How to deal with Iran

[cpt_azad]

linkage: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/9302/Bush_Planning_Nuclear_Strikes_On_Iranian_Secret_Sites



The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.


President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.


Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.


Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.


This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.


Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.


The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.


The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.


Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "


Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".


Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.


The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".

No comment, since I'm completely "neutraled" out on this issue. I for one believe that Iran is a threat, not the people mind you (albeit a majority are), but the government at hand. I would love to see democracy embrace Iran, but not in the way Iraq has embraced it.


Diplomacy should be a first act. And if all else fails....


But knowing the Bush Admin....


Like I said, I for one am neutral on this issue, I believe that democracy should be brought to Iran (its countries like Iran that give Islam a bad name and portray it as such a backwards religion not to mention use it as a shield and as an excuse for unexcusable acts) but not through the use of war. When you start to sentence and kill innocent people for defending themselves and commit acts that go against the basic Human Rights, something must be done. (http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/4701/17_Year_Old_Girl_Sentenced_To_Death_By_Hanging)

Before you flame, yes, I strongly believe that US should be held accountable and should answer to the thousands upon thousands of acts that they've commited themselves that greatly outweigh those that were commited by other countries. (and please don't post something about Rwanda or anything, that is totally out of context, I'm talking about small acts that have been accumalating for a loooong time)

Oh, and this is all assuming they (Iran) don't launch their attacks first, which is highly unlikely.

Keep in mind this post is coming from a user who loaths the US Foreign Policy and Israel's many many policies.

Your thoughts on this?

[sArA]

Well put Cpt....

My initial reaction is that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be a disastrous mistake.

[Seedler]

Totally against it.

One nuke fired=60,000 in the world all fired.

I don't want a nuclear winter.

[j2k4]

Well put Cpt....

My initial reaction is that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be a disastrous mistake.

My first reaction is that Seymour Hersh is full of shit.

Cap, your distaste for American foreign policy is a bit too obvious for any simultaneous personal claim of neutrality on the matter of Iran.

As to the export of democracy, it is either part of foreign policy or it is not, and the only qualifying determinants are logistics and methodologies.

In other words, what fit for Iraq may have no bearing on Iran; the coalition of the "willing" in the case of Iraq may share no relationship/resemblance whatsoever with any that may develop over Iran.

Iran still has a healthy and youthful population evincing a "Western" empathy.

As the Iraqi war began, Iran was considered to be on the verge of a revolution of sorts, if you'll remember...

Actually, I see Iran as quite fragmented, internally.

The larger issue for me is Iran's relationship with a seemingly re-born Russia; there are economic considerations burgeoning (oil, natural gas) vis a vis Russia and Western Europe which are obscured somewhat by the concern over Iran, and Russia doesn't mind the fact at all (at all).

[j2k4]

Totally against it.

One nuke fired=60,000 in the world all fired.

I don't want a nuclear winter.

Quite right; 'twould mean the end of global warming. :O

EDIT-

On second thought...:D

[vidcc]

Seems to me that a good rule of thumb is listen to what Bush actually says on the issue.
Today he said reports that his administration has considered nuclear strikes was "wild speculation" and that they are trying to resolve the Iran issue through diplomacy.....
Given that Bush and his administration have been caught in so many "mistruths" lately or used "truthiness (http://www.americandialect.org/index.php/amerdial/truthiness_voted_2005_word_of_the_year/)", for him to make that statements worries me that Hersh may have some ground for his article.

[cpt_azad]

Well put Cpt....

My initial reaction is that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be a disastrous mistake.
My first reaction is that Seymour Hersh is full of shit.

Cap, your distaste for American foreign policy is a bit too obvious for any simultaneous personal claim of neutrality on the matter of Iran.

As to the export of democracy, it is either part of foreign policy or it is not, and the only qualifying determinants are logistics and methodologies.

In other words, what fit for Iraq may have no bearing on Iran; the coalition of the "willing" in the case of Iraq may share no relationship/resemblance whatsoever with any that may develop over Iran.

Iran still has a healthy and youthful population evincing a "Western" empathy.

As the Iraqi war began, Iran was considered to be on the verge of a revolution of sorts, if you'll remember...

Actually, I see Iran as quite fragmented, internally.

The larger issue for me is Iran's relationship with a seemingly re-born Russia; there are economic considerations burgeoning (oil, natural gas) vis a vis Russia and Western Europe which are obscured somewhat by the concern over Iran, and Russia doesn't mind the fact at all (at all).
Oh, and pray tell what that exactly is supposed to signify?

Because of my distaste of the American Foreign Policy, my neutrality just "cancels" out and I automatically side with no war/no change in Iran?

I think not.

But as any sane person would point out, to hell with Nuclear war, I'm too young to die :)

[DanB]

This story spent the day yesterday getting rip to shreds on the news and in the papers as being a fabrication on this Seymour Hersh's behalf.

[ahctlucabbuS]

This story spent the day yesterday getting rip to shreds on the news and in the papers as being a fabrication on this Seymour Hersh's behalf.

If you're referring to Bush's press conference, I certainly wouldn't take his word for it, and would agree with vidcc.

Bush might be committed to diplomacy for the time beeing. However I seriously doubt that his military strategists is sitting around with no contingency plan of sorts, at the very least. Especially if it's true that reaching the underground facilities by conventional weapons proves hard, then a nuclear scenario seems entirely plausible.

On what grounds are the article said to be a fabrication?




The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”



He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”


One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[j2k4]

My first reaction is that Seymour Hersh is full of shit.

Cap, your distaste for American foreign policy is a bit too obvious for any simultaneous personal claim of neutrality on the matter of Iran.

As to the export of democracy, it is either part of foreign policy or it is not, and the only qualifying determinants are logistics and methodologies.

In other words, what fit for Iraq may have no bearing on Iran; the coalition of the "willing" in the case of Iraq may share no relationship/resemblance whatsoever with any that may develop over Iran.

Iran still has a healthy and youthful population evincing a "Western" empathy.

As the Iraqi war began, Iran was considered to be on the verge of a revolution of sorts, if you'll remember...

Actually, I see Iran as quite fragmented, internally.

The larger issue for me is Iran's relationship with a seemingly re-born Russia; there are economic considerations burgeoning (oil, natural gas) vis a vis Russia and Western Europe which are obscured somewhat by the concern over Iran, and Russia doesn't mind the fact at all (at all).
Oh, and pray tell what that exactly is supposed to signify?

Because of my distaste of the American Foreign Policy, my neutrality just "cancels" out and I automatically side with no war/no change in Iran?

I think not.

But as any sane person would point out, to hell with Nuclear war, I'm too young to die :)

We're generally aware of your stance, I think, but you might have made your post and left out the superfluous critical recounting of Bush's foreign policy.

It had the effect of compromising the question, as well as your sincerity in asking it.

I guess you could say you short-circuited your intent by making it less apparent.

[j2k4]

If you're referring to Bush's press conference, I certainly wouldn't take his word for it, and would agree with vidcc.

Bush might be committed to diplomacy for the time beeing. However I seriously doubt that his military strategists is sitting around with no contingency plan of sorts, at the very least. Especially if it's true that reaching the underground facilities by conventional weapons proves hard, then a nuclear scenario seems entirely plausible.

On what grounds are the article said to be a fabrication?




The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”



He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”


One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

The fact that just about any nuclear scenario you can imagine has been gamed to a fare-thee-well by nerds whose work lives are separated by rows upon rows of Herman Miller walls in the basement of the Pentagon should provide fodder for any number of columns Hersh might wish to write, I think.

That a substantial part of our defense budget has been spent paying these people to use their imaginations in aid of a degree of preparedness we hope is never necessary seems to have compelled Mr. Hersh to cast into imminent reality a script that surely exists, but only on the hard-drive of a DOD computor somewhere.

I have heard he next plans to publish his "findings" relative to North Korea as well. :dry:

[j2k4]

Edit: Double post

[cpt_azad]

Thanks for the insight J2, wasn't aware of the fact that posting my opinion on an article is contrary to asking others of their opinion.

Are you suggesting that if others read my post after reading the lengthy article, their minds will instantly change and become biased? I think not.

But you are right, to maintain a certain level of professionalism, I should not have added the so called "superfluous" bit....but then again it was an opinion.

[Sneakydave]

I fail to see why iran cant have nuclear weapons if they want... isnt it a tad hypocritical for america to be considering using one of its thousands of nukes to stop another country even beginning to have the technology to possibly make one of its own several years from now?

[j2k4]

Thanks for the insight J2, wasn't aware of the fact that posting my opinion on an article is contrary to asking others of their opinion.

Are you suggesting that if others read my post after reading the lengthy article, their minds will instantly change and become biased? I think not.

But you are right, to maintain a certain level of professionalism, I should not have added the so called "superfluous" bit....but then again it was an opinion.

You've misapprehended me.

Let me try again:

You begin by claiming a neutral stance.

After properly providing a bit of context, you reiterate your neutrality.

This indicates you are taking pains to ensure your correspondents are aware of this.

You begin your turnabout with the "But knowing the Bush administration..." blurb-not bad at all, to that point.

You then proceed to state your belief that the "U.S. ought to be held accountable for the thousands upon thousands of acts that they've commited themselves that greatly outweigh those that were commited by other countries...", which pretty much destroys the framework you've tried so hard to lay.

You finish off your claim of neutrality with this:

"Keep in mind this post is coming from a user who loaths the US Foreign Policy and Israel's many many policies."

See what I mean?

The first shot was sufficient.

The rest made your claim of a "neutral" stance disingenuous.

As one who occasionally attempts an objective take or question on certain matters, I have learned the hard way that, requisite to obtaining the opinions you desire, especially when your stance is general knowledge (I know about that, you see), you must couch your request carefully.

I did not intend to suppress the enthusiasm you have for your disgust with Bush's foreign policy, I merely tried to indicate the wisdom of reserving it for a later post, once your guidelines were being properly observed.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.

[j2k4]

double post

[cpt_azad]

Thanks, that makes it clearer.

[cpt_azad]

Take 10-15 minutes to read the entire article and try to actually understand it, yes it's all over the place, but its basically a "summing-up" of "everything". Quite intersting really, once again, we must not rule out diplomacy, but if it does come to war, I'll end up supporting it (unlike Iraq) because Iran is an actual potential threat unlike Iraq was.

linkage: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/9239/US_considers_use_of_nuclear_weapon_against_Iran




The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.” (In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:
I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government”—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ ”—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,” the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,” specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.
A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.”

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. “The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,” he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?”
http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably expand. One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official, who is also an expert on war planning, told me that he would have vigorously argued against an air attack on Iran, because “Iran is a much tougher target” than Iraq. But, he added, “If you’re going to do any bombing to stop the nukes, you might as well improve your lie across the board. Maybe hit some training camps, and clear up a lot of other problems.”

The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that “ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who believe it’s the way to operate”—that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.

If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops “are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds,” the consultant said. One goal is to get “eyes on the ground”—quoting a line from “Othello,” he said, “Give me the ocular proof.” The broader aim, the consultant said, is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
The President’s deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his determination to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by allegations that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of the Revolutionary Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad’s official biography in this period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who has been implicated in the deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of Hezbollah; he remains on the F.B.I.’s list of most-wanted terrorists.

Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government “are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They’re apocalyptic Shiites. If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there’s no reason to back off.”

Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power base throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they had replaced thousands of civil servants with their own members. One former senior United Nations official, who has extensive experience with Iran, depicted the turnover as “a white coup,” with ominous implications for the West. “Professionals in the Foreign Ministry are out; others are waiting to be kicked out,” he said. “We may be too late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever since the revolution.” He said that, particularly in consideration of China’s emergence as a superpower, Iran’s attitude was “To hell with the West. You can do as much as you like.”

Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered by many experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad. “Ahmadinejad is not in control,” one European diplomat told me. “Power is diffuse in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are among the key backers of the nuclear program, but, ultimately, I don’t think they are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has the casting vote on the nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action without his approval.”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that “allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous.” He added, “The whole internal debate is on which way to go”—in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the American action. “God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen.”

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
While almost no one disputes Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is intense debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do about that. Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, “Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away” from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Gallucci added, “If they had a covert nuclear program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I’d be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it”—bomb Iran—“without being able to show there’s a secret program, you’re in trouble.”

Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, told the Knesset last December that “Iran is one to two years away, at the latest, from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion of their nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter.” In a conversation with me, a senior Israeli intelligence official talked about what he said was Iran’s duplicity: “There are two parallel nuclear programs” inside Iran—the program declared to the I.A.E.A. and a separate operation, run by the military and the Revolutionary Guards. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this argument, but Israel has not produced public evidence to support it. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term, told me, “I think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program—I believe it, but I don’t know it.”

In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new access to A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic bomb. Khan, who is now living under house arrest in Islamabad, is accused of setting up a black market in nuclear materials; he made at least one clandestine visit to Tehran in the late nineteen-eighties. In the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on Iran’s weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. “The picture is of ‘unquestionable danger,’ ” the former senior intelligence official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that Khan has been “singing like a canary.”) The concern, the former senior official said, is that “Khan has credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he’s telling the neoconservatives what they want to hear”—or what might be useful to Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in the war on terror.

“I think Khan’s leading us on,” the former intelligence official said. “I don’t know anybody who says, ‘Here’s the smoking gun.’ But lights are beginning to blink. He’s feeding us information on the time line, and targeting information is coming in from our own sources— sensors and the covert teams. The C.I.A., which was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to the Pentagon and the Vice-President’s office saying, ‘It’s all new stuff.’ People in the Administration are saying, ‘We’ve got enough.’ ”

The Administration’s case against Iran is compromised by its history of promoting false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled “Fool Me Twice,” Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote, “The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war.” He noted several parallels:

The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism.

Cirincione called some of the Administration’s claims about Iran “questionable” or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, “What do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?” The answer, he said, “is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A.” (In August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)

Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what it said was new and alarming information about Iran’s weapons program which had been retrieved from an Iranian’s laptop. The new data included more than a thousand pages of technical drawings of weapons systems. The Washington Post reported that there were also designs for a small facility that could be used in the uranium-enrichment process. Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of stories in the Times and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note that the materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline in the Times’ account read, “RELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEKS TO PROVE IRAN’S NUCLEAR AIMS.”

I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence officials, however, that the laptop was more suspect and less revelatory than it had been depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop had initially been recruited by German and American intelligence operatives, working together. The Americans eventually lost interest in him. The Germans kept on, but the Iranian was seized by the Iranian counter-intelligence force. It is not known where he is today. Some family members managed to leave Iran with his laptop and handed it over at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a classic “walk-in.”

A European intelligence official said, “There was some hesitation on our side” about what the materials really proved, “and we are still not convinced.” The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper accounts suggested, “but had the character of sketches,” the European official said. “It was not a slam-dunk smoking gun.”

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency’s officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but “nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran,” the high-ranking diplomat told me. The I.A.E.A.’s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away from building a nuclear bomb. “But, if the United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride,” the diplomat said. “The whole issue is America’s risk assessment of Iran’s future intentions, and they don’t trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy.”

In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.’s director-general, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. Joseph’s message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: “We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us. ”

Joseph’s heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since the I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against Iran. “All of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases—one hundred per cent totally certified nuts,” the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei’s overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders “want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side”—in Washington. “At the end of the day, it will work only if the United States agrees to talk to the Iranians.”

The central question—whether Iran will be able to proceed with its plans to enrich uranium—is now before the United Nations, with the Russians and the Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at this point, “there’s nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It’s a dead end.”

Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, “Why would the West take the risk of going to war against that kind of target without giving it to the I.A.E.A. to verify? We’re low-cost, and we can create a program that will force Iran to put its cards on the table.” A Western Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress at the White House’s dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, “If you don’t believe that the I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system—if you don’t trust them—you can only bomb.”

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among its European allies. “We’re quite frustrated with the director-general,” the European diplomat told me. “His basic approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It’s not. We’re the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It’s not his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk.”

The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change. “Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change,” a European diplomatic adviser told me. He added, “The Europeans have a role to play as long as they don’t have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or going along with Washington on something they don’t want. Their policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can live with. It may be untenable.”

“The Brits think this is a very bad idea,” Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, told me, “but they’re really worried we’re going to do it.” The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, “short of a smoking gun, it’s going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran.” He said that the British “are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on the Iranians, with no compromise.”

The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its record, had admitted to everything it was doing, but “to the best of our knowledge the Iranian capability is not at the point where they could successfully run centrifuges” to enrich uranium in quantity. One reason for pursuing diplomacy was, he said, Iran’s essential pragmatism. “The regime acts in its best interests,” he said. Iran’s leaders “take a hard-line approach on the nuclear issue and they want to call the American bluff,” believing that “the tougher they are the more likely the West will fold.” But, he said, “From what we’ve seen with Iran, they will appear superconfident until the moment they back off.”

The diplomat went on, “You never reward bad behavior, and this is not the time to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose sufficient costs to bring the regime to its senses. It’s going to be a close call, but I think if there is unity in opposition and the price imposed”—in sanctions—“is sufficient, they may back down. It’s too early to give up on the U.N. route.” He added, “If the diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’ There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic.”

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush’s most dependable ally in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he and his party have been racked by a series of financial scandals, and his popularity is at a low point. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said last year that military action against Iran was “inconceivable.” Blair has been more circumspect, saying publicly that one should never take options off the table.

[cpt_azad]

Couldn't post it in one post, here's the rest:


Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an American bombing campaign. “The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically,” the European intelligence official told me. “He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.” An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. “Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.”

Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington wanted action. “It’s always the same guys,” he said, with a resigned shrug. “There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is short.”


A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose leadership has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to begin enriching uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several officials that the White House’s interest in preventing an Israeli attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad’s hostility toward Israel as a “serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace.” He added, “I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel.”

Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to consider the following questions: “What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally—that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?”



Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day, would not have to cut off production to disrupt the world’s oil markets. It could blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the thirty-four-mile-wide passage through which Middle Eastern oil reaches the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the recently retired defense official dismissed the strategic consequences of such actions. He told me that the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting salvage missions and putting mine- sweepers to work. “It’s impossible to block passage,” he said. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed, pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep America running for sixty days. However, those in the oil business I spoke to were less optimistic; one industry expert estimated that the price per barrel would immediately spike, to anywhere from ninety to a hundred dollars per barrel, and could go higher, depending on the duration and scope of the conflict.

Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.”

Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks “is consuming a lot of time” at U.S. intelligence agencies. “The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah. “This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us.” (When I asked the government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, “Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off.”)

The adviser went on, “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle.” The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.”

“If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.”
The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He added, “The window of opportunity is now.”

[j2k4]

Oh, FFS...

That'll have to wait 'til Saturday. :huh:

[Biggles]

Oh, FFS...

That'll have to wait 'til Saturday. :huh:


:lol:

Likewise - but I am not going to specify which Saturday.

I am sure such an option exists but I doubt if it is in the practical and usable pile.

Iran is well advanced down the nuclear road. It will be well nigh impossible to un-invent their knowledge on matters nuclear as they have now succeeded in completing the fuel cycle. Bombs are basically just fuel enrichment gone mad.

George Bush did cite Iran not having nuclear knowledge as one of three things he did not want to see. I think he will have to pass on that one. It is not clear how one can legitimately prevent Iran from proceeding with civilian nuclear power stations.

However, war/attack at this stage seems unlikely. Iran would have to do something fairly drastic to incur that kind of attention. Diplomacy and some sort of verification of their civilian programme seems the only way forward albeit perhaps not as reassuring as one would like.

[Biggles]

:unsure:

What happened?

Edit: Oh! my post has decided to appear

[j2k4]

:unsure:

What happened?

Edit: Oh! my post has decided to appear

And an excellent post it is.

Would that I practiced brevity to such superb effect...:P

[cpt_azad]

Oh, FFS...

That'll have to wait 'til Saturday. :huh:

:lol: Well I shall await your response on that unspecified Saturday.

[ahctlucabbuS]

The fact that just about any nuclear scenario you can imagine has been gamed to a fare-thee-well by nerds whose work lives are separated by rows upon rows of Herman Miller walls in the basement of the Pentagon should provide fodder for any number of columns Hersh might wish to write, I think.

That a substantial part of our defense budget has been spent paying these people to use their imaginations in aid of a degree of preparedness we hope is never necessary seems to have compelled Mr. Hersh to cast into imminent reality a script that surely exists, but only on the hard-drive of a DOD computor somewhere.

I have heard he next plans to publish his "findings" relative to North Korea as well. :dry:

If you read the article (granted, I've yet to find the time for the second half) you'll see that his case is based on more than nerds in the dark corners of penatagon. I would say that his article makes a valid point regarding the possibility of nuclear arms beeing used, a point which should not be dismissed solely on the grounds of what Bush consider necessary to publicly announce. :whistling


I fail to see why iran cant have nuclear weapons if they want... isnt it a tad hypocritical for america to be considering using one of its thousands of nukes to stop another country even beginning to have the technology to possibly make one of its own several years from now?

Yes. However, it would be detrimental to any treaties with the aim of reducing and ultimately disposing of (:rolleyes: ) nuclear arms. Both iran developing it, and the US using it...

[muchspl3]

lots of words in this thread, so I sum up what I think in one pic:
http://members.cox.net/my_web_pictures/NukeDummy.gif

[cpt_azad]

If you read the article (granted, I've yet to find the time for the second half) you'll see that his case is based on more than nerds in the dark corners of penatagon. I would say that his article makes a valid point regarding the possibility of nuclear arms beeing used, a point which should not be dismissed solely on the grounds of what Bush consider necessary to publicly announce. :whistling



Amen.

[vidcc]

Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches



Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."

The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180.
source (http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/iran-can-now-make-glowing-mickey-mouse.html)

I found this a gave little bit of perspective to the enrichment announcement. The fact that they have started to enrich uranium is not good news but possibly the announcement has been blown out of proportion.

The part of the article I quoted is what gave the perspective, the rest of the article is subjective opinion and I am not so sure I would care to rely on it.

[cpt_azad]

Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches



Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."

The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. source (http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/iran-can-now-make-glowing-mickey-mouse.html)

I found this a gave little bit of perspective to the enrichment announcement. The fact that they have started to enrich uranium is not good news but possibly the announcement has been blown out of proportion.

The part of the article I quoted is what gave the perspective, the rest of the article is subjective opinion and I am not so sure I would care to rely on it.

I'm pretty sure it's 90%, not 80% to make a bomb. It would have to be highly concentrated anyway, or so logic would say.

[Smith]

Dropping nuclear bombs is just plain wrong, not only will you kill many innocent people but it will do a number on the environment.

Remember Hiroshima? Remember the after effects? You drop a nuclear bomb, you become the terrorist. Bush has no buisness even THINKING about doing something this drastic..

[cpt_azad]

Hmmm, this can't be good

linkage: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/9656/Iran_Says_Nuclear_Drive_Unstoppable



TEHRAN (AFP) -

A defiant Iran (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Iran) vowed that nothing could halt its controversial nuclear program, in a direct challenge to the UN Security Council that could risk international sanctions.

With the country basking in national pride after regime scientists successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel -- a milestone in its atomic drive -- officials pledged to move rapidly to industrial-scale work.
"When a people master nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, nothing can be done against them," boasted armed forces joint chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi.


Iran says its nuclear drive is purely peaceful, but uranium enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a bomb. The Security Council had set April 28 as a deadline for Tehran to halt the ultra-sensitive work.
"The West can do nothing and is obliged to extend to us the hand of friendship," the ISNA news agency quoted Firouzabadi as saying.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Condoleezza+Rice) called for the 15-member Security Council to take "strong steps" and the White House said sanctions were now an option.
"The enrichment activities by the regime fly in the face of the United Nations (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=United+Nations) Security Council and the IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=International+Atomic+Energy+Agency)) board," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.


"There are a number of options that are available to us through the diplomatic process," he said, adding that officials were nonetheless still "pursuing a diplomatic solution".


Iran's announcement is also a blow to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who is due to arrive in Tehran overnight in a fresh bid to resolve tensions. He is expected to give his response in Tehran on Thursday.


ElBaradei has said "the jury is still out" over the true nature of Iran's program and is also trying to press Iran to agree to a fuel cycle moratoruim while his frustrated investigation continues.


Officials from permanent Security Council members Britain, France and Russia, and Germany, all said Iran had taken a "step in the wrong direction."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was however quoted as strongly opposing the use of force after US reports over the weekend suggested Washington was considering military action -- even a possible nuclear strike.

"I am convinced that there can be no resolution of the problem through use of force... practically all European countries are in solidarity with Russia."
The Israeli military's chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, described a nuclear Iran as "a threat to the whole world and not only Israel (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Israel)."

The Jewish state -- believed to be the only nuclear armed state in the region -- views the regime in Tehran as its number one enemy, alarmed in particular by a call last year from Ahmadinejad for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as well as his dismissal of the Holocaust as a "myth."

But Ahmadinejad repeated his call on foreign governments to "recognize and respect Iran's rights" -- presenting a fait accompli to Western powers which have been battling to prevent Iran from acquiring sensitive nuclear know-how.

The firebrand president has also called for a no-holds-barred acceleration of enrichment work.


Iran's nuclear milestone was achieved on Monday -- at a pilot plant of 164 centrifuges in Natanz -- with uranium enriched to 3.5 percent, or the purity required for civilian reactor fuel.

This, said Iranian vice president and atomic energy chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, "paves the way for enrichment on an industrial scale" using an enormous 110 tonnes of UF6 feedstock gas already produced.


He also said Iran was "determined" to complete work within three years on a heavy water reactor in Arak -- which critics say which could also produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon.

Mohammad Saidi, the deputy chief of Iran's atomic program, told state television 3,000 centrifuges would be installed at Natanz within the next year.


"The nuclear fuel cycle is complete, the beginnings of a powerful Iran," the conservative Iranian daily Resalat trumpeted, calling for a week of "national celebration" and a new annual public holiday to mark the event.
State television was broadcasting non-stop images of nuclear sites accompanied by rousing patriotic music.

[akroracle]

I urge all of you to before accusing Bush administration [ ;) ] about Iran and Iraq, what that dirty idealogies have done to the world... right from hitler to today's bush. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change+2nd+edition
and then decide. Bush is too good.. to be a president of great nation of America...

[cpt_azad]

I urge all of you to before accusing Bush administration [ ;) ] about Iran and Iraq, what that dirty idealogies have done to the world... right from hitler to today's bush. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change+2nd+edition
and then decide. Bush is too good.. to be a president of great nation of America...

I hate Bush as much as the next guy, trust me on this. But Iran should not be allowed WMD's for many many reasons (might I add in that I'm not too keen of Israel either, Palestine should be allowed to exist.). But it seems to have mellowed out. Let's wait and see what happens.

[GepperRankins]

using nukes will kill thousands of civilians. kinda ballsucky if you aks me.


the US has enough daisy cutters and bunker busters to make iran impotent with minimal collateral damage.

[calm2chaos]

There is not a chance in hell that the US is going to use nukes as a first strike capability. It's just not going to happen, to think otherwise is just ridiculous. But under no circumstances can you allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. At least not at this time. There are more convetional ways of eliminating this growing threat then jumping in with a megaton warhead

[cpt_azad]

There is not a chance in hell that the US is going to use nukes as a first strike capability. It's just not going to happen, to think otherwise is just ridiculous. But under no circumstances can you allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. At least not at this time. There are more convetional ways of eliminating this growing threat then jumping in with a megaton warhead

Which will not happen just like you stated. The closest thing "nuclear" that the US might use is a bunker buster, that's about it. Civillian casualities will still be pretty high, something tells me that.

[calm2chaos]

There is not a chance in hell that the US is going to use nukes as a first strike capability. It's just not going to happen, to think otherwise is just ridiculous. But under no circumstances can you allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. At least not at this time. There are more convetional ways of eliminating this growing threat then jumping in with a megaton warhead

Which will not happen just like you stated. The closest thing "nuclear" that the US might use is a bunker buster, that's about it. Civillian casualities will still be pretty high, something tells me that.


They will always be high in the middle east. It's not an accident that they place targets of importance in highly populated civilian areas. There concern for there citizens is staggering. You can run a terrorist cell from a mosque. But god forbid you shoot ast it to go after them in there.

[cpt_azad]

Which will not happen just like you stated. The closest thing "nuclear" that the US might use is a bunker buster, that's about it. Civillian casualities will still be pretty high, something tells me that.

They will always be high in the middle east. It's not an accident that they place targets of importance in highly populated civilian areas. There concern for there citizens is staggering. You can run a terrorist cell from a mosque. But god forbid you shoot ast it to go after them in there.


They've been using the "religion as shield" tactic for years now, so disgraceful.

[thewizeard]

Once America realises that also other countries, have a right to nuclear energy...and whether we like it or not sooner or later they will get it; then the threat of nuclear attack recedes. There has only ever been one country on record to use such terrible weapons on human populations areas, now I seem to forget..who was that now?...

[j2k4]

There has only ever been one country on record to use such terrible weapons on human populations areas, now I seem to forget..who was that now?...

..and thus we are forever precluded from commenting on the use of nuclear weapons by anyone (including ourselves) anywhere, at anytime, ever, ever, ever.

Did I predict this?

Why, yes...yes I did.

[calm2chaos]

Once America realises that also other countries, have a right to nuclear energy...and whether we like it or not sooner or later they will get it; then the threat of nuclear attack recedes. There has only ever been one country on record to use such terrible weapons on human populations areas, now I seem to forget..who was that now?...

I don't think there is a country that has a problem with Iran having nuclear energy. The problem runs into the fact thay are using dual purpose processors. The secondary purpose other then nuclear power is enrichening uranuim to weapons grade. There in lies the problem. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are completely seperate things....

That was the US in case you forgot. And it was a smart tactical, military and human decision. That in the long run was done to save lives as opposed to the inevitable attack on mainline japann which would have in many peoples opinion cost even more lives

[lynx]

The problem runs into the fact thay are using dual purpose processors. The secondary purpose other then nuclear power is enrichening uranuim to weapons grade. There in lies the problem.Indeed, that (and the half truths about it) is exactly where the problem lies.

You can't run a successful commercial nuclear power plant without using enriched uranium. There's a whole world of difference between the level of enrichment required to sustain a power plant and that required for nuclear weapons, and so far Iran hasn't even reached the level required to run a power plant.

Of course, if they don't make their own power plant grade enriched uranium then someone will have to make it for them, and whoever that is has got them by the balls. Hardly surprising they want they're own facilities.

[calm2chaos]

The problem runs into the fact thay are using dual purpose processors. The secondary purpose other then nuclear power is enrichening uranuim to weapons grade. There in lies the problem.Indeed, that (and the half truths about it) is exactly where the problem lies.

You can't run a successful commercial nuclear power plant without using enriched uranium. There's a whole world of difference between the level of enrichment required to sustain a power plant and that required for nuclear weapons, and so far Iran hasn't even reached the level required to run a power plant.

Of course, if they don't make their own power plant grade enriched uranium then someone will have to make it for them, and whoever that is has got them by the balls. Hardly surprising they want they're own facilities.

But once that technology is ready, and there is a lot of speculation on how close they are. I ve heard 6 months and I have heard a couple of years. But once it is in hand this processor does not only give them nuclear power capabilities. It gives them weapons capabilities. I have no problem with a single use processor. But the ONLY use of a dual processor is for generating weapons grade material

[lynx]

Last I heard, Iran had produced enriched uranium to a level of 3% (the ratio of U235 to U238. That in itself is sufficient to power a heavy water reactor (requires about 2% U235), but the complications in design and operation of such a plant are probably sufficient to rule that out. A more reasonable target would be about 4%, which would allow them to run a light water plant.

What is never made clear is that the difficulty in increasing the enrichment is exponential. If it is twice as hard to reach 6% than 3%, then it 4 times harder to reach 9% and 8 times harder to reach 12%. For weapon-usable material you need at least 20%, and for a true nuclear bomb you need to reach about 85%. The technology being used in Iran is incapable of producing weapons-usable material, let alone a weapons-grade product.

The other piece of disinformation which seems to be brought up is that Iran "has plans for a dual-use reactor". Note the wording, it is very important. It doesn't say that Iran "plans a dual-use reactor", merely that it has plans (designs, technical drawings etc) for such a plant. Since that sort of information is fairly freely available it would be extremely surprising if they didn't have them.

In any case, any commercial nuclear plant can be easily converted to so called "dual-use". All that is necessary is to replace some of the fuel rods with rods you want converting. Obviously it's a little more complex than that, but not much. Some commercial plants in the USA (for example Watts Bar in Tennessee) have already been converted.

BTW, Iran supposedly has most of the key components required to build a nuclear plant already. It obtained them, legally, in 2005 from a subsidiary of a well-known US company - Halliburton.

[nabeelisnabeel]

Iran is ono of the God-gifted countries. Full of God's blessings. Its social values are very very higher than any others'.

(I m not Iranian.)

[calm2chaos]

Iran is ono of the God-gifted countries. Full of God's blessings. Its social values are very very higher than any others'.

(I m not Iranian.)

Does that include terrorism?

[calm2chaos]

Last I heard, Iran had produced enriched uranium to a level of 3% (the ratio of U235 to U238. That in itself is sufficient to power a heavy water reactor (requires about 2% U235), but the complications in design and operation of such a plant are probably sufficient to rule that out. A more reasonable target would be about 4%, which would allow them to run a light water plant.

What is never made clear is that the difficulty in increasing the enrichment is exponential. If it is twice as hard to reach 6% than 3%, then it 4 times harder to reach 9% and 8 times harder to reach 12%. For weapon-usable material you need at least 20%, and for a true nuclear bomb you need to reach about 85%. The technology being used in Iran is incapable of producing weapons-usable material, let alone a weapons-grade product.

The other piece of disinformation which seems to be brought up is that Iran "has plans for a dual-use reactor". Note the wording, it is very important. It doesn't say that Iran "plans a dual-use reactor", merely that it has plans (designs, technical drawings etc) for such a plant. Since that sort of information is fairly freely available it would be extremely surprising if they didn't have them.

In any case, any commercial nuclear plant can be easily converted to so called "dual-use". All that is necessary is to replace some of the fuel rods with rods you want converting. Obviously it's a little more complex than that, but not much. Some commercial plants in the USA (for example Watts Bar in Tennessee) have already been converted.

BTW, Iran supposedly has most of the key components required to build a nuclear plant already. It obtained them, legally, in 2005 from a subsidiary of a well-known US company - Halliburton.

What I have read is that Iran is still shopping for the dual use technology. It's not that they just have the plans. They are actively looking to aquire this technology. It's definetly not something we need to close our eyes to. I can't think of anything good that can come out of Iran being a nuclear power.

[manker]

Last I heard, Iran had produced enriched uranium to a level of 3% (the ratio of U235 to U238. That in itself is sufficient to power a heavy water reactor (requires about 2% U235), but the complications in design and operation of such a plant are probably sufficient to rule that out. A more reasonable target would be about 4%, which would allow them to run a light water plant.

What is never made clear is that the difficulty in increasing the enrichment is exponential. If it is twice as hard to reach 6% than 3%, then it 4 times harder to reach 9% and 8 times harder to reach 12%. For weapon-usable material you need at least 20%, and for a true nuclear bomb you need to reach about 85%. The technology being used in Iran is incapable of producing weapons-usable material, let alone a weapons-grade product.

The other piece of disinformation which seems to be brought up is that Iran "has plans for a dual-use reactor". Note the wording, it is very important. It doesn't say that Iran "plans a dual-use reactor", merely that it has plans (designs, technical drawings etc) for such a plant. Since that sort of information is fairly freely available it would be extremely surprising if they didn't have them.

In any case, any commercial nuclear plant can be easily converted to so called "dual-use". All that is necessary is to replace some of the fuel rods with rods you want converting. Obviously it's a little more complex than that, but not much. Some commercial plants in the USA (for example Watts Bar in Tennessee) have already been converted.

BTW, Iran supposedly has most of the key components required to build a nuclear plant already. It obtained them, legally, in 2005 from a subsidiary of a well-known US company - Halliburton.

What I have read is that Iran is still shopping for the dual use technology. It's not that they just have the plans. They are actively looking to aquire this technology. It's definetly not something we need to close our eyes to. I can't think of anything good that can come out of Iran being a nuclear power.It's not all about them having nukes - Altho' if they did have nukes then, from their point of view, it would certainly be a good thing as it would deter anyone from invading them.

How about the Iranian people having access to a clean, renewable and cheap energy source. That would be a good thing to come out of them having nuclear technology.

You can't ride roughshod all over soverign nations and tell them what they can and cannot do with regard to its citizens well being - no matter how much you'd like to.

[lynx]

Last I heard, Iran had produced enriched uranium to a level of 3% (the ratio of U235 to U238. That in itself is sufficient to power a heavy water reactor (requires about 2% U235), but the complications in design and operation of such a plant are probably sufficient to rule that out. A more reasonable target would be about 4%, which would allow them to run a light water plant.

What is never made clear is that the difficulty in increasing the enrichment is exponential. If it is twice as hard to reach 6% than 3%, then it 4 times harder to reach 9% and 8 times harder to reach 12%. For weapon-usable material you need at least 20%, and for a true nuclear bomb you need to reach about 85%. The technology being used in Iran is incapable of producing weapons-usable material, let alone a weapons-grade product.

The other piece of disinformation which seems to be brought up is that Iran "has plans for a dual-use reactor". Note the wording, it is very important. It doesn't say that Iran "plans a dual-use reactor", merely that it has plans (designs, technical drawings etc) for such a plant. Since that sort of information is fairly freely available it would be extremely surprising if they didn't have them.

In any case, any commercial nuclear plant can be easily converted to so called "dual-use". All that is necessary is to replace some of the fuel rods with rods you want converting. Obviously it's a little more complex than that, but not much. Some commercial plants in the USA (for example Watts Bar in Tennessee) have already been converted.

BTW, Iran supposedly has most of the key components required to build a nuclear plant already. It obtained them, legally, in 2005 from a subsidiary of a well-known US company - Halliburton.

What I have read is that Iran is still shopping for the dual use technology. It's not that they just have the plans. They are actively looking to aquire this technology. It's definetly not something we need to close our eyes to. I can't think of anything good that can come out of Iran being a nuclear power.My feeling is that you haven't quite got it.

The old heavy water reactors (and I mean old) would fail if you replaced a significant number of rods, so the only way to produce significant quantities of fissionable material was to pack it round the core. Edit: out of date hacks think that's still the way it is done, and since commercial plants don't have space they assume that's why places like Iran want to build their own reactors.

Modern commercial reactors (which is exactly what would be supplied to Iran by an external company) do not have the same limitations, so production of fissionable material can be achieved simply by replacing fuel rods, albeit with a small drop in reactor efficiency.

Let's assume they go down the route "supposedly" preferred by the US government, and buy nuclear power capability from outside. Everyone should be happy. The following week, they could kick out the suppliers and upgrade the plant to dual use (takes a few weeks at most). What stops that?

The answer probably lies with the operating software, my guess is that it stops working. And if it stops working in one situation, what's to say it won't stop working in other situations - do things our way or your power goes off. I think I said it earlier, the supplier has you by the balls.

Dual use is not the issue, that's a smokescreen thrown up to hide the real sticking point. The real issue is about control. Quite frankly, recent behaviour has shown that it is questionable whether the US is worthy, or even capable, of being the one to wield that sort of control in international situations, particularly under the current administration.

Edit 2: just something to make you think - AFAIK India and Pakistan only have commercially supplied reactors, so where did their fissionable material come from?

[calm2chaos]

What I have read is that Iran is still shopping for the dual use technology. It's not that they just have the plans. They are actively looking to aquire this technology. It's definetly not something we need to close our eyes to. I can't think of anything good that can come out of Iran being a nuclear power.It's not all about them having nukes - Altho' if they did have nukes then, from their point of view, it would certainly be a good thing as it would deter anyone from invading them.

How about the Iranian people having access to a clean, renewable and cheap energy source. That would be a good thing to come out of them having nuclear technology.

You can't ride roughshod all over soverign nations and tell them what they can and cannot do with regard to its citizens well being - no matter how much you'd like to.

Having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely seperate issues. If you actually trust Iran enough to thinkthey want it for deterent reasons then I think your dreaming. I don't want to find out of the world is wrong, the cost is just to high.

[calm2chaos]

What I have read is that Iran is still shopping for the dual use technology. It's not that they just have the plans. They are actively looking to aquire this technology. It's definetly not something we need to close our eyes to. I can't think of anything good that can come out of Iran being a nuclear power.My feeling is that you haven't quite got it.

The old heavy water reactors (and I mean old) would fail if you replaced a significant number of rods, so the only way to produce significant quantities of fissionable material was to pack it round the core. Edit: out of date hacks think that's still the way it is done, and since commercial plants don't have space they assume that's why places like Iran want to build their own reactors.

Modern commercial reactors (which is exactly what would be supplied to Iran by an external company) do not have the same limitations, so production of fissionable material can be achieved simply by replacing fuel rods, albeit with a small drop in reactor efficiency.

Let's assume they go down the route "supposedly" preferred by the US government, and buy nuclear power capability from outside. Everyone should be happy. The following week, they could kick out the suppliers and upgrade the plant to dual use (takes a few weeks at most). What stops that?

The answer probably lies with the operating software, my guess is that it stops working. And if it stops working in one situation, what's to say it won't stop working in other situations - do things our way or your power goes off. I think I said it earlier, the supplier has you by the balls.

Dual use is not the issue, that's a smokescreen thrown up to hide the real sticking point. The real issue is about control. Quite frankly, recent behaviour has shown that it is questionable whether the US is worthy, or even capable, of being the one to wield that sort of control in international situations, particularly under the current administration.

Edit 2: just something to make you think - AFAIK India and Pakistan only have commercially supplied reactors, so where did their fissionable material come from?

Who do you propose to be the supplier with balls?

[manker]

It's not all about them having nukes - Altho' if they did have nukes then, from their point of view, it would certainly be a good thing as it would deter anyone from invading them.

How about the Iranian people having access to a clean, renewable and cheap energy source. That would be a good thing to come out of them having nuclear technology.

You can't ride roughshod all over soverign nations and tell them what they can and cannot do with regard to its citizens well being - no matter how much you'd like to.

Having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely seperate issues. If you actually trust Iran enough to thinkthey want it for deterent reasons then I think your dreaming. I don't want to find out of the world is wrong, the cost is just to high.I opened with "It's not all about them having nukes" and you reply with "having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely separate issues".

You quoted me but who the hell are you talking to.

What I like to do is read the post to which I'm replying, it makes for a better conversation. However, if you wish otherwise, there are plenty of folk here who will indulge you and do likewise.

[Busyman™]

Having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely seperate issues. If you actually trust Iran enough to thinkthey want it for deterent reasons then I think your dreaming. I don't want to find out of the world is wrong, the cost is just to high.I opened with "It's not all about them having nukes" and you reply with "having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely separate issues".

You quoted me but who the hell are you talking to.

What I like to do is read the post to which I'm replying, it makes for a better conversation. However, if you wish otherwise, there are plenty of folk here who will indulge you and do likewise.
You make no sense. Why don't you try reading the posts before replying? :crazy:

[manker]

I opened with "It's not all about them having nukes" and you reply with "having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely separate issues".

You quoted me but who the hell are you talking to.

What I like to do is read the post to which I'm replying, it makes for a better conversation. However, if you wish otherwise, there are plenty of folk here who will indulge you and do likewise.
You make no sense. Why don't you try reading the posts before replying? :crazy:That's for mere mortals.

If there's one thing I can do, it's multi-task.

[calm2chaos]

Having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely seperate issues. If you actually trust Iran enough to thinkthey want it for deterent reasons then I think your dreaming. I don't want to find out of the world is wrong, the cost is just to high.I opened with "It's not all about them having nukes" and you reply with "having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely separate issues".

You quoted me but who the hell are you talking to.

What I like to do is read the post to which I'm replying, it makes for a better conversation. However, if you wish otherwise, there are plenty of folk here who will indulge you and do likewise.


How about the Iranian people having access to a clean, renewable and cheap energy source. That would be a good thing to come out of them having nuclear technology.


Then you made the above statement. Which it seemed to me you were trying to tie the two together. Thats why I said what I said. Having nukes has nothing to do with "clean, renewable and cheap energy source.". I have no problem with them aquiring nuclear technology for energy. I don't think I ever said anything of the sort actually. If I misunderstood you then thats my fault. If my posts are not up to your standards by all means don't reply. :)

[lynx]

I opened with "It's not all about them having nukes" and you reply with "having nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are completely separate issues".

You quoted me but who the hell are you talking to.

What I like to do is read the post to which I'm replying, it makes for a better conversation. However, if you wish otherwise, there are plenty of folk here who will indulge you and do likewise.


How about the Iranian people having access to a clean, renewable and cheap energy source. That would be a good thing to come out of them having nuclear technology.


Then you made the above statement. Which it seemed to me you were trying to tie the two together. Thats why I said what I said. Having nukes has nothing to do with "clean, renewable and cheap energy source.". I have no problem with them aquiring nuclear technology for energy. I don't think I ever said anything of the sort actually. If I misunderstood you then thats my fault. If my posts are not up to your standards by all means don't reply. :)
The problem is that you seem to support the Bush administration's distorted propoganda that trying to build their own nuclear plant automatically means that they are developing nuclear weapons.

The alternative to developing their own plant is to buy one from outside. Where would you suggest they get one? Western countries are obviously out of the question, for the reasons I've stated before. Russia? Oops, remember Chernobyl. I think that leaves China, but they've already got their hands full backing N. Korea.

When you stop to think about it...



















...you should start again. :)

[calm2chaos]

How about the Iranian people having access to a clean, renewable and cheap energy source. That would be a good thing to come out of them having nuclear technology.


Then you made the above statement. Which it seemed to me you were trying to tie the two together. Thats why I said what I said. Having nukes has nothing to do with "clean, renewable and cheap energy source.". I have no problem with them aquiring nuclear technology for energy. I don't think I ever said anything of the sort actually. If I misunderstood you then thats my fault. If my posts are not up to your standards by all means don't reply. :)
The problem is that you seem to support the Bush administration's distorted propoganda that trying to build their own nuclear plant automatically means that they are developing nuclear weapons.

The alternative to developing their own plant is to buy one from outside. Where would you suggest they get one? Western countries are obviously out of the question, for the reasons I've stated before. Russia? Oops, remember Chernobyl. I think that leaves China, but they've already got their hands full backing N. Korea.

When you stop to think about it...

...you should start again. :)

I think your confusing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. And Irans ongoing attempts at aquring the technology for nuclear weapons i believe is hardly propaganda. And in recent months have there not been numerous offers to iran of a light water reactor along with support for the technology. There has been a lot of offers for reactors and energy distribution in the recent past to Iran western countries along with russia germany and others have been making these offers. I don't exactly know why you say they haven't. Britain, France and Germany (the so-called EU-3) as well as China, Russia and the United States are the countries making these offers

To create the conditions for negotiation, the six powers promised to:
- "reaffirm Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) obligations, and in this context reaffirm their support for the development by Iran of a civil nuclear energy programme
- "commit to actively support the building of new light water reactors in Iran through international joint projects ...
Iran, for its part, promised to:
- "commit to addressing all the outstanding concerns of the IAEA through full cooperation with the IAEA
- "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities ...
- "resume implementation of the Additional Protocol" (for wider IAEA inspections)
A section on "areas of future cooperation" includes the aims:
- "reaffirm Iran's inalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the NPT, and cooperate with Iran in the development by Iran of a civil nuclear power programme
- "negotiate and implement a Euratom/Iran nuclear cooperation agreement.
- "actively support the building of new light water power reactors in Iran through international joint projects," including by providing technology to make its power reactors safe against earthquakes.
- "provide cooperation with the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste through appropriate arrangements
The world powers would also give legally binding, fuel assurances to Iran, based on:
- "participation as a partner in an international facility in Russia to provide enrichment services for a reliable supply of fuel to Iran's nuclear reactors. Subject to negotiations, such a facility could enrich all the UF6 produced in Iran.
- "establishment on commercial terms of a buffer stock to hold a reserve of up to five years supply of nuclear fuel dedicated to Iran, with participation and under supervision of the IAEA."
"The long-term agreement would, with regard to common efforts to build international confidence, include a clause for review of the agreement in all its aspects, to follow:
- confirmation by the IAEA that all outstanding issues and concerns reported by the IAEA, including those activities which could have a military nuclear dimension, have been resolved, and;
- "confirmation that there are no undeclared nuclear activities or materials in Iran and that international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's civil nuclear programme has been restored."
Political and economic benefits if the package is agreed:
- "support for a new conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional security issues.
- "improving Iran's access to the international economy, markets and capital, through practical support for full integration into international structures, including the WTO (World Trade Organization), and to create the framework for increased direct investment in Iran and trade with Iran (including a Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement with EU)
- "civil aviation cooperation, including the possible removal of restrictions on US and European manufacturers, from exporting civil aircraft to Iran, thereby widening the prospect of Iran renewing its fleet of civil airliners
- "establishment of a long-term energy partnership between Iran and the EU, and other willing partners, with concrete and practical applications
- "support for the modernisation of Iran's telecommunications infrastructure and advanced internet provision, including by possible removal of relevant US and other export restrictions
"support for agricultural development in Iran, including possible access to US and European agricultural products, technology and

[lynx]

I think your confusing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. And Irans ongoing attempts at aquring the technology for nuclear weapons i believe is hardly propaganda. And in recent months have there not been numerous offers to iran of a light water reactor along with support for the technology. There has been a lot of offers for reactors and energy distribution in the recent past to Iran western countries along with russia germany and others have been making these offers. I don't exactly know why you say they haven't. Britain, France and Germany (the so-called EU-3) as well as China, Russia and the United States are the countries making these offers

To create the conditions for negotiation, the six powers promised to:
- "reaffirm Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) obligations, and in this context reaffirm their support for the development by Iran of a civil nuclear energy programme
- "commit to actively support the building of new light water reactors in Iran through international joint projects ...
Iran, for its part, promised to:
- "commit to addressing all the outstanding concerns of the IAEA through full cooperation with the IAEA
- "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities ...
- "resume implementation of the Additional Protocol" (for wider IAEA inspections)
A section on "areas of future cooperation" includes the aims:
- "reaffirm Iran's inalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the NPT, and cooperate with Iran in the development by Iran of a civil nuclear power programme
- "negotiate and implement a Euratom/Iran nuclear cooperation agreement.
- "actively support the building of new light water power reactors in Iran through international joint projects," including by providing technology to make its power reactors safe against earthquakes.
- "provide cooperation with the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste through appropriate arrangements
The world powers would also give legally binding, fuel assurances to Iran, based on:
- "participation as a partner in an international facility in Russia to provide enrichment services for a reliable supply of fuel to Iran's nuclear reactors. Subject to negotiations, such a facility could enrich all the UF6 produced in Iran.
- "establishment on commercial terms of a buffer stock to hold a reserve of up to five years supply of nuclear fuel dedicated to Iran, with participation and under supervision of the IAEA."
"The long-term agreement would, with regard to common efforts to build international confidence, include a clause for review of the agreement in all its aspects, to follow:
- confirmation by the IAEA that all outstanding issues and concerns reported by the IAEA, including those activities which could have a military nuclear dimension, have been resolved, and;
- "confirmation that there are no undeclared nuclear activities or materials in Iran and that international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's civil nuclear programme has been restored."
Political and economic benefits if the package is agreed:
- "support for a new conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional security issues.
- "improving Iran's access to the international economy, markets and capital, through practical support for full integration into international structures, including the WTO (World Trade Organization), and to create the framework for increased direct investment in Iran and trade with Iran (including a Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement with EU)
- "civil aviation cooperation, including the possible removal of restrictions on US and European manufacturers, from exporting civil aircraft to Iran, thereby widening the prospect of Iran renewing its fleet of civil airliners
- "establishment of a long-term energy partnership between Iran and the EU, and other willing partners, with concrete and practical applications
- "support for the modernisation of Iran's telecommunications infrastructure and advanced internet provision, including by possible removal of relevant US and other export restrictions
"support for agricultural development in Iran, including possible access to US and European agricultural products, technology and
No, I'm not confusing nuclear energy with nuclear weapons, nor am I trying to tie the two together. It seems it is the Bush administration which is trying to do that, and you seem to have swallowed their line.

These so-called negotiations have been going on for years, and nothing has ever come of it. Guess what, Iran is tired of waiting for some movement in that area.

They gave fair warning, and a deadline, that if there wasn't some action then they would resume their own enrichment program, a necessity for nuclear power as highlighted in brown above. The US, initially, then followed by the EU, came out with the tired old argument that Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons, and consequently the negotiations were suspended - as if that made any difference.

The deadline passed, Iran resumed its enrichment program. Certainly there were some inflamatory comments about pushing Israel into the sea, but that is how internal politics works in Iran. The western powers are well aware that's the case, but it suits their nuclear weapons argument very well.

Until the West stops hiding behind meaningless "negotiations" and actually follows up on its words, I can't see any reason why Iran should take any notice.

[Biggles]

What Iran is doing at the moment is not illegal. They are perfectly entitled under non-proliferation to enrich fuel for power stations.

The argument is, of course, that as they have uranium deposits coupled with their nuclear power stations, then enrichment faciilities will give them the complete cycle and should they wish to they could then go and enrich fuel to a much higher percentage which could then be used for weapons.

The difficulty is, where do you draw the line? Can we say that steel mills are unacceptable in case they build tanks?

I do agree however, that Iran is probably not blind to the fact that N Korea has far more bargaining power because of few warheads than without and that such weapons would almost certainly preclude and attack on their soil. Given that their two bordering contries were invaded this, then, might therefore seem an attractive route to take. (although the fall of Saddam and the Taliban were hardly a cause for tears in Iran)

Whether security guarantees can be given as part of a reprocessing package is not clear. However, I doubt if the current US administration would be willing to give such an undertaking. Consequently, this dispute will continue to run. I doubt though that sanctions will approved over a legal activity. Proof of illegal activity would have to be presented. Enrichment in itself is not enough. The most likely outcome may be civilian enrichment under IAEA supervision.

[calm2chaos]

I think your confusing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. And Irans ongoing attempts at aquring the technology for nuclear weapons i believe is hardly propaganda. And in recent months have there not been numerous offers to iran of a light water reactor along with support for the technology. There has been a lot of offers for reactors and energy distribution in the recent past to Iran western countries along with russia germany and others have been making these offers. I don't exactly know why you say they haven't. Britain, France and Germany (the so-called EU-3) as well as China, Russia and the United States are the countries making these offers

To create the conditions for negotiation, the six powers promised to:
- "reaffirm Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) obligations, and in this context reaffirm their support for the development by Iran of a civil nuclear energy programme
- "commit to actively support the building of new light water reactors in Iran through international joint projects ...
Iran, for its part, promised to:
- "commit to addressing all the outstanding concerns of the IAEA through full cooperation with the IAEA
- "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities ...
- "resume implementation of the Additional Protocol" (for wider IAEA inspections)
A section on "areas of future cooperation" includes the aims:
- "reaffirm Iran's inalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the NPT, and cooperate with Iran in the development by Iran of a civil nuclear power programme
- "negotiate and implement a Euratom/Iran nuclear cooperation agreement.
- "actively support the building of new light water power reactors in Iran through international joint projects," including by providing technology to make its power reactors safe against earthquakes.
- "provide cooperation with the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste through appropriate arrangements
The world powers would also give legally binding, fuel assurances to Iran, based on:
- "participation as a partner in an international facility in Russia to provide enrichment services for a reliable supply of fuel to Iran's nuclear reactors. Subject to negotiations, such a facility could enrich all the UF6 produced in Iran.
- "establishment on commercial terms of a buffer stock to hold a reserve of up to five years supply of nuclear fuel dedicated to Iran, with participation and under supervision of the IAEA."
"The long-term agreement would, with regard to common efforts to build international confidence, include a clause for review of the agreement in all its aspects, to follow:
- confirmation by the IAEA that all outstanding issues and concerns reported by the IAEA, including those activities which could have a military nuclear dimension, have been resolved, and;
- "confirmation that there are no undeclared nuclear activities or materials in Iran and that international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's civil nuclear programme has been restored."
Political and economic benefits if the package is agreed:
- "support for a new conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional security issues.
- "improving Iran's access to the international economy, markets and capital, through practical support for full integration into international structures, including the WTO (World Trade Organization), and to create the framework for increased direct investment in Iran and trade with Iran (including a Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement with EU)
- "civil aviation cooperation, including the possible removal of restrictions on US and European manufacturers, from exporting civil aircraft to Iran, thereby widening the prospect of Iran renewing its fleet of civil airliners
- "establishment of a long-term energy partnership between Iran and the EU, and other willing partners, with concrete and practical applications
- "support for the modernisation of Iran's telecommunications infrastructure and advanced internet provision, including by possible removal of relevant US and other export restrictions
"support for agricultural development in Iran, including possible access to US and European agricultural products, technology and
No, I'm not confusing nuclear energy with nuclear weapons, nor am I trying to tie the two together. It seems it is the Bush administration which is trying to do that, and you seem to have swallowed their line.

These so-called negotiations have been going on for years, and nothing has ever come of it. Guess what, Iran is tired of waiting for some movement in that area.

They gave fair warning, and a deadline, that if there wasn't some action then they would resume their own enrichment program, a necessity for nuclear power as highlighted in brown above. The US, initially, then followed by the EU, came out with the tired old argument that Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons, and consequently the negotiations were suspended - as if that made any difference.

The deadline passed, Iran resumed its enrichment program. Certainly there were some inflamatory comments about pushing Israel into the sea, but that is how internal politics works in Iran. The western powers are well aware that's the case, but it suits their nuclear weapons argument very well.

Until the West stops hiding behind meaningless "negotiations" and actually follows up on its words, I can't see any reason why Iran should take any notice.

Then they get what they get. unless there are some major assurances and major safe gaurds in place you will defintly see some missle strikes eliminating anything thought to be dangerous or of concern. I am not feeling all to bad about a terrorist state being hammered. Personally I think the entire west and all developed nations should pull out of the ME. That include militarily, politically and financially. Let them figure out there own problem and kill themselves. Have a couple 3-4 tridents sitting of the coast if anything leaves the ground headed in the wrong direction you end the ME. It's a no win situation, so the best thing possible may to be limit the destruction they cause