Is Iran currently rushing to build a Nuclear weapon? Opinions

Be like Nutella

Play it out in real life.

I've said before here that I don't think they are going for the bomb and my argument can be summed up as this:

They've said clearly that they aren't to the world, to their nation.. even issued a Fatwa against Nukes... their president and so called Supreme Leader has said so clearly.

It is not in their interest to continue living under current or worse sanctions... Economically and politically.

They are inviting an Israeli and US military response which is 'almost' guaranteed - all of which would require them to act irrationally in my view and IMO Iran IS STILL a rational actor.

What I'd love to hear from those who genuinely believe Iran is rushing towards a bomb and using all these years of so called negotiations/or lack thereof as a smokescreen, is, how would it play out in the real world?

How would they do it?

Are they just playing a game and announcing fatwa's and saying in direct terms that they are definitely not after the bomb right up to the point at which they have enough Fissile material to build one and then suddenly we're going to see a test detonation underground somewhere in Iran? which would be picked up INSTANTLY by US/Israeli sensors and much more likely LONG BEFORE they ever got close to testing a single device.... you see what I mean... will somebody here please outline how it plays out in real life? not around some Fox news table but in the real world?

How would they go from 'We're definitely not going for the bomb' TO 'Oh well we just tested a bomb, I guess we changed our minds and we don't care about the repercussions' ???

I am expecting some instant inane Iran bashing... that's not what I'm asking I want somebody who believes Iran is going for the bomb to explain to me how they think Iran will do it! and I suppose another question is whether you feel Iran is actually a rational actor, or not?

Nobody knows for sure whether they are or not, I accept that so this is just a debate but hopefully people can support their opinions with something..

Not ONLY do I not think Iran is going for the bomb, in a month or a year or (importantly) in the foreseeable future but I don't think the US Military brass/Intel community/Chiefs of staff think they are going for the bomb either. In fact I don't think Israel thinks Iran is going for the bomb now either and that there is a certain amount of regional game theory playing out which has more to do with proxy influence and regional power balance than nuclear weapons or nuclear power... in which Iran is involved also.

Would appreciate some opinions on how Iran would go from current position 'we are not after a bomb because x,y,z' to 'we just tested a nuclear bomb, feck the consequences'

Thanks

clairefontaine

I think the US has been fighting Saudi wars by proxy for a long time now.

Saudi wants to remain dominant in the region and Iran is its main rival in this regard.

I have no idea what credibility to give Iran in terms of its threat, whether its real or just a dog with all bark and no bite, but it certainly serves Saudis interest to make us believe the former.

Personally I think we should stay out of ME conflict, become totally energy in dependant, and let them fight it out amongst themselves because its a bottomless pit of violence.

Be like Nutella

with all due respect that's why I asked could people answer the question stated... Is Iran rushing for the bomb and if so how will that unfold i.e. how will they rationally get from 'we're not after it' to 'oh look we just tested one' ?

Black Swan

"Mutual deterrence" was a well established political-military nuclear weapons policy that emerged out of the Cold War between the US, USSR, and to some extent the PRC. Although it's highly improbable that Iran would amass the numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to achieve "unilateral deterrence" (i.e., equivalent nuclear threat), the threat that one or more nuclear weapons may achieve its objectives within some measure of probability (although small) in a conflict with the US may result in a degree of mutual deterrence.

Although the nature of the historic relationships between Iran and the US are quite complex, and not all summarized here, to what extent would the following events contribute to, and motivate a policy for mutual deterrence towards the US by Iran (and North Korea)?

• 29 January 2002 US President GW Bush gives his State of the Union Address before the US Congress, naming Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil."
  
• 19 March 2003 US launches a massive ""Shock and Awe" surprise attack on Iraq (starting 2nd Persian Gulf War): one of the 3 nations named in the Axis of Evil.

It would seem plausible for the leaders of Iran's government to consider that they might be next on the US Axis of Evil list for invasion, and to take measures to reduce that risk. Ironically, attempting to implement a mutual deterrence policy by Iran may trigger a preemptive strike by the US military.

Be like Nutella wrote: »

i.e. how will they rationally get from 'we're not after it' to 'oh look we just tested one' ?

Play hide and seek. Then fait accompli.

sin_city

If they were....should we be worried?

But I don't think they are. They have been a peaceful country for a long time and only been in wars when attacked first.

Thank God I use my brain when I am fed the crap propaganda on news

clairefontaine

sin_city wrote: »

If they were....should we be worried?

But I don't think they are. They have been a peaceful country for a long time and only been in wars when attacked first.

Thank God I use my brain when I am fed the crap propaganda on news

Yeah Im more likely to think so too. Saudi would just love it if we got involved in Iran.

I'd love to know if and how much Saudi money is in our news outlets.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/saudi-royal-backs-imam-and-fox-news/?_r=0

http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/06/alwaleed-murdoch-billionaires-cx_gl_0906autofacescan02.html

Of course it will all be propped up as protecting Isreal, because Iran is such a threat, yadda yadda, Ive been hearing this since I was small and saw the yellow ribbons around the trees. Same old same old.

WH ought to re read the Boy Who Cried Wolf.... but then again at the end there really was a wolf wasn't there?

Jonny7

Very unlikely

Issue is more about the capability to weaponise in a short period of time rather than literally 'having a bomb'

The sanctions (from all major powers, including Russia and China) are having an effect and the negotiations are going well, they expect a deal in approx 6 months

Amerika

Listening to numerous experts on Iranian nuclear bomb capability, the one theory that seems to correspond to what is currently going on is that Iran doesn’t want to build a bomb. Instead, they only want the capability to build, or assemble, several nuclear bombs in a 1 to 2 month timeframe if world events lead them to the decision they actually need the bomb. They would still need to test their technology, which could be accomplished by shipping components to North Korea which would be assembled there and tested at a time North Korea once again wishes to flex their muscles. By not physically having a bomb, they only draw sanctions and remain relatively safe, assuming international condemnation of anyone who would strike Iranian nuclear operations without physical proof a bomb actually exists.

Black Swan

There may be some craic in the very public positions taken by the news media, talk shows, administration, Republicans, and Democrats regarding the US relationship with Iran as pertains to their development of nuclear science and technology. Although anecdotal, I have occasionally had a coffee chat in a locale javahouse with a PhD exchange student studying nuclear engineering at a nearby flagship university. He is a single thirty-something Iranian citizen from Teheran, has the appropriate US student Visa, flies each year back to Iran to share Ramadan with his family, and plans to return to Iran once he graduates.

It had been reported a year or two ago by the Orange County Register (OC's largest newspaper) that Orange County, Southern California, had one of the largest Arab and Persian populations in the US, and there is an "Arab Town" (not Persian) in the City of Anaheim that is loaded with many restaurants that cater to Middle Eastern foods and tastes. Not sure how those that are now US citizens vote in elections, but Orange County has been known as a Republican stronghold in California.

Be like Nutella

how the CIA would love to recruit you to turn that 30 something year old into an asset... : )

Black Swan

Be like Nutella wrote: »

how the CIA would love to recruit you to turn that 30 something year old into an asset... : )

I would be redundant. I can imagine that No Such Agency, and a host of similar organisations, both domestic and abroad, are digitally recording this Iranian nuclear engineering PhD student 24/7; so closely that he's a star on their version of the telly Big Brother.

In spite of all the political polemic and media spin about Iran being the bad guys and US the good guys, I have run into several students at university in So Cal that are citizens of Iran during the past couple of years. Was introduced to one last night at a locale javahouse that is pursuing a PhD in comparative forensic psychology, and was looking for a ride to LAX to fly back to Iran for 2 weeks to attend a family matter, before returning to the US. If Iran is one of the "Axis of Evil" countries, why are there so may Iranian citizens with US student Visas attending American universities?

seanie_c

Freedom thrives in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman...our Great Friends.
As I say these words, memorize them for regurgitation.

Did you know that even women are allowed to work in those countries?
That's how free they are, they're free to work and pay taxes to the state.

As for homosexuals, they get hung from a rope....but let's focus on LGBT rights in Russia first because they don't sell us oil and gas very cheap, I have to say that's a priority for me personally.

Going forward, I just want to reiterate our commitment to the democratic transformation taking place in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and hopefully soon, Syria.

By golly, we really do live in the free world . . .

Gee...I almost forgot about that tyrannical regime Iran where women aren't allowed to work and alcohol is banned....what a terrible country it is. Surely, we should be bombing and shooting them and worry about what comes afterwards? Me and my silly ideas, eh?

tricky D

Black Swan wrote: »

It had been reported a year or two ago by the Orange County Register (OC's largest newspaper) that Orange County, Southern California, had one of the largest Arab and Persian populations in the US, and there is an "Arab Town" (not Persian) in the City of Anaheim that is loaded with many restaurants that cater to Middle Eastern foods and tastes. Not sure how those that are now US citizens vote in elections, but Orange County has been known as a Republican stronghold in California.

fyi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrangeles

Black Swan

seanie_c wrote: »

Freedom thrives in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman...our Great Friends.

This OP was not about the US version of "freedom," rather the thread topic pertained to: "Is Iran currently rushing to build a Nuclear weapon?"

Why would the US give so many Iranian citizens student Visas when their nation is a member of GW Bush's "Axis of Evil" (especially one in a PhD program in nuclear engineering, when there are US sanctions against Iran for attempting to develop nuclear science and technology)? By US law these students on US visas must return to Iran after completing their degrees.

Does anyone see the craic in US policies?

seanie_c wrote: »

Gee...I almost forgot about that tyrannical regime Iran where women aren't allowed to work and alcohol is banned....what a terrible country it is. Surely, we should be bombing and shooting them and worry about what comes afterwards? Me and my silly ideas, eh?

Once again, this thread is not about cultural or religious conditions in Iran, rather about their nuclear development programme. The Iranian government claims that it's for the production of electricity, while the US claims that Iran wants to join the Nuclear Bomb Club, with potential future consequences of delivering to a US or allied city a Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction (where tens of thousands of men, women, and children were vaporised in seconds, or suffered from the after affects of radiation poisoning).

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

This OP was not about the US version of "freedom," rather the thread topic pertained to: "Is Iran currently rushing to build a Nuclear weapon?"

Why would the US give so many Iranian citizens student Visas when their nation is a member of GW Bush's "Axis of Evil" (especially one in a PhD program in nuclear engineering, when there are US sanctions against Iran for attempting to develop nuclear science and technology)? By US law these students on US visas must return to Iran after completing their degrees.

Once again, this thread is not about cultural or religious conditions in Iran, rather about their nuclear development programme. The Iranian government claims that it's for the production of electricity, while the US claims that Iran wants to join the Nuclear Bomb Club, with potential future consequences of delivering to a US or allied city a Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction (where tens of thousands of men, women, and children were vaporised in seconds, or suffered from the after affects of radiation poisoning).

Because they can't practise discrimination. It's a free country and it distinguished between governments and citizens, just like during the Cold War it did not turn away defectors from the east.

We were nuked by the Japanese but didn't close the door on visas for them.

Cuba aimed nukes at us but we had an open door policy on refugees.

The college accepts an applicant, the college organises the visa, that's how it works,

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

We were nuked by the Japanese but didn't close the door on visas for them.

The US was not "nuked" by the Japanese, rather the US dropped the first nuclear bombs ever used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, at the time (WWII) the US was not issuing student Visas to Japanese exchange students, rather they imprisoned Japanese citizens, and many persons of Japanese ancestry in what they called internment camps (i.e., families living in America taken from their homes and businesses and placed concentration camps).

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

The US was not "nuked" by the Japanese, rather the US dropped the first nuclear bombs ever used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, at the time (WWII) the US was not issuing student Visas to foreign exchange students, rather they imprisoned Japanese citizens, and many persons of Japanese ancestry in what they called internment camps (i.e., taken from their homes and businesses and placed concentration camps).

Really. Pearl Harbor never happened?

They never stopped the Russians, Cubans, or other Eastern Europeans from visas when escaping communism during the Cold War.

We are not at war with Iran, why would they not issue student visas? In fact they may like Persian speakers with degrees in science as potential recruits.

It was Saudis who bombed the bejeesus out of us ans they haven't stopped those visas either.

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

Really. Pearl Harbor never happened?

The Japanese did not "nuke" any nation during WWII, nor did they have the capability. Only the US has ever used nuclear bombs on a civilian population. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with conventional weapons, not nuclear, in their attempt to sink the US Pacific fleet based there.

If Iran is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems capabilities, and they may be as the US claims, I would think it fool hardy of their government to strike the US with such weaponry, given that a single US Navy Trident equipped SSBN missile submarine (with 24 missiles each with 3 MIRVs; 72 bombs total) could essentially wipe out Iran as a nation (and the US has dozens of these subs at sea, plus a host of other highly diversified sea, land, and air based delivery systems and nuclear weapons). If they are not fool hardy, it may be that they are looking for some measure of "mutual deterrence" as mentioned in an earlier post; but who knows?

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

The Japanese did not "nuke" any nation during WWII, nor did they have the capability. Only the US has ever used nuclear bombs on a civilian population. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with conventional weapons, not nuclear, in their attempt to sink the US Pacific fleet based there.

If Iran is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems capabilities, and they may be as the US claims, I would think it fool hardy of their government to strike the US with such weaponry, given that a single US Navy Trident equipped missile submarine (with 24 missiles each with 3 MIRVs; 72 MIRVs total) could essentially wipe out Iran as a nation (and the US has dozens of these subs at sea, plus a host of other highly diversified sea, land, and air based delivery systems and nuclear weapons). If they are not fool hardy, it may be that they are looking for some measure of "mutual deterrence" as mentioned in an earlier post; but who knows?

It's quite possible. I'd be more afraid of Isreals response to news of a Iran nuclear weapon. And if they respond, that automatically drags us into it.

It would make sense for the US to have Iranian nuclear science students at advanced levels.

Knowing Persian and nuclear science are some top skills the CIA are looking for, or so it says on their recruitment pages.

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

It would make sense for the US to have Iranian nuclear science students at advanced levels.

Knowing Persian and nuclear science are some top skills the CIA are looking for, or so it says on their recruitment pages.

It seems very inconsistent from a political policy standpoint to allow so many Iran citizens to attend US universities on US student visas, when Iran has been labeled as one of the "Axis of Evil" nations, especially when all of those students must return to Iran given the nature of their US student Visa.

And training one at the PhD level in nuclear engineering, who must return to Iran, when at the same time issuing economic sanctions against Iran for attempting to develop nuclear science and technology seems very inconsistent from a political policy standpoint.

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

It seems very inconsistent from a political policy standpoint to allow so many Iran citizens to attend US universities on US student visas, when Iran has been labeled as one of the "Axis of Evil" nations, especially when all of those students must return to Iran given the nature of their US student Visa.

And training one at the PhD level in nuclear engineering, who must return to Iran, when at the same time issuing economic sanctions against Iran for attempting to develop nuclear science and technology seems very inconsistent from a political policy standpoint.

It doesn't if you consider CIA recruitment.

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

It doesn't if you consider CIA recruitment.

There are thousands of Iranian citizens on US student visas now residing in America. It does not seem plausible that the CIA would recruit thousands of Iranians, or that all these thousands would be inclined to join the CIA.

If Iran is in fact an enemy of the US, and a potential WMD threat to the US and its allies (as voiced President GW Bush in his "Axis of Evil" comments before the US Congress), why would the US take the risk that thousands of those students may use what they learned at US universities against the US and its interests upon their return to Iran?

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

There are thousands of Iranian citizens on US student visas now residing in America. It does not seem plausible that the CIA would recruit thousands of Iranians, or that all these thousands would be inclined to join the CIA.

If Iran is in fact an enemy of the US, and a potential WMD threat to the US and its allies (as voiced President GW Bush in his "Axis of Evil" comments before the US Congress), why would the US take the risk that thousands of those students may use what they learned at US universities against the US and its interests upon their return to Iran?

I doubt very much they would recruit all of them either, but they'd have a good pool to choose from given the numbers, and being they'd be in the same alumni pool, they'd have access to them in a way no native American who learned farsi as a second language would.

Then again we also trained the Saudis how to fly.

And then again the Bushs are buddies with the Sauds so that rhetoric could have been used to please the Sauds. Hard to know.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

It seems very inconsistent from a political policy standpoint to allow so many Iran citizens to attend US universities on US student visas, when Iran has been labeled as one of the "Axis of Evil" nations, especially when all of those students must return to Iran given the nature of their US student Visa.

And training one at the PhD level in nuclear engineering, who must return to Iran, when at the same time issuing economic sanctions against Iran for attempting to develop nuclear science and technology seems very inconsistent from a political policy standpoint.

I think it's a brilliant idea to issue visas to as many Iranian students as have the means to study in the US.

There is no better way to bring down a theocracy than education.

MonaPizza

Amerika wrote: »

Listening to numerous experts on Iranian nuclear bomb capability, the one theory that seems to correspond to what is currently going on is that Iran doesn’t want to build a bomb. Instead, they only want the capability to build, or assemble, several nuclear bombs in a 1 to 2 month timeframe if world events lead them to the decision they actually need the bomb. They would still need to test their technology, which could be accomplished by shipping components to North Korea which would be assembled there and tested at a time North Korea once again wishes to flex their muscles. By not physically having a bomb, they only draw sanctions and remain relatively safe, assuming international condemnation of anyone who would strike Iranian nuclear operations without physical proof a bomb actually exists.

You talk of this "bomb"
Everyone yaps about a "bomb"

Why are we even questioning Iran?
In fact why are we even contemplating the fact that they...THE IRANIANS...might have a few rifles or submarines or fighter jets or....GOD FORBID.. some computers.

When was the last time IRAN invaded and slaughtered people? I'd love to know.
Because from what I can see, the thugs who want to wreck this lovely land have been busy attacking and sacking and destroying lands whether they be occupied by black-skinned, brown-skinned or yellow-skinned lads since time imemorium.


Why are the Iranians/Persians such a threat?
Seems that the Vietnamese slapped a bully in the mouth 30 years ago and we don't hear too much about them (except in gay-ass movies).

Venezuela is such a threat to the safety of America. Haven't heard much about that massive threat of late.

The list goes on...."If we don't vapourise North Korea, they will rock up on Venice beach and make us all eat dogs before head shooting us!"

Super stuff!

Conas

Great news that a Nuclear deal with Iran was reached.

Israel is furious, then again I'd expect nothing less. I'm sure the war hungry Republicans, and pro-Israelis in America are furious with this deal. In many ways I'm glad Romney didn't win last years election, there would probaly be ground troops in Iran by now. Dick Cheney said in an interview a while back, that military action against Iran will probaly be the only option. Fair play to Obama on getting this deal, and avoiding yet another war. Republicans are lunatics, sell-outs and psychopaths. They'll smear Obama for the rest of his Presidency I'd say, and steal back the White-house in 2016.

I hear Jeb Bush is planning on running. Good lord, maybe the illuminati does exist if he wins. :eek:

Amerika

If nothing else, I guess it will keep Israel at bay for six months. So, what else does it achieve, other than giving massive amounts of money to Iran in the form of sanction relief for ???

Be like Nutella

Iran have not decided to go for the bomb.

That's the position of the US right now. If they do decide to, then they will have the capacity to rush to enrich enough Uranium for a few weapons in a relatively small amount of time, but, that's just the enrichment part and they will be busted within 1-2 weeks of diverting any enriched material as part of this deal.

however

getting from point A) i.e. the decision to rush to a nuclear weapon which is in itself irrational

to point b) enriching enough fissile material for a few weapons (a few would be 'a must') is very possible but instantly identifiable in its diversion.

to point c) 2 or 3 working/perfectly hidden nuclear missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv or farther

is so unbelievably complex it would require so many steps including incredibly obvious testing and the guarantee of air strikes... right up to actual invasion that it is literally an inconceivable concept.

With this deal Iran now cannot, under any circumstances, get anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon without being busted for doing so.

Add to all that the fact that Iran's spiritual and religious leadership has told the world and its people repeatedly, in direct terms, that it is against nuclear weapons and that they are unIslamic and against the interests of Iran.

There is no situation where Israel or the US would NOT be instantly aware of Iran going for the bomb now.

This deal, or any deal which allows more inspection and relieves economic sanctions makes the world safer and Obama and Rouhani deserve credit.

The most ideal future for Iran and subsequently the world is an economically successful Iran which becomes more open, more educated and more integrated with the rest of the world and which can pick up the phone and talk directly to the US President.

The nuclear clock just moved back a few ticks.

I hate Obama for the Mass Drone Murder he has brought to Pakistan but this Iran nuke deal is incredibly important for the future of the middle east and the world so I have to give him serious respect for getting this far.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Iran have not decided to go for the bomb.

- - -

The nuclear clock just moved back a few ticks.

If Iran hasn't been going for a "bomb," how could the nuclear clock have moved back a few ticks?

Be like Nutella

lets not get into a pointless argument about metaphors

the nuclear clock.... or the chance of nuclear war is less now that there is a deal... Iran has never made a run for the bomb and is less likely to do so now.

Best thing Israel can do is try and get on board with this deal and stop with its pointless fear mongering which characterizes Iran as an irrational power willing to rush to a bomb and destroy Tel Aviv.

That Iran has not chosen to go for the bomb is not just my opinion, it's the repeated opinions of chiefs of the US military in the last 12 months on numerous TV shows and in numerous think tank papers. This is the clear difference between Israel's official position and the US position. Israel says Obama is adopting a containment policy while the US Admin says that Iran hasn't even chosen to go for a nuke yet.

You make an agreement and you test it and you make another agreement that's the only way forward here.

Now it's a sad and ignorant domestic political game where Rep Congressmen who voted for sanctions against Iran now feel they can't repeal those sanctions without looking bad to their voters and god forbid they put something ahead of getting re-elected so they'll kick and scream to stop Obama
having any success with this deal - and in doing so make America look pathetic to the world and severely reduce the chance of Rep getting to the WH next time round EVEN FARTHER than they already have tried so very hard to do. Obama's people know this so they've put all those congressmen in a corner now and Fox news will do their very best to wreck this deal. But Obama will get it done in the end and no matter what happens the Republicans will look terrible, it's hilarious.

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

If nothing else, I guess it will keep Israel at bay for six months. So, what else does it achieve, other than giving massive amounts of money to Iran in the form of sanction relief for ???

Helps millions of frustrated Iranians, their businesses and industry. Shows hardliners in Iran, Israel and the Sunni world that their positions are increasingly pointless. Demonstrates a willingness for nations to work with Iran rather than against. Drives the price of oil down. Opens up future possibilities rather than shuts doors. The list goes on and on really.

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

Helps millions of frustrated Iranians, their businesses and industry. Shows hardliners in Iran, Israel and the Sunni world that their positions are increasingly pointless. Demonstrates a willingness for nations to work with Iran rather than against. Drives the price of oil down. Opens up future possibilities rather than shuts doors. The list goes on and on really.

Or Taqiyya perhaps.

How did things work out with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in his role as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator last time around? Weren’t those agreements merely a ploy to buy Iran needed time to get heavy-water production, produce yellow cake, and increase the number of centrifuges tenfold?

And we should believe him now becasue ______________________ (fill in the blank).

Be like Nutella

Unless this is an Iranian trick to somehow buy time to complete a weapon and test it, I would think that the deal could be done in six months. An Iranian ploy to create cover for building a weapon would also demand a reliable missile and a launch pad invisible to surveillance satellites and the CIA, National Security Agency, Mossad, MI6 and other intelligence agencies. The Iranians would likely fail at this, triggering airstrikes however risky they might be and putting Iran back where it started economically. While this is a possibility, the scenario is not likely when analyzed closely.


two countries intensely oppose it: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Though not powers on the order of the P-5+1, they are still significant. There is a bit of irony in Israel and Saudi Arabia being allied on this issue, but only on the surface. Both have been intense enemies of Iran, and close allies of the United States; each sees this act as a betrayal of its relationship with Washington.


With this opening to Iran, the United States will no longer be bound by its Israeli and Saudi relationships. They will not be abandoned, but the United States has broader interests than those relationships, and at the same time few interests that rise to the level of prompting it to directly involve U.S. troops. The Saudis will have to exert themselves to balance the Iranians, and Israel will have to wend its way in a world where it has no strategic threats, but only strategic problems, like everyone else has. It is not a world in which Israeli or Saudi rigidity can sustain itself.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israelis-saudis-and-iranian-agreement?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20131126&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

Or Taqiyya perhaps.

How did things work out with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in his role as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator last time around? Weren’t those agreements merely a ploy to buy Iran needed time to get heavy-water production, produce yellow cake, and increase the number of centrifuges tenfold?

And we should believe him now becasue ______________________ (fill in the blank).

It has to be given a chance. The Syrian chemical weapons thing so far has worked by diplomacy and negotiations. This current Iran deal needs to be allowed to develop, so future dialogue is possible to achieve a peaceful end. At the moment Israel is like a spoilt child at being let down by the US.

Jonny7

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Syrian chemical weapons thing so far has worked by diplomacy and negotiations

?

100's killed in that attack

Over 10,000 children dead so far, hundreds deliberately targeted by snipers, children as young as one being tortured

The Syrian chemical weapons side show continues without hindering the daily slaughter - great compromise

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It has to be given a chance. The Syrian chemical weapons thing so far has worked by diplomacy and negotiations. This current Iran deal needs to be allowed to develop, so future dialogue is possible to achieve a peaceful end. At the moment Israel is like a spoilt child at being let down by the US.

I’m for keeping a diolog going, but when sanctions are working this disaster of a deal appears to be little more than the Obama administration attempt to distract from his signature legislative achievement of ObamaCare that is proving to be a disaster for the nation. And why did Iran get so much and we get so little?

But if Iran decides to proceed based on it’s past actions in these deals rather than it’s rhetoric, at least Obama and Kerry will have a piece of paper they can wave over their heads, right?

ChicagoJoe

I don't want to see Iran developing nuclear arms but I have to admit, it useless asking them or anyone else in the middle east to not pursue nuclear capability so long as Israel, the biggest threat to the peace in the middle east if not the world, has them. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East.

The 51st state of America Israel of course refuses, Washington agrees - and there's the problem. Obama's technique of evasion is to adopt Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with the odd temporary exception. So much for Obama the ' peace maker '.

Eggy Baby!

sin_city wrote: »

If they were....should we be worried?

But I don't think they are. They have been a peaceful country for a long time and only been in wars when attacked first.

Thank God I use my brain when I am fed the crap propaganda on news

Whilst Iran has not been a directly aggressive nation throughout it's modern history, there are concerns, perhaps justified, that Iran will funnel nuclear material or weaponry to Hezbollah et al. Being Jihadi Boom Booms, Hezbollah et al might not show the same restraint that Iran would with such arms.

However, this is not really a concern on many commentators minds. Many would suggest preventing Iran from acquiring such weaponry simply by the virtue that they are nuclear weapons, despite the fact that a certain American ally in the region has a sizeable arsenal of its own.

My suggestion? Allow them to develop their nuclear technology, but have the international community (not the U.S or Israel) keep a strict eye on the procedures to make sure that crap doesn't slip past the radar into Hezbollah's lap.

The Japanese did not "nuke" any nation during WWII, nor did they have the capability. Only the US has ever used nuclear bombs on a civilian population. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with conventional weapons, not nuclear, in their attempt to sink the US Pacific fleet based there.

And Pearl Harbour itself was provoked by the Americans, who cut oil supplies to Japan because Japan's expansionism threatened American/British/Dutch/French puppet states in Asia. History tends to be a hell of a lot more nuanced than a simple "X happened" approach that the person you directed your reply at was taking.

Secondly, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were an act of state terrorism directed against civilian targets. Pearl Harbour was a military operation directed against the U.S Pacific Fleet. The bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki were launched because the Soviets were about to steamroll Japan and the Americans wanted to salvage an allied Japan as soon as possible before the Soviets got their boot in.

old_aussie

Be like Nutella wrote: »

with all due respect that's why I asked could people answer the question stated... Is Iran rushing for the bomb and if so how will that unfold i.e. how will they rationally get from 'we're not after it' to 'oh look we just tested one' ?

No rush, it's not a race.

They have the maps, plans and the drive to make the bomb.

Iran will be like north korea, and just detonate when ready.

srsly78

Making a baby nuke could be done quite quickly, but is only step #1. As mentioned already lots of testing would need to be done, and this could be detected easily.

Step #2: To fit a warhead on a missile it needs to be miniaturized, this is very difficult. Again lots more testing involved.

Step #3: You need loads of warheads and loads of missiles, otherwise your single missile will be easily shot down and you will look silly.

And that's only for simple fission warheads. To get proper nukes you need a Teller-Ulam thermonuclear design, which basically uses a fission bomb as the initiator. This is another 20 years of testing and development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design Don't click this if in america, you will end up on a watchlist

old_aussie

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

And Pearl Harbour itself was provoked by the Americans, who cut oil supplies to Japan because Japan's expansionism threatened American/British/Dutch/French puppet states in Asia. .

Japan had only invaded China, and not began it's expansion through Asia until after it had bombed Pearl Harbour to get the US fleet out of the way so Japan had a "free run" in the Pacific'Asia area.

The US cut oil supplies to deter Japan from further slaughter of Chinese population.

The Japanese army, for its part, was originally concerned with fighting the Soviet Union, because of the army's preoccupation with Manchuria and China.

The Japanese army governed Manchuria indirectly through the "puppet" state of Manchuria and developed heavy industry there under its favorite agencies, disliking and distrusting the zaibatsu (large Japanese corporations). But the Soviet army's resistance to Japanese attacks was sufficient to discourage northern expansion

Be like Nutella

never ceases to amaze in these discussions is the total omission of Israel's nuclear weapons in U.S. policy debates about confronting Iran. There is an unspoken understanding that Israel's bombs are an option best left off the table, even as Israeli officials routinely hint at missions where they would be used -- specifically for deterrence or to threaten deeply buried targets in Iran. This tacit agreement within Washington policy circles of focusing on Iran's nonexistent nuclear bombs, while consciously ignoring Israel's actual nuclear arsenal (which is itself directly pertinent to discussions about Iran), should be retired, especially as a more comprehensive solution between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom -- plus Germany) is pursued in the coming months.
Israeli officials provide several theories for what Iran would do with nuclear weapons: transfer them to terrorists groups, increase its support for proxy groups, and even coerce the world with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. The most commonly asserted objective, however, was offered by Netanyahu to an American television audience in early October: "Everybody knows that Iran wants to destroy Israel and it's building, trying to build, atomic bombs for that purpose."
according to LexisNexis, since Jan. 1, 2000, "Iran" and "nuclear" appear in New York Times headlines 603 times; "Israel" and "nuclear" appear 21 times. (Over that same time period, New York Times headlines also mention "nuclear" with Russia 86 times, with China 52 times, and with Pakistan 48 times.) One reason for this was offered by nuclear scholar George Perkovich: "It's like all things having to do with Israel and the United States. If you want to get ahead, you don't talk about it; you don't criticize Israel; you protect Israel."

Either Israel's nuclear capabilities play no role vis-à-vis strategies to prevent an Iran from acquiring a bomb, in which case why have them at all, or they matter in terms of the missions they support, in which case they should be open for discussion.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/25/the_real_nuclear_option_israel_iran?page=full

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

never ceases to amaze in these discussions is the total omission of Israel's nuclear weapons in U.S. policy debates about confronting Iran.

Israel has nuclear weapons, it's done. It's not a child's playground with "fairness" rules. Once a country has nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, N Korea) the clock isn't going to be wound back

To the major countries, China, US, Europe and so on - Israel's nuclear weapons are as much of a realistic direct and indirect threat as Russia's nuclear weapons - i.e. negligible

Hypothetically many scenarios can be posed but they are considered unlikely

However Iran/Saudi acquiring nukes is an avoidable headache - so all nations are pushing to avoid such a scenario

Be like Nutella

The Deal:

• Halt enrichment of uranium above 5% purity.
• "Neutralise" its stockpile of near-20%-enriched uranium, either by diluting it to less than 5% or converting it to a form which cannot be further enriched
• Not install any more centrifuges
• Leave half to three-quarters of centrifuges installed in Natanz and Fordo enrichment facilities inoperable
• Not build any more enrichment facilities
• Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low-enriched uranium
• Halt work on the construction of its heavy-water reactor at Arak,
• not attempt to produce plutonium there
• Provide daily access to Natanz and Fordo sites to IAEA inspectors and access to other facilities, mines and mills

I guess 'No Further Enrichment' means stop enriching for now rather than explicitly denying them any future right to enrich at all to any level. It's a face saving mechanism.

It's an interim deal. The fight in congress starts now. I'm depressed thinking of the crap that's going to happen in congress now. The Republican game of 'how many times can we shoot ourselves in the foot' starts now.

The most important thing is the daily IAEA access to the sites.

There can be no 'End-Run' towards a nuke in Iran under this deal or any future deal which is more limiting than this one... and that's good

But if Iran is a good boy and the sanctions don't start to lift within the next 6 months we're back at the table again.

It's incredible that the Rep congress will use their ability to stop the repeal of sanctions against Iran which will actually reduce the success of preventing a future nuclear Iran... it's mind blowing how crazy politics is in the US. It's all about suicidal party politics and incredible greed based calculations about re-election. It has to change it's very sad.

Be like Nutella

and the 2013 Hyperbolic games begin

first up

Steve Forbes and that old chestnut - NAZI Feckin Germany haha what a sap

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/11/27/a-shameful-deal-and-a-dangerous-one-too/


haha check it out

'...there was Secretary of State John Kerry, oblivious to what Churchill knew about implacable opponents. His deal with Iran is a disaster. The sanctions will begin to crumble. Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts will be barely dented by an agreement that has loopholes bigger than the proverbial dump truck to drive through. And now this negotiating process will take on a life of its own. Iran knows the U.S. must keep the talks going lest it look like it failed.

Kerry may not know what he’s doing, but President Obama knows exactly what this means: Iran will become a nuclear power. Obama’s position is for us to get over it and cope with the new reality. To him the U.S. presence in the world is a force for bad, and Iran is an aggrieved power that the U.S. and Britain didn’t do right by back in the 1950s, if not earlier.

Israel’s security? Obama thinks it brought on most of its troubles itself; anyway, Iran probably won’t nuke it, so what’s the big deal?

Will the Saudis and the Turks now go nuclear? In Obama’s worldview they can do what they want. As long as the U.S. isn’t involved, the world is a better place.

But an increasingly dangerous and hostile world won’t leave us alone. Sorry, Mr. President, America is not the source of evil. Trouble is, the American people will pay the price for your folly....'

Eggy Baby!

The US cut oil supplies to deter Japan from further slaughter of Chinese population.

So it said. But it had obvious geopolitical interests in the region which Japan was obviously threatening.

Regarding the Soviets, the Japanese attempted to expand their borders north into Mongolia and therefore Siberia, but were turned back at Khalkin Gol. Then they looked south, towards the Phillippines and Indochina (the rest is history...)

cyberhog

Headline from Maariv 1984

Khomeini’s atomic bomb enters final stages of production with German assistance.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/11/26/israeli-media-reign-of-error-predicting-iranian-nuke-1984-2013/

We've been hearing this nonsense that Iran is close to a bomb for 30 years. I don't know why people still waste their time on this non-story. There are far more pressing issues we should be discussing.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

We've been hearing this nonsense that Iran is close to a bomb for 30 years. I don't know why people still waste their time on this non-story. There are far more pressing issues we should be discussing.

Agreed, we don't need more threads repeatedly maligning certain countries by presenting a distorted and twisted version of the truth

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Agreed, we don't need more threads repeatedly maligning certain countries by presenting a distorted and twisted version of the truth

I would also like to see an end to those threads but sadly I don't think the pro western provocateurs will ever give up maliging Iran.

Jonny7

No matter what Iran does, the current Israel gov attitude of them and line toward them does not change

There's genuine common-sense criticism, then there's obsessive criticism, like the above

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

MonaPizza

Be like Nutella wrote: »

with all due respect that's why I asked could people answer the question stated... Is Iran rushing for the bomb and if so how will that unfold i.e. how will they rationally get from 'we're not after it' to 'oh look we just tested one' ?

Iran haven't invaded a country in centuries. They have suffered threats to their sovereignty including sanctions, internal stoking, assassinations, etc.

There was never a military option "on the table"..EVER. It was an empty pistol. The only people who are worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons are the ones who already have them.

Iran is a powerful, sovereign state. DEAL WITH IT. The destruction of Iraq has strengthened Iran. The pathetic effort at destroying Syria and Lebanon over the course of the last 3 years has strengthened Iran even further. China are heading to the moon while America's train are derailing and killing people or their bridges and roads are collapsing on a monthly basis.

Iran, do not want a war. They had 8 years of that sh!t with Iraq thanks to the US, UK and France. They want recognition as a regional power and they're going to get it.