would never let that happen...no matter what.

 

As a concerned citizen of Earth I certainly don't want Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

[john5746]

It doesn't seem like all these negotiations and cat-and-mouse games work. I think the US, Russia and China need to come up with some rule to the effect that if a country develops atomic weapons, they are responsible if those weapons are used. An immediate, terrible response, including the use of nuclear weapons will be used against their country.

[5614]

I think the US, Russia and China need to come up with some rule to the effect that if a country develops atomic weapons, they are responsible if those weapons are used. An immediate, terrible response, including the use of nuclear weapons will be used against their country.

Oh great, so Iran can nuke Israel and a few Western countries and a few countries in the EU and THEN the we will be able to nuke them back... an eye for an eye, a nuke for a nuke, sounds fine to me.

 

NO!!!!!!! It doesn't work. If you can't 100% trust a country in everything then you cannot take the risk of them even owning nukes.

 

bascule/Bettina, I agree.

[john5746]

Oh great' date=' so Iran can nuke Israel and a few Western countries and a few countries in the EU and THEN the we will be able to nuke them back... an eye for an eye, a nuke for a nuke, sounds fine to me.

 

NO!!!!!!! It doesn't work. If you can't 100% trust a country in everything then you cannot take the risk of them even owning nukes.

 

bascule/Bettina, I agree.[/quote']

 

So, what countries do we 100% trust wSith nukes?

Russia? France? Pakistan? India? North Korea? Israel? China?

 

In addition to my previous idea, we could add that if a country doesn't allow inspections, then the facilities will be bombed. That doesn't fix North Korea, but they could be covered under the first provision.

 

Otherwise, I just see nuclear proliferation. There just isn't enough downside currently, and I don't think the US should invade every country that "might" have nukes.