Is this it for Iran and Israel?

[Iota]

Any historians about who would care summarises Israeli-Iranian relations for me?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19424097

 

There is fear that war between the two countries could be close now (more so than previously). Let's hope not.

 

I've looked into their history but it's complicated and I am still confused about it.

[Iggy]

Any historians about who would care summarises Israeli-Iranian relations for me?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19424097

 

There is fear that war between the two countries could be close now (more so than previously). Let's hope not.

 

I've looked into their history but it's complicated and I am still confused about it.

I'm not a historian, but I could summarize what I know.

 

About 2,500 years ago an evil Iraqi king, Nebuchadnezzar, conquered Israel and destroyed their temple and exiled the Jews from Jerusalem. An Iranian king (Cyrus the Great) showed up 70 years later and freed them. The Israelites called him 'messiah' because he was really cool... gave them back their homeland, helped them rebuild their temple, and gave them back the gold and silver that Nebuchadnezzar stole.

 

So... relations started good. Israel loved Iran and Iran was clearly good with Israel.

 

The same thing happened with Rome actually. They took over Israel, destroyed the temple, and exiled the Jews. It lasted hundreds of years that time where no Jew was allowed in Jerusalem until some time in the late 6th or early 7th century (I don't remember exactly) the Iranians showed up again. With the help of the Jewish people they defeated the western Roman empire in Jerusalem and again the Iranians helped set up a Jewish government there, but that only lasted a few years until Rome retook it.

 

Good relations again though.

 

Then there were Islamic Arabs. Both Israel and Iran were conquered and lived as second class citizens under Arab rule and they initially sort of shared a bond, one might say, for that experience. The difference being that the Iranians gave up some (not all) of their ethnic identity (the death, for example, of Zoroastrianism which was an Iranian religion that had its parallels with the Hebrew religion) and they adopted an Islamic faith and an Islamic identity, and the Jewish people did not.

 

After WW2 there was a new Jewish homeland and Iran was an ally. They had good political, military, and economic bonds. They worked jointly developing weapons systems and they traded even while Arab countries made Israel the object of embargoes.

 

In 1979 the Islamic religion took over the political governing of Iran and it became an Islamic republic. Since then relations between Iran and Israel have worsened drastically. We now have Iranians parading the missiles that Israel helped them build through the streets draped with flags that say "Israel must be wiped off the map" in English, and chant "Death to Israel... the little Satan". It's unfortunate. Iran has a unique, and quite liberal, ethnic history of which they should be very proud. It's just controlled right now by a very anti-Jewish time of Islam.

 

Right now countries are worried that they're about to have a nuclear weapon. Iran publicly funds terrorism and pays for political executions. It is scary for them to get the bomb. Becoming a nuclear power drastically elevates.. at the very least... a country's ability to aggressively influence other nations without fear of military reprisal. Scary... especially for Jewish Israelis.

[Iota]

Nicely summarised, thanks.

 

I've heard about Iranian officials talking about wiping out Israel. Completely idiotic to expect the world to allow you to build weapons of mass destruction when you're saying stuff like that.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Rayon]

I've heard about Iranian officials talking about wiping out Israel. Completely idiotic to expect the world to allow you to build weapons of mass destruction when you're saying stuff like that.

Who said what?
Relations seem pretty good.

[ydoaPs]

Right now countries are worried that they're about to have a nuclear weapon.

 

Based on absolutely zero evidence, btw.

 

Nice sanitized version of history, too.

 

Completely idiotic to expect the world to allow you to build weapons of mass destruction when you're saying stuff like that.

 

1) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program. They have a nuclear ENERGY program and they have a nuclear MEDICINE program neither of which can be turned into bombs.

 

2) Kindly collect all of the American nukes.

[Iota]

Based on absolutely zero evidence, btw.

 

Nice sanitized version of history, too.

 

 

 

1) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program. They have a nuclear ENERGY program and they have a nuclear MEDICINE program neither of which can be turned into bombs.

 

 

Mmm yes, but aren't Russia, America, NATO and so on, concerned about the fact Iran now has weapon-grade Uranium? Not just the sufficient amount for nuclear energy. Not to mention that Iran and North Korea have repeatedly teamed up to supposedly help one-another's weapon programs.

[CaptainPanic]

Based on absolutely zero evidence, btw.

That doesn't matter. We should still bomb them.

 

Note how the war hawks resemble Cato the Elder's way of arguing that Carthage should be destroyed. History has shown that if you just repeat it often enough, the truth does not matter. Who needs evidence if you are already certain that Iran is the new ultimate evil?

[ecoli]

Isn't it safer for Israel to assume the worst if Iran is hampering the efforts of UN nuclear inspectors?

[CaptainPanic]

Isn't it safer for Israel to assume the worst if Iran is hampering the efforts of UN nuclear inspectors?

 

No.

 

I wish people understood how a risk assessment works, because it's a perfectly reasonable and simple approach how to deal with any risk, in any situation - also if you have many unknowns.

 

Risk assessment certainly does not advise you to assume the worst, unless you have the intention of going bankrupt trying to prevent the most unlikely scenarios.

Risk assessment tells you to look at every scenario, and look at the effects and the chance it happens.

 

Risk = effect * chance

 

For example, if a nuclear holocaust happens it's very very very bad. But the chance it happens is really small (please don't believe the scaremongering). The risk is then reasonable.

The effects of some local terrorism in Israel is much smaller, after all only a few people will be directly affected. But the chance that will happen is nearly 1. It's almost a certainty. So, that risk is a bigger risk than Iran attacking with a nuke.

 

Iranians are not completely stupid. They know that if they lob a nuke on Israel, their own country will be reduced to a molten sea of sand too. They might use strong words, but that's a lot of bluff, which sounds good on Iranian TV. Also, for all we know, they might have a new and more reasonable president soon. Ahmadinejad might actually lose the elections... they do have a functioning democracy in Iran. This year they elect a new parliament, and next year a new president. You might argue that they don't seem to have a lot of choice, but when I look at the current US elections, I get that same impression

[ydoaPs]

Mmm yes, but aren't Russia, America, NATO and so on, concerned about the fact Iran now has weapon-grade Uranium? Not just the sufficient amount for nuclear energy. Not to mention that Iran and North Korea have repeatedly teamed up to supposedly help one-another's weapon programs.

 

 

I know for a fact that American reactors use more pure uranium than weapons grade. I'm not allowed to tell you the exact purity, though.

 

What do you make of the fact that Iran even offered to send their uranium to the US for us to make their fuel cells and medical equipment and WE REFUSED. But, hell, who needs facts?

Edited September 6, 2012 by ydoaPs

[zapatos]

For example, if a nuclear holocaust happens it's very very very bad. But the chance it happens is really small (please don't believe the scaremongering). The risk is then reasonable.

The effects of some local terrorism in Israel is much smaller, after all only a few people will be directly affected. But the chance that will happen is nearly 1. It's almost a certainty. So, that risk is a bigger risk than Iran attacking with a nuke.

The risk is not greater just because of the greater likelihood. As you pointed out, risk is a combination of likelihood and impact. Based on your scenario you have not shown that the risk of local terrorism is greater than the risk of nuclear holocaust. I would not be surprised to find that at this point in time that Israel has determined that the risk of nuclear annihilation is a bigger risk to Israel than a suicide bomber in a market.

 

Iranians are not completely stupid. They know that if they lob a nuke on Israel, their own country will be reduced to a molten sea of sand too. They might use strong words, but that's a lot of bluff, which sounds good on Iranian TV. Also, for all we know, they might have a new and more reasonable president soon. Ahmadinejad might actually lose the elections... they do have a functioning democracy in Iran. This year they elect a new parliament, and next year a new president. You might argue that they don't seem to have a lot of choice, but when I look at the current US elections, I get that same impression

While it is nice that you have such confidence that Israel need not worry about Iran, I doubt that Israel has your confidence. When contemplating the possible end of the Jewish state due to an Iranian nuclear strike (one bomb will quite likely do it), I imagine that Israel believes a bit more risk mitigation is in order.

[ecoli]

No.

 

I wish people understood how a risk assessment works, because it's a perfectly reasonable and simple approach how to deal with any risk, in any situation - also if you have many unknowns.

 

Risk assessment certainly does not advise you to assume the worst, unless you have the intention of going bankrupt trying to prevent the most unlikely scenarios.

Risk assessment tells you to look at every scenario, and look at the effects and the chance it happens.

 

Risk = effect * chance

 

For example, if a nuclear holocaust happens it's very very very bad. But the chance it happens is really small (please don't believe the scaremongering). The risk is then reasonable.

The effects of some local terrorism in Israel is much smaller, after all only a few people will be directly affected. But the chance that will happen is nearly 1. It's almost a certainty. So, that risk is a bigger risk than Iran attacking with a nuke.

 

Iranians are not completely stupid. They know that if they lob a nuke on Israel, their own country will be reduced to a molten sea of sand too. They might use strong words, but that's a lot of bluff, which sounds good on Iranian TV. Also, for all we know, they might have a new and more reasonable president soon. Ahmadinejad might actually lose the elections... they do have a functioning democracy in Iran. This year they elect a new parliament, and next year a new president. You might argue that they don't seem to have a lot of choice, but when I look at the current US elections, I get that same impression

 

Nuclear weapons are an existential risk, however, so the effect always outweighs the probability, no matter how small particularly in light of zapatos' post.

[Iota]

I know for a fact that American reactors use more pure uranium than weapons grade. I'm not allowed to tell you the exact purity, though.

 

What do you make of the fact that Iran even offered to send their uranium to the US for us to make their fuel cells and medical equipment and WE REFUSED. But, hell, who needs facts?

 

It wouldn't matter much if the US does use weapons grade uranium for reactors, because it's no secret that they have nukes... but really, 90%< enriched uranium for their reactors... are you sure?

 

 

I didn't make much of the fact that Iran offered uranium to the US because I hadn't heard of it... that's why I posted this thread to find out more. I'm not ignoring facts, I'm in the process of inquiring them. Besides, offering uranium to the US doesn't make your intentions with the material good, it could just be a way of getting on America's good side. A blatant attempt at that. If America accepted, they would no longer be able to oppose Iran's nuclear progression towards weaponry and be taken seriously.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Iota

[ydoaPs]

It wouldn't matter much if the US does use weapons grade uranium for reactors, because it's no secret that they have nukes... but really, 90%< enriched uranium for their reactors... are you sure?

 

Yep.

 

 

If America accepted, they would no longer be able to oppose Iran's nuclear progression towards weaponry and be taken seriously.

 

You cannot make bombs out of reactors or medical equipment.

[Iota]

Yep.

 

 

 

 

You cannot make bombs out of reactors or medical equipment.

 

Now you're just undermining the whole situation with no intent to look at a real possibility.

[iNow]

Now you're just undermining the whole situation with no intent to look at a real possibility.

I think it's possible that Iran is engaged in nuclear activities beyond medical devices and power generation, sure. It's certainly possible. However, the other points ydoaps made are entirely correct and valid about how those medical and power generation products can and cannot be used. Why did you make this comment above?

Edited September 7, 2012 by iNow

[Iota]

I think it's possible that Iran is engaged in nuclear activities beyond medical devices and power generation, sure. It's certainly possible. However, the other points ydoaps made are entirely correct and valid about how those medical and power generation products can and cannot be used. Why did you make this comment above?

 

Perhaps the comments' validity/accuracy is there because they are lacking much elaboration. What he's saying might be correct, but if you bring up a point, it shouldn't be too much to ask for some information on it. I researched that a nuclear generator test used 85% enriched uranium, once, which was "much higher than typically used". I was interested to know whether that was the case, because if so, what he said is possibly not correct.

 

 

I don't see any problems with the comment I made; it was a completely reasonable response to what ydoaps said prior. I'm listening to what everyone is saying, because as I said, I know so little about the current Iranian/Israeli relations and am open to hear the facts. It's just ydoaps original comment seemed a bit too hasty in implying that I'm ignoring the facts, and then when I proposed some ideas, he replied with "yep". That's just the way it seemed to me.

 

 

 

 

[zapatos]

 

Right now countries are worried that they're about to have a nuclear weapon.

 

Based on absolutely zero evidence, btw.

 

 

1) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program.

 

I understand that there is no evidence (known publicly at least) that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I have heard many people say they don't think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but I am curious how much evidence you have that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. I was unable to find any although admittedly I may have missed something.

[iNow]

but I am curious how much evidence you have that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

WTF? This is a bit like asking me to show you evidence that I'm not hiding an invisible dragon in my garage. :blink:

 

what he said is possibly not correct.

FYI - He runs nuclear reactors for a living and was trained for several years by the US military on the mechanics of exactly that.

 

For the curious, here's a decent overview: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html

[Iggy]

What do you make of the fact that Iran even offered to send their uranium to the US for us to make their fuel cells and medical equipment and WE REFUSED. But, hell, who needs facts?

I haven't been keeping up with the story, but I don't follow exactly how that can make sense. The US is certainly the last place that would enrich Iranian uranium for fuel rods or medical purposes. It would be Russia or France or Japan or some other country before the US were even involved in the conversation. Did they all "REFUSE"?

 

More than that, why would Iran be investing so much money in enrichment facilities if they want some other country (much less the US) to enrich their uranium for them? It's like buying a printing press and giving all your copy work to the copy shop down the street. I can't square what you mean at all.

[Iota]

FYI - He runs nuclear reactors for a living and was trained for several years by the US military on the mechanics of exactly that.

 

Indeed, I've already seen his profile information before now. Ergo if he made a point about that area, more specifically, I'd be happy to hear it. But that's not what's being dispensed here now- is it.

 

But, hell, who needs relevant, coherent responses?

 

For the curious, here's a decent overview: http://topics.nytime...gram/index.html

 

Onwards and upwards though; this is a very good article, lots of information which paints the whole picture.

[ydoaPs]

Perhaps the comments' validity/accuracy is there because they are lacking much elaboration. What he's saying might be correct, but if you bring up a point, it shouldn't be too much to ask for some information on it.

 

I will not give you classified information. Ever. Don't expect specifics.

 

Fuel cells have what we call distributed poisons. These do a lot of things like make power generation more even, but they also make it such that you cannot make a nuclear bomb from a nuclear reactor.

 

I haven't been keeping up with the story, but I don't follow exactly how that can make sense. The US is certainly the last place that would enrich Iranian uranium for fuel rods or medical purposes.

 

They offered the enriched fuel so that we could make the fuel cells and medical equipment for them so that we would know for a fact that it wasn't used for bombs. We refused. Haven't you figured out yet that the US will lie, cheat, and steal to be able to bomb brown people? Israel's not much different.

[zapatos]

WTF? This is a bit like asking me to show you evidence that I'm not hiding an invisible dragon in my garage. :blink:

WTF? If you tell me you are hiding an invisible dragon in your garage I'm just supposed to accept that claim and not question it?

I guess they changed the rules on this site. I didn't realize that you were now allowed to make factual claims but not be expected to provide evidence. :blink:

[ydoaPs]

WTF? If you tell me you are hiding an invisible dragon in your garage I'm just supposed to accept that claim and not question it?

I guess they changed the rules on this site. I didn't realize that you were now allowed to make factual claims but not be expected to provide evidence. :blink:

 

Read what you quoted again.

[Iggy]

They offered the enriched fuel so that we could make the fuel cells and medical equipment for them so that we would know for a fact that it wasn't used for bombs. We refused. Haven't you figured out yet that the US will lie, cheat, and steal to be able to bomb brown people? Israel's not much different.

I'm sensing a small amount of bias which I can't share.

 

Iranians aren't brown. The words "Iranian" and "Aryan" are in fact equivalent (you may have noticed they sound the same).

 

The US doesn't need to lie to bomb brown people. It's quite good at doing that for reasons of truth or for no discernible reason at all.

 

If we could return to my question, did all of the countries capable of making fuel cells refuse to make them for Iran? If yes, why are you mentioning the US. If no, why aren't they doing it.

 

I'm honestly trying to get an answer for that question because I'm unfamiliar with the story.