A Nuclear IRAN

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by keith

Did they? You mean that the Syrians looked at the mess in Iraq and decided that america might just go for second time lucky? Or was it a case that the Lebanese themselves had had enough and that the Syrians new the game was up?

And what do you think it was that emboldened the Lebanese to demand Syria's withdrawal? The Lebanese themselves have attributed it to watching free elections in Iraq. And those elections were made possible by....was it diplomacy? No. It was crude military force.

Syria may not exactly be afraid that it's next on the invasion plans, but its ruling famly has been weakened by events in Iraq, specifically by the loss of a recently burgeoning economic and political rapport with its fellow Baathist state. Which was the result of...was it diplomacy? No. Military force.


Syria has reduced its support for Hezbollah, at least publicly. This is proximately the result of diplomacy, but of diplomacy arising out of the US position in Iraq.

So the saudi's have suddenly cut funding for Whabbist exports?

As I understand it, yes. Certainly they have held some local elections, and even made a few weak steps in the direction of female participation. And they have discovered that the zealot groups are no longer content to leave the House of Saud alone in return for free rein elsewhere...and the zealots have turned inward at least in part because of Saudi "complicity" in Iraq.

There is a perfectly reasonable arguement to make that the Iraq invasion has changed nothing. Or perhaps since things tend to change over time anyway that it is a hard sell to claim that the changes are not due to long term demographic/economic pressures (see various of the smaller gulf sultinates) plus the general increase in awareness that the domestic policies of our erstwhile allies should be a concern, which has meant that for the first time the west is actually applying pressure rather than tut-tutting while winking off camera.

True, and a good thing to remember: correlation does not prove causation.

But the timing certainly is at least a tiny bit suspicious, don't you think?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Slim

I think you are forgetting that what really triggered his change of heart was seeing Iraq fall in a matter of days coupled with the memory of almost getting blown up the last time he was in the crosshairs.

It is quite funny how Bu****es claim that the conflict in Iraq has had this 'domino effect' within Libya. Nothing could be further than the truth. As Joseph Cirincione, author of "Deadly Arsenals" and director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states:

"This is something that goes back over 10 years of international pressure on the Qaddafi regime. Over the last six or seven years, Qaddafi has steadily moved towards Europe, waiting to integrate, focused on a program of economic development for Libya.

That means he needs Western investment and markets. That means he has to comply with international norms. So this whole move precedes the Bush administration and precedes the war in Iraq."

The process, if anything, was about Qaddafi shoring up his domestic situation by improving the standard of living in his country (by ending sanctions). A process that devoloped from Libya's final acceptance of its role in Lockerbie and the handing over of two suspects.

Even former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that diplomacy should be given most of the credit.

"I think the dialogue in Libya started before (the war)," Blix said

It was a combination of international pressure that appeared to be related to 9/11- and it was, but only in that it gave Qaddafi a perfect opportunity to inact a decision already made. In the end it worked in his favour to appear to be scared into this decision (by war in Iraq) because it was useful to allow Bush to give the impression that the 'war on terror' was working. It suited everyone. Qaddafi played it brilliantly as everyone was happy.

The truth is that Bush was so embarrassed by the failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (as well as Bin Laden), that he tried to find another WMD-related justification for his pre-emptive war on Iraq. Remember that the first Libyan offer to get rid of WMD (whjat use were they anyway?) was way back in May 1999. Then United Nations and US sanctions prevented Libya importing oilfield technology that made it impossible for Mr. Gadaffi to expand oil production. The only way out was to seek rapprochement with Washington. Reinforcing this economic imperative was Mr. Gadaffi's own quest for respectability. Fed up with pan-Arabism, he turned to Africa, only to find little support from old allies there. Removing the sanctions and their accompanying stigma became his priority.

Qadhafi had also become the target of the radical Islamist Anas al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda operative suspected of involvement in terrorism in East Africa, as well. After September 11, Qadhafi associated himself with the US war on terror, in hopes of seeing al-Libi killed and the Libyan branch of radical Islamism devastated.

As for

Maybe you forget that Reagan planted the fear of airstrikes in his head back in 86?

Again, the hawks have explained Qadhafi's abandonment of support for terrorism with reference to Ronald Reagan's 1986 bombing of Tripoli; not being good at maths, they don't seem to realize that 1988 comes after 1986. One could more reasonably draw the conclusion that the US aerial strike encouraged Libya to commit more terrorism.)

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

Nice try boys!

Incidently I think that perhaps we should be talking about why sanctions worked in Libya, whilst invasion has failed in Iraq.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And what do you think it was tha emboldened the Lebanese to demand Syria's withdrawal? The Lebanese themselves have attributed it to watching free elections in Iraq. And those elections were made possible by....was it diplomacy? No. It was crude military force.

So are you arguing that even without the Feb. 14 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, the huge diplomatic pressure from FRANCE (YES FRANCE) and the Saudis, plus the huge Lebanese demonstrations. Even without all of this, crude military force would have provoked a withdrawal anyway?

Seems like more wishful thinking again (combined with a desperate need to salvage some positives from the invasion).

This Wash Post article, tracking the withdrawal, doesn't even mention the War in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...005Mar5_2.html

[Slim]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Incidently I think that perhaps we should be talking about why sanctions worked in Libya, whilst invasion has failed in Iraq.

Might be good for another thread, but sanctions only have a chance to have an effect if they are enforced. Clearly with Iraq, they were not. Perhaps if the UN and it's members were not so involved in trying to milk Iraq for personal gains and ignoring what was really happening, they would have been more effective.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

It is quite funny how Bu****es claim that the conflict in Iraq has had this 'domino effect' within Libya. Nothing could be further than the truth. As Joseph Cirincione, author of "Deadly Arsenals" and director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states:

"This is something that goes back over 10 years of international pressure on the Qaddafi regime. Over the last six or seven years, Qaddafi has steadily moved towards Europe, waiting to integrate, focused on a program of economic development for Libya.

That means he needs Western investment and markets. That means he has to comply with international norms. So this whole move precedes the Bush administration and precedes the war in Iraq."

The process, if anything, was about Qaddafi shoring up his domestic situation by improving the standard of living in his country (by ending sanctions). A process that devoloped from Libya's final acceptance of its role in Lockerbie and the handing over of two suspects.

Even former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that diplomacy should be given most of the credit.

"I think the dialogue in Libya started before (the war)," Blix said

It was a combination of international pressure that appeared to be related to 9/11- and it was, but only in that it gave Qaddafi a perfect opportunity to inact a decision already made. In the end it worked in his favour to appear to be scared into this decision (by war in Iraq) because it was useful to allow Bush to give the impression that the 'war on terror' was working. It suited everyone. Qaddafi played it brilliantly as everyone was happy.

The truth is that Bush was so embarrassed by the failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (as well as Bin Laden), that he tried to find another WMD-related justification for his pre-emptive war on Iraq. Remember that the first Libyan offer to get rid of WMD (whjat use were they anyway?) was way back in May 1999. Then United Nations and US sanctions prevented Libya importing oilfield technology that made it impossible for Mr. Gadaffi to expand oil production. The only way out was to seek rapprochement with Washington. Reinforcing this economic imperative was Mr. Gadaffi's own quest for respectability. Fed up with pan-Arabism, he turned to Africa, only to find little support from old allies there. Removing the sanctions and their accompanying stigma became his priority.

Qadhafi had also become the target of the radical Islamist Anas al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda operative suspected of involvement in terrorism in East Africa, as well. After September 11, Qadhafi associated himself with the US war on terror, in hopes of seeing al-Libi killed and the Libyan branch of radical Islamism devastated.

As for

Again, the hawks have explained Qadhafi's abandonment of support for terrorism with reference to Ronald Reagan's 1986 bombing of Tripoli; not being good at maths, they don't seem to realize that 1988 comes after 1986. One could more reasonably draw the conclusion that the US aerial strike encouraged Libya to commit more terrorism.)

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

Nice try boys!

Incidently I think that perhaps we should be talking about why sanctions worked in Libya, whilst invasion has failed in Iraq.

Thanks once again for setting us all straight with the truth....

Man, you should try hide your bias a wee bit better. I find it funny that you continuously talk of "Bu****es", and "Bush", hawks and neo-cons when referring to anyone in the US adminstration or anyone who may agree with some of their actions. Yet, when you talk of terrorists, you refer to them as "Mr" and their plights to achieve respectiblity?

Ah, to be a student in the warm, insulated caccoon of higher education.

[pigeonmeister]

Inquartata]It is however obliged to conduct its development program in the open, with IAEA monitoring. Instead it has done so to a very large extent in secret. This is a violation of Article III of the NNPT

Firstly most countries have violated the NNPT- again the issue of Western double standards blights the situation. As you can see even Britain is in violation. See:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=18398

Secondly I think that the person best placed to judge whether Iran is in violation of the treaty (a treaty I am fairly sure you have not read) would be IAEA director-general Mohamed El Baradei. In fact Baradei has catogorically stated that the Iranians are not in violation.

The nuclear reactor program begun under the Shah neither included nor contemplated a fuel-enrichment program. Iran was to obtain all of its reactor fuels from outside the country.

There was no anticipation that Iran wouldn't ever want to control the whole cycle? (thus not being held to ransom by an outside supply) The issue is also that America judged the Iranian nuclear programme as neccessary under the Shah but completely unneccessary now. Also according to recently revealed documents discovered in Tehran after the revolution, in the late 1970s Iran and Israel discussed a plan to modify Israel's surface-to-surface Jericho missiles for use by Iran—missiles that could be equipped with nuclear weapons. And, despite Akbar Etemad's beliefs, the Western intelligence community had long suspected that the Shah's nuclear scientists conducted research into military applications. Suspected activities at the TNRC include nuclear weapons design, plutonium extraction and laser-enrichment research. By the time of the Islamic Revolution in January 1979, Iran's nuclear program was considered one the most advanced in the Middle East.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/1819.html

The only logical reason to engage in enrichment is the production of "special" fissile materials, which cannot be transferred to non-nuclear states under the NNPT.

The only logical conclusion if you think they are trying to get a bomb. There are other reasons why- perhaps they fear US pressure on suppliers. I thought that under the NPT, a country is allowed, under inspection by the IAEA, to enrich uranium to a level needed to make fuel for nuclear power. I think they are willing to allow any kind of IAEA inspection to this end.

To cripple its nuclear capability as a whole? Correct. To cripple its nuclear weapons development capability? Not at all. Simply damaging any one of the stages of its enrichment program would accomplish this. The IAEA has said that even restarting the processes after the last shutdown may be difficult for the Iranians, due to their physical complexities. Interrupting the process in a more vigorous manner might well set Iran back decades.

I suggest that there is a good reason why Iran has gone to such lengths to harden the Natanz complex, where they are building their gas centrifuging and other stages of the enrichment process. They know that fairly mild damage there would catastrophic for their hopes of a bomb.

That is conjecture, in any case it is all or nothing with absolutely NO GUARANTEE of success. You bomb then you have sustained all-out war until either America had the guts to lose thousands in forced regime change. You could be talking about a 20 year War. Iran has promised to retaliate. It has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; “they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success.” (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran’s armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran’s air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).

I promise you that Israel doesn't have the intelligence or the hardware to take them out. Israel has 25 aircraft that can make it to the main Iranian nuclear facilities ? 25 F-15 Is, that would be getting there on fumes?OK? They would probably be carrying bombs about the size of this water glass, because they would require that much fuel to get out there.

"I spent a lot of time with Israeli air force officers who were looking hard at this problem, and they all believed they cannot do it. And that is why you are hearing the government of Israel shouting so loudly"

Kenneth Pollack, research director of the Brookings Institution

"I don't believe there is a military solution to the issue"

Mohamed ElBaradei

Do you question whether an Iranian bomb would be more destabilizing for the region than Israel's has been?

If Iran wants a bomb because Israel does then yes. If you are asking me in which country I would rather see the regime fall, then it would be Iran.

I tend to agree with you here. The mullahs may be fanatics, but they and their political edifice have been content to send others out to die as suicide commandos. They have demonstrated no eagerness to die themselves, which is what a nuclear strike against Israel would entail. They wish to remain in power and to rule an Islamic Republic, to play puppetmasters, not to be reduced to cinders in an ash wasteland, I think.

Exactly

Too fatalistic for me, I'm afraid. Nothing is inevitable, and to argue that an end is inevitable so why fight it is...distasteful. Nor is it all that clear that nothing CAN be done

Mr. Aqamohammadi, head of the Supreme National Security Council publicity committee, declares that Iran "will never accept total suspension of uranium enrichment" and that the negotiations currently underway are to define the guarantees "so that we can have the fuel cycle and this process can take its proper course."

I will take any money you like on this: Iran will have have uranium enrichment capabilties. I think this feeling is getting close to academic consensus.

It should be noted that the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you know anything about Iranian constitutional politics you should know that this is a hugely powerful statement. If you know anything about Iranian pragmatism, however, then you might be tempted to think that they want to have the abilty to get one if the need arose in the future (which is what control of the cycle is about)

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Slim

Thanks once again for setting us all straight with the truth....

Man, you should try hide your bias a wee bit better. I find it funny that you continuously talk of "Bu****es", and "Bush", hawks and neo-cons when referring to anyone in the US adminstration or anyone who may agree with some of their actions. Yet, when you talk of terrorists, you refer to them as "Mr" and their plights to achieve respectiblity?

Ah, to be a student in the warm, insulated caccoon of higher education.

Is that the best you can do?

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But they are. Specifically, they violated Article III by acting in secret in order to circumvent the applicable monitoring and verification procedures. They further violate it every time they break IAEA seals and restart their centrifuge program...

The activities, enrichment etc are not banned, what is problematic is how much they did or did not tell the IAEA about legal activities - remember its not permission that is required only 'notification'.

As to the seals they don't violate anything because the seals are broken in the presence of IAEA observers. To repeat myself the NPT is a joke - and has been for decades.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

True, and a good thing to remember: correlation does not prove causation.

But the timing certainly is at least a tiny bit suspicious, don't you think?

Well I will simply make the observation again (that covers most of your points); Western governments finally discovered that it could become their problem when they took bedfellows of convienience in the middle east - Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran - have all at various times fallen into this category. Is it good that we are finally getting uncomfortable with the goings on in these states? Of course it is.

Can you untangle what parts of the changes are due to the invasion of Iraq and those that are due to an increased wariness in supporting dodgy regimes - nope. Afterall you say Syria I say Iran and you have to streeetch to claim that Syria was only responding to the invasion of Iraq.

Anyway as a cynical former leftist I find it surreal to listen to people complaining about regimes who us head in the sand liberals pointed out should not be our friends years ago. I seriously doubt that a return to pragmatic alliances wont be back in vogue in a few years - it already is in the case of Pakistan. Now there is nation that knows how to promote the NPT.

That is IMHO opinion the problem - it will sooner, rather than later, be convinient for a host of obvious reasons to drop the tiny amount pressure being placed on countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to reform and so ten years from now we'll (well you will ) be back arguing about it all again .

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

That is conjecture, in any case it is all or nothing with absolutely NO GUARANTEE of success. You bomb then you have sustained all-out war until either America had the guts to lose thousands in forced regime change. You could be talking about a 20 year War. Iran has promised to retaliate. It has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; “they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success.” (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran’s armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran’s air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).

I can see why you would be so worried for our military. Still, I would put the over/under closer to 8 months rather than 20 years(based on history). End state does not necessarily have to be regime change. I'd be willing to bet the Iranian military will cease to exist as an effective fighting force.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

So are you arguing that even without the Feb. 14 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, the huge diplomatic pressure from FRANCE (YES FRANCE) and the Saudis, plus the huge Lebanese demonstrations. Even without all of this, crude military force would have provoked a withdrawal anyway?

I'm arguing that it played a part. And the assassination of Hariri, if indeed it was a Syrian operation ( there's not yet been an definitive finding, I don't think ) could be seen as the result of the pressure on Assad & Co. resulting from the US presence in Iraq.

Seems like more wishful thinking again (combined with a desperate need to salvage some positives from the invasion).

Could be. I admit it. All the evidence isn't in.

Can you admit the possibility that it might be more?

If not, which of us is more locked into an ideological position?

This Wash Post article, tracking the withdrawal, doesn't even mention the War in Iraq.

Which proves...what?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I'm arguing that it played a part. And the assassination of Hariri, if indeed it was a Syrian operation ( there's not yet been an definitive finding, I don't think ) could be seen as the result of the pressure on Assad & Co. resulting from the US presence in Iraq.

I thought that you were arguing that without the invasion of Iraq then Syria would have not withdrawn from Lebanon- in effect the most important factor was 'crude military fore'. I am arguing that if Syria hadn't taken out Hariri then the likelihood is that they would still be in Lebanon (although I believe the writing was on the wall for a withdrawal soonish) Either way I agree the US military presence was a 'factor', but to be honest I don't think you presented it in this balanced context.

Could be. I admit it. All the evidence isn't in

I think there it seems fairly obvious that Bush claimed positive 'movement' in both Libya and Syria as a direct consequence of the war- in essence a victory for the US military. I think it is equally obvious that the war was not the major contributing factor in either case. You are always very selective when choosing to make a judgement based on 'evidence'. When you feel you are are on strong ground you seem happy to make judgements without ALL the evidence.

Can you admit the possibility that it might be more?

Can I admit that military action in Iraq could be a footnote in these 2 issues- maybe. A direct consequence (in the way Bush has tried to peddle)- never.

If not, which of us is more locked into an ideological position?

I have no interest in ideology. Most Europeans are locked into a negative position regarding Bush, I am happy to admit that if you scratch the surface of this (and the anti-war movement in general) most havn't any real undestanding of the context of American foreign policy. Because of this- ideology doesn't, in my opinion, matter much on this issue. All ideologies seem to unite in their dislike of Bush anyway. I do broadly take your point though.

Which proves...what?

absolutely nothing! Is it telling though?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I can see why you would be so worried for our military. Still, I would put the over/under closer to 8 months rather than 20 years(based on history). End state does not necessarily have to be regime change. I'd be willing to bet the Iranian military will cease to exist as an effective fighting force.

Are you honestly arguing that if Iran maintains its demand to enrich Uranium you are willing to enter a state of war with Iran? And, furthermore, you predict that the Iranian military will cease to exist in 8 months?

I am genuinly shocked that a man of such clear intelligence can make such a dangerously ambitious statement.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

I thought that you were arguing that without the invasion of Iraq then Syria would have not withdrawn from Lebanon- in effect the most important factor was 'crude military fore'. I am arguing that if Syria hadn't taken out Hariri then the likelihood is that they would still be in Lebanon (although I believe the writing was on the wall for a withdrawal soonish) Either way I agree the US military presence was a 'factor', but to be honest I don't think you presented it in this balanced context.

My argument is that diplomatic efforts are ineffective against thuggish rulers, unless there is a believable threat that, should diplomacy fail, military destruction will ensue.

The United States and most of Europe spent many years giving thuggish rulers every reason to believe that diplomacy would NOT be backed up by meaningful force, resulting in strongmen pushing things and flouting international demands and encouraging terrorists and getting more and more dangerous.

Recently, the United States and some of Europe have changed their tack, as demonstrated by Afghanistan and Iraq. They are now committed to the use of force when diplomacy fails. The thugs are starting to realize this.

And now that they realize this, diplomacy is starting to work. Absent the real threat of force, however, diplomacy would not be having the positive effects it is having now.

Are there other factors? Of course. And are some of the thugs still slow to change? Of course. But that does not make what I just said any less true.

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

I think there it seems fairly obvious that Bush claimed positive 'movement' in both Libya and Syria as a direct consequence of the war- in essence a victory for the US military. I think it is equally obvious that the war was not the major contributing factor in either case. You are always very selective when choosing to make a judgement based on 'evidence'. When you feel you are are on strong ground you seem happy to make judgements without ALL the evidence.

I'll leave this p!ssing match to you and Inq.

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Can I admit that military action in Iraq could be a footnote in these 2 issues- maybe. A direct consequence (in the way Bush has tried to peddle)- never.

Then you are missing the point.

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

absolutely nothing! Is it telling though?

Not really. Not if you are familiar with the editorial policy of the Washington Post.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Are you honestly arguing that if Iran maintains its demand to enrich Uranium you are willing to enter a state of war with Iran? And, furthermore, you predict that the Iranian military will cease to exist in 8 months?

I am genuinly shocked that a man of such clear intelligence can make such a dangerously ambitious statement.

Really? Which would be the foolish message:

(a) "Iran, if you do not bow to international demands that you comply with international law... If you do not cease all attempts at nuclear fuel enrichment that create weapons-grade materials... Then we will not use any military force, but you can be sure we will pass resolutions condemning your actions and try to talk Russia and China into agreeing to some economic sanctions."

or

(b) "Iran, if you do not bow to international demands [etc.]... Then we will put economic and other pressures on you. If that doesn't work, then we will wipe out your military, remove you from power, and give control of your country to the masses you have oppressed and let them decide what to do with you."