A Nuclear IRAN

[L.O.A.S.]

Who thinks Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Some estimate they will have capabilities to develope them within 2 years.
Should we (The World) let them?
Should we (The USA) stop them?

[Epee_Pox]

Given that their current leader is an outspoken advocate of death and destruction, that the regime has harbored and assisted terrorists from the start, and the latent instability in a regime that sees its power threatened from within and without... And given that even the Russians and the Chinese have joined the voices condemning any nuclear program by Iran, so that world opposition is near-universal...

1) The world community should use diplomacy to persuade Iran that a nuclear program would be an unwise thing to undertake, backed up by...

2) The certain knowledge that failure to resolve the matter diplomatically will result in a serious butt-kicking. (Diplomacy without a serious threat of real consequences can have no effect. People keep forgetting this simple fact, and insist that diplomacy alone will resolve matters.)

[keith]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Given that their current leader is an outspoken advocate of death and destruction, that the regime has harbored and assisted terrorists from the start, and the latent instability in a regime that sees its power threatened from within and without...

sorry but are you talking about Iran or Pakistan?

Here is a dose of reality - short of invasion Iran will have the bomb within 5-10 years.

...of course unlike Iraq the Iranians will welcome us with flowers and garlands (honest). Although has anyone else noticed that Pakistan and India seem to be much more polite to each other these days?

[L.O.A.S.]

Here is a link to a 300+ page piece from the US Army War College on the subject (I haven't had the chance to read yet).

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...les/PUB629.pdf

Heres an opinion piece on the subject. Interesting. Scary ramifications if nothing is done.

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

The Coming of the Bomb

Readers may want to download and read Getting Ready For A Nuclear-Ready Iran, from the US Army War College. It's a wide ranging discussion of the entire Iranian nuclear weapons issue set within the larger context of nonproliferation strategy. The basic premise is that it probably impossible for the US to stop an Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, short of a full-scale invasion. And once Iran acquires nuclear weapons it will simply be a matter of time before Arab states follow.

Yet, the truth is that Iran soon can and will get a bomb option. All Iranian engineers need is a bit more time 1 to 4 years at most. No other major gaps remain: Iran has the requisite equipment to make the weapons fuel, the know-how to assemble the bombs, and the missile and naval systems necessary to deliver them beyond its borders. ... As for eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities militarily, the United States and Israel lack sufficient targeting intelligence to do this. In fact, Iran long has had considerable success in concealing its nuclear activities from U.S. intelligence analysts and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. (The latter recently warned against assuming the IAEA could find all of Iran’s illicit uranium enrichment activities). As it is, Iran already could have hidden all it needs to reconstitute a bomb program, assuming its known declared nuclear plants were hit. ...

What should we expect when, in the next 12 to 48 months, Iran secures such a breakout option? If the United States and its allies do no more than they have already done, two things. First, many of Iran’s neighbors will do their best to follow its “peaceful” example. Egypt, Algeria, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will all claim that they too need to pursue nuclear research and development to the point of having nuclear weapons options and, as a further slap in Washington’s face (and Tel Aviv’s), will point to Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program and Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal to help justify their own “civil” nuclear activities. Second, an ever more nuclear-ready Iran will try to lead the revolutionary Islamic vanguard throughout the Islamic world by becoming the main support for terrorist organizations aimed against Washington’s key regional ally, Israel; America’s key energy source, Saudi Arabia; and Washington’s prospective democratic ally, Iraq.

Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon may have more than regional significance. It could mark the final end of efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and provide Islamic terrorism with a nuclear deterrent. Islamic terrorism will literally be a Great Power. The study comes to the conclusion that only a regime change will remove the sinister edge from these developments.

Ultimately, nothing less than creating moderate self-government in Iraq, Iran, and other states in the region will bring lasting peace and nonproliferation. This, however, will take time. Meanwhile, the United States and its friends must do much more than they are currently to frustrate Iran’s efforts to divide the United States, Israel, and Europe from one another and from other friends in the Middle East and Asia; and to defeat Tehran’s efforts to use its nuclear capabilities to deter others from taking firm action against Iranian misbehavior.

Comment
An earlier post argued that only a regime change could keep Teheran from getting a nuclear weapon. Since the US Army War College paper cannot envision that happening in the short term, what we are left with then, is a new Cold War with an ideology as strong -- and probably much stronger than -- Marxism in its prime. It's hard to remember, now that the Berlin wall is a relic whose fragments have literally been sold for souvenirs, how perilous a time the Cold War was. It took more than 100,000 American lives on the battlefields of Korea and Vietnam. On at least once occasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US and the Soviet Union came close to the nuclear brink. The difference between the Cold War and the new prospective struggle is that the former was between nations while the latter is between nations and secret societies bound together only by a common hatred.

Diplomats and statesmen since the Treaty of Westphalia had grown accustomed to seeing nothing smaller than nation-states. This conceptual blindness prevented foreign ministries, academics or the United Nations -- the very name a testament to the limits of its sensibility -- from understanding that sub-national units under the banner of a world religion could arise to challenge the established international order. It was simply impossible, and yet it was. In retrospect all the signs were there. Though globalized business, unprecendented mobility, worldwide communications long weakened the prerogative of nations, they were still regarded as supreme. The world grew accustomed to the growing influence of transnational corporations without realizing that the same factors would empower other forms of transnational organization. H.G. Wells described how complacent men could be in the presence of unseen but growing danger.

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most, terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment.

With a few changes Wells' paragraph could describe the mixture of smug amusement with which the Western intellectual elite watched the growing number of Wahabist mosques, the photography of landmarks, the application for flying lessons and the attendance at courses of nuclear physics by students from older worlds. They laughed, for nothing could threaten the dominion of Western Man, supreme in his socialized state at the End of History. Even after September 11 the only question for many was how soon history would return to normal after a temporary inconvenience. Little did they imagine that the expansion of the European Union, the Kyoto Agreements and Reproductive Rights -- all the preoccupations of their unshakable world -- might be the least of humanity's concerns in the coming years.

[keith]

What possible link is there between an Iranian bomb and a Terrorist bomb?

Given all the unsecured nuclear material sloshing around the old soviet union and the willingness of North Korea and Pakistan to use Nuclear technology as a bartering tool, Iran getting a bomb doesn't really add much more insecurity to the world.

Anyway its not like they can actually use it against Israel, or anyone else, either directly or indirectly. What they can do is use it to prevent an american invasion - I suppose still a vague possibility after the debacle in Iraq - and use posturing over working on the bomb as a tool to get concessions from whomever.

So for all so terrified of the bomb in Iranian hands what should be done - as much as was done to prevent North Korea, as much as is being done to control nuclear material in the ex-soviet union?

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by keith

What possible link is there between an Iranian bomb and a Terrorist bomb?

Let's see....Iran is run by radical islamic nuts, terrorist (of the Islamic variety) are run by radical islamic nuts.

Originally Posted by keith

Given all the unsecured nuclear material sloshing around the old soviet union and the willingness of North Korea and Pakistan to use Nuclear technology as a bartering tool, Iran getting a bomb doesn't really add much more insecurity to the world.

One child in a crowded room with a loaded firearm is bad enough.You don't think two, three or four more armed children added to that mix won't make that room a much less safe place to be?

Originally Posted by keith

So for all so terrified of the bomb in Iranian hands what should be done?

Well, if we have the sack, I'd say give the Iraqi's another year to get their security situation further under their independent control, then send our guys next door to take care of business. If we time it right, it'll happen before they develope anything they can use against us, and its close to election time, so that once again we can see that the left and national security, don't go together. That is if we have the sack.

What should we expect when, in the next 12 to 48 months, Iran secures such a breakout option? If the United States and its allies do no more than they have already done, two things. First, many of Iran’s neighbors will do their best to follow its “peaceful” example. Egypt, Algeria, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will all claim that they too need to pursue nuclear research and development to the point of having nuclear weapons options and, as a further slap in Washington’s face (and Tel Aviv’s), will point to Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program and Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal to help justify their own “civil” nuclear activities. Second, an ever more nuclear-ready Iran will try to lead the revolutionary Islamic vanguard throughout the Islamic world by becoming the main support for terrorist organizations aimed against Washington’s key regional ally, Israel; America’s key energy source, Saudi Arabia; and Washington’s prospective democratic ally, Iraq.

Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon may have more than regional significance. It could mark the final end of efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and provide Islamic terrorism with a nuclear deterrent. Islamic terrorism will literally be a Great Power. The study comes to the conclusion that only a regime change will remove the sinister edge from these developments.

Of course, we know how the right runs around saying the sky is falling.

[ThatReallyHurt]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, bear with me:

US Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGM393GPK1.DTL

Various nuke stuff, but of note is further development of tactical nuclear weapons as bunker busters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb8.html

A few questions/thoughts:

Is it not somewhat possible that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons with the intention of preventing an invasion? The idea being if they have nukes, no country would dare to land troops? Or, are they trying for concessions, like what has/had been suspected about North Korea?

L.O.A.S. brings up another point with the phrase "radical islamic nuts". Let's change that around for a second... say two US presidents from now, or five, or whatever, there's a president who's a "maverick" or "unconventional" or someone who "thinks out of the box". How would the invasion of Iraq gone if Reagan had been leader? How would the invasion of Afghanistan gone if Kruschev had been leader?

Let's assume for a moment that, say, Russia develops the "antimatter bomb". It does tons more damage with a much smaller payload, and you can basically dial up how big you want the explosion to be. Now say that Russia isn't interested in selling the technology to the US - or Russia announces its intent to sell it to China or Iran. What would the US do then? If the tables were turned and the US invented the antimatter bomb, what would happen then?

What gives one country the right to project force on another? Is there a particular line that has to be crossed, or is it completely arbitrary? Why should Iran be invaded, but attempts made to open dialogue with North Korea? Keith brings up a good point, too - what about some of the former Soviet republics?

Does Iran have the ability to project a nuclear weapon onto US soil? Iraq doesn't, and they had a lot more money and backing to do the development. Heck, a good percentage of the rocket/missile technology in the region is so inaccurate and short-ranged you'd need a high-yield nuclear explosion to be sure you damaged your intended target. Should one government impose its will on another if they're on opposite sides of the planet? What if they're right next to each other?

Whoo. Sorry for the meandering, it's getting pretty late...

[L.O.A.S.]

More cheer on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700893_pf.html

The Iran Charade, Part II

By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; A17



"It was what made this E.U. Three approach so successful. They [Britain, France and Germany] stood together and they had one uniform position."

-- German Chancellor

Angela Merkel, Jan. 13

Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program.

With all this, the chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity there, too.

Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes in the imminence of the apocalypse.

Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo.

First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States.

Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs.

The only sanctions that might conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels.

The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic crisis.

Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program.

The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade.

Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.

[Slim]

Iran's foolish taunting of Isreal is what's going to be used as justification for an Israeli strike. This will be done with pretty much everyone's blessing, but they will be chastised by everyone in public. It's just a matter of time.

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Should we (The World) let them?
Should we (The USA) stop them?

Another good question is: can we stop them?

Considering that our men, money, and materials are tied up with peacekeeping in Iraq, can we really make a credible enough threat to deter the Iranians? Resolve is great, but you have to sufficient force on hand to make the resolve credible. Otherwise, all they have to do is call our bluff.

[Inquartata]

While I don't see Iran nuking Israel or anything---too many of those poor downtrodden Palestinians whose cause the Iranians love to champion living there, not to mention holy places like the Al Aqsa mosque, and too much to lose from retaliatory strikes---there are plenty of reasons why this should be quashed sooner rather than later. Also plenty of reasons why it won't be, alas.

The Iran Charade, Part II

By Charles Krauthammer

Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A17

"It was what made this E.U. Three approach so successful. They [Britain, France and Germany] stood together and they had one uniform position."

-- German Chancellor Angela Merkel


The Iran Charade, Part II

Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program.

With all this, the chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity there, too.

Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes in the imminence of the apocalypse.

Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo.

First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States.

Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs.

The only sanctions that might conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels.

The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic crisis.

Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program.

The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade.

Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.

[Slim]

JERUSALEM — Before his major stroke last week, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was working to redefine Israel's national security doctrine and was planning a withdrawal from the West Bank by 2009.
Government sources said a high-level panel of experts was formulating a doctrine that would end Israel's traditional stress on strategic depth. They said the new doctrine would deem the West Bank and Golan Heights as lacking strategic significance amid the Palestinian insurgency and the prospect of a nuclear attack by Iran.

"Many of these concepts have already been adopted by the military," a government source familiar with the panel said. "The panel would employ these concepts as part of a proposed national security doctrine."
Sharon’s longtime confidant, former Israeli Finance Minister Dan Meridor, headed the panel. The panel also included Israeli National Security Adviser Giora Eiland and his deputy, Itamar Yaad. An unidentified senior air force officer represented the military.

So far, the experts have concluded that the threat of a conventional war between Israel and its Arab neighbors has virtually disappeared. They cited Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the deterioration of Syria's military.

Instead, Israel is facing long-range threats, particularly from Iranian missiles and nuclear weapons. The experts determined that Iran would become Israel's major security concern by 2010.

The panel also determined that the Palestinian insurgency would continue to be a major threat to Israel. But the experts concluded that such a threat could not be eliminated by retention of the West Bank and Golan Heights.

The experts acknowledged the validity of Israel's traditional quest for strategic depth. They cited the need to block any invasion of the country for at least 48 hours until the military mobilized its reserves, which still comprise the lion's share of the armed forces.

But the panel said Israel has already deployed such assets as a reconnaissance satellite, long-range radar and other means to detect an Arab military buildup. The panel also determined that Israel could use its alliance with the United States to halt any Arab invasion.

Sharon's incapacitation is not expected to affect the work of the panel. Sharon's apparent successor, Vice Premier Ehud Olmert, has been the leading government supporter of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

[Slim]

Israel's military brass has concluded that an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran could eliminate that nation's nuclear weapons facilities. Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz ordered such a report as part of strategic cooperation talks with the United States.


Israeli military chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash discussed the report during his visit to the United States last week. Zeevi-Farkash met the heads of several U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, and argued that an air strike against Iran was feasible and would set back Teheran's nuclear program for up to a decade.
Asked last week whether Iran's nuclear weapons program could be eliminated in a military strike, Halutz did not blink. "Professionally, the answer is yes," Halutz told a defense seminar in Tel Aviv.

Zeevi-Farkash has gained credibility in the U.S. intelligence community. He headed several joint forums in which Israel provided accurate intelligence on Syria and Iran as well as assessments on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

But the Bush administration has quelled any serious U.S. discussion over any attack on Iran. U.S. intelligence assessments say the administration could wait until at least 2008 before Iran emerged as a nuclear threat. That would give the United States enough time to implement plans to complete its military withdrawal from Iraq over the next 18 months.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Slim

Zeevi-Farkash has gained credibility in the U.S. intelligence community. He headed several joint forums in which Israel provided accurate intelligence on Syria and Iran as well as assessments on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

... so he has credibility because he told the american intelligence community it had it all wrong on Iraq?

The obvious parrallel here is with Israel's strike the Osirak nuclear plant.

and here are a few problems with the analogy;

Osirak was a single facility being built by the french (I believe).

The Iranian facilities are all over the place (although I am sure Israel could hit them all) - but knocking down buildings doesn't really stop a domestic programme funded by $60 a barrel oil. The Iranians seem to have passed the point where they require foreign assistance in their programme (blame Russia and Pakistan).

So that'll be major difference number 1.

The Iraq plant was being built with the full knowledge of all of Saddam's other western allies at the time. Which meant that those same allies could politely warn him off pursuing the programme - he needed a fair bit of help with a border dispute at the time.

This doesn't apply to Iran - a strike would probably increase not decrease the speed with which they would move towards producing a testable bomb. Not to mention a 'state of war' with Israel would probably not be considered a bad thing by Irans current leadership. It certainly wouldn't jepordise other security ties that the country depends upon.

On a related note ,much of the vaunted intelligence comes via the IAEA, since Iran is a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty, IAEA inspectors have in effect provided a target list for Israel. Without that list strikes would probably not be practical - also there would no longer even be an atttempt to make the programme look civilian (located away from major military sites).

So post strike, you have a country that is even more motivated to gain a nuclear device, will leave the NPT and so prevent the IAEA from providing any useful lists. Ten years my arse.....

[Slim]

Originally Posted by keith

... so he has credibility because he told the american intelligence community it had it all wrong on Iraq?

Nice try, but I dont think that's what they were referring to.

Originally Posted by keith

The obvious parrallel here is with Israel's strike the Osirak nuclear plant.

and here are a few problems with the analogy;

I dont see any similarities with the Iran facilities and this one other than they are both radioactive. I am pretty sure the mission planners have a far better understanding of what they are dealing with than you or I.

Originally Posted by keith

Osirak was a single facility being built by the french (I believe).

The Iranian facilities are all over the place (although I am sure Israel could hit them all) - but knocking down buildings doesn't really stop a domestic programme funded by $60 a barrel oil. The Iranians seem to have passed the point where they require foreign assistance in their programme (blame Russia and Pakistan).

So that'll be major difference number 1.

a. I doubt it will be just knocking down a few buildings. It wouldnt be too difficult to hide the results of a nuclear tipped bunker buster in the rubble of a radioactive facility.

b. Granted, French construction is probably easier to destroy than Iranian constuction.

Originally Posted by keith

The Iraq plant was being built with the full knowledge of all of Saddam's other western allies at the time. Which meant that those same allies could politely warn him off pursuing the programme - he needed a fair bit of help with a border dispute at the time.

Not sure where you are going with this one. Are you suggesting we politely ask them to stop?

Originally Posted by keith

This doesn't apply to Iran - a strike would probably increase not decrease the speed with which they would move towards producing a testable bomb. Not to mention a 'state of war' with Israel would probably not be considered a bad thing by Irans current leadership. It certainly wouldn't jepordise other security ties that the country depends upon.

I guess continuously threatening to wipe Isreal off the map doesnt already create a virtual "state of war"?

Originally Posted by keith

On a related note ,much of the vaunted intelligence comes via the IAEA, since Iran is a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty, IAEA inspectors have in effect provided a target list for Israel. Without that list strikes would probably not be practical - also there would no longer even be an atttempt to make the programme look civilian (located away from major military sites).

If you are silly enough to believe Iran has been 100% upfront about their programs, then you may be silly enough to believe that Israel doesnt have their own independently acquired list of interesting places to destroy.

Originally Posted by keith

So post strike, you have a country that is even more motivated to gain a nuclear device, will leave the NPT and so prevent the IAEA from providing any useful lists. Ten years my arse.....

More motivated, perhaps. But I think they are pretty motivated now. Delt a major setback? For sure. So does that mean you leave them alone and let them get it anyways? Or perhaps pull a feel-good "Albright" and throw them a lot of money and aid which will end up being used to accelerate the process?

[keith]

Originally Posted by Slim

Nice try, but I dont think that's what they were referring to.

just an observation on a bit of interesting Hagiography that's all. I remember back in the day lots of wise head worrying about what would happen once Glasnost and Perestroika lead to a revitalization of the soviet economy......

Originally Posted by Slim

I dont see any similarities with the Iran plant and thia one other than they are both radioactive. I am pretty sure the mission planners have a far better understanding of what they are dealing with than you or I.

Actually should you bother to read up the Iraqi plant wasn't radioactive - the Israelis made a point of not hitting the test reactors which conatined fuel.

Originally Posted by Slim

a. I doubt it will be just knocking down a few buildings. It wouldnt be too difficult to hide the results of a nuclear tipped bunker buster in the rubble of a radioactive facility.

b. Granted, French construction is probably easier to destroy than Iranian constuction.

Not if you have to drop tens of the things all over Iran - go read all the details on the IAEA web site. Also all they did at Osirak was cave in the roof - it was a beautiful example of making your point in the simplest way. Political expediency on Saddam's part took care of the rest.

Originally Posted by Slim

Not sure where you are going with this one. Are you suggesting we politely ask them to stop?

The politics were different - Saddam needed to keep his western allies on side, he saw no advantage in disputing this with Israel. So he quit his nuclear programme - as much examination has since confirmed. Iran has no reason to make the same choice, they don't need western approval or military aid - so the consequences will be different.

Original