Iran's nuclear program

What do you think of this?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yahoo

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran told the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency Monday of its decision to resume some nuclear activities, the spokesman of Iran's top security decision-making body said.

Iran has asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to instruct its inspectors in Iran to break the seals on central Iran's Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility so technicians can restart uranium reprocessing, Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state-run radio.

The European Union head office warned Iran on Monday that progress in EU-Iran trade talks were unlikely if Tehran resumes its nuclear program.

"We expect Iran to live up to the commitment" made at nuclear talks in Paris, said European Commission spokesman Stefaan De Rynck. "Progress in such an agreement is unlikely unless the Paris agreement has a successful follow-up."

Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which is to remain suspended, said Mohammadi.

The work is to resume at the Isfahan plant, which converts uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment. Uranium enriched to high levels can be used for nuclear bombs; at low levels it is used as fuel for nuclear energy plants.

---

They are still doing it....

It will probably end in tears...

Wow, what a shock. Who woulda figured the diplomatic route wouldn't work with these people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Wow, what a shock. Who woulda figured the diplomatic route wouldn't work with these people.

---

These people?

I take it this is a case of do as I say not do?

As expected. Quite frankly this is one of the reasons why I was against invasion of Iraq. Both Iran and North Korea are far more dangerous than Iraq ever was, and both should have been before Iraq on the 'nasty regimes to remove' list.

I say we bomb their reactors out before they can produce bombs...

Then the Iranians will mount up and drive into Iraq, and that will be ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

I say we bomb their reactors out before they can produce bombs...

---

I'm sure Israel will beat all of us to doing this.

Is Israel not planning an attack soon on the Bushehr reactor?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...an-strikes.htm

Quote:

---

The annual intelligence assessment presented to Israel's Knesset on 21 July 2004 noted that Iran's nuclear program is the biggest threat facing Israel, "Maariv" and "Yediot Aharonot" reported on 22 July 2004. Some Likud and Labor Knesset members subsequently called for a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facility. Former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh (Labor) said, "If the international community's helplessness in the face of the Iranian threat persists, Israel will have to weigh its steps -- and soon." Ehud Yatom (Likud) said, "The Iranian nuclear facilities must be destroyed, just as we did the Iraqi reactor. We must strive to attain the ability to damage and destroy any nuclear capability that might be directed against Israel." On 08 September 2004 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the international community has not done enough to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and warns that Israel will take its own measures to defend itself. He also said Iranian officials have made it clear they seek the destruction of the Jewish state. Israeli Air Force pilots have been practicing attacks on a scale model of the Bushehr reactor in the Negev Desert.

---

It is the job of the General Staff of any army to create plans for all possible conflicts.

Why? The Osiraq bombing is precedent.

Edit: This made sense before GF's edit.

Sorry about that, I generally tend to edit all my posts, sometimes heavily, as in this case. Character fault I guess.

Boy these guys sure are hardheaded aren't they :dizzy2:

Here is a real threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

I say we bomb their reactors out before they can produce bombs...

---

I concur.

I've never understood why the permanent members of the security council allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Surely peace and stability in the world are not served by letting states like North-Korea and Iran become nuclear powers.

Well, Louis, no offense, but there's no way your President would ever allow the Security Council to get tough with Iran. None. It will either be the US acting alone again (and I wouldn't count on that, as we don't have the manpower to open a 2nd theater of operations with Iran) or nobody. My vote is nobody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, Louis, no offense, but there's no way your President would ever allow the Security Council to get tough with Iran. None. It will either be the US acting alone again (and I wouldn't count on that, as we don't have the manpower to open a 2nd theater of operations with Iran) or nobody. My vote is nobody.

---

This is why i dont support war on Iraq.I earlier in the other thread stated that there are lot more dangerous countries then Iraq was.Now US hands are taped around its back in Iraq. Sounds like a smart arse comment but its true.

screw this planet... *climbs into his spaceship and burts of to Alpha Centauri*

...suckers!


but seriusly, the Iranians are taking dangerous steps here, I dont think they are planning on making Nukes... YET... but I dont trust that regim at all. But come to think about it, I dont trust any regime at all... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

This is why i dont support war on Iraq.I earlier in the other thread stated that there are lot more dangerous countries then Iraq was.Now US hands are taped around its back in Iraq. Sounds like a smart arse comment but its true.

---

Whether the US had invaded Iraq or not, there is no way the UN Security Council would take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Any attempt by the US to intervene militarily would have been met with the same opposition by France and Germany that our efforts in Iraq were. Somewhere along the line, the World's diplomats decided that Iran was going to be a nuclear power and there's been damn little the US could do to stop it ever since. Every time we ask you, the EU, to join us in sanctions to show the Iranian government we mean business, you castigate us about how the only real solution was diplomacy. Well, in light of this, I submit that if you were correct, then there never was any real solution, because diplomacy has failed miserably. Oh wait, there's gotta be a way to pin this on Bush yet... *think, brain, think*... :sweatdrop:

Lazul, I hate to break it to you, Iran DOES INDEED want a nuclear warhead. What do you think all those Shahabs are there for, show? Fireworks? The Shahab-6 has a range of 8000km. That's London, Paris or Moscow folks. Oh wait, it was the Russians that sold them all of this, okay, London or Paris then. They have an all solid fuel Shahab-7 they've been working on with Pakistan that has a 12,000 km range. That's New York.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, Louis, no offense, but there's no way your President would ever allow the Security Council to get tough with Iran. None. It will either be the US acting alone again (and I wouldn't count on that, as we don't have the manpower to open a 2nd theater of operations with Iran) or nobody. My vote is nobody.

---

I know Chirac won't. He will not be president forever though. And until then he's a lame duck.

(I was secretly looking forward to a more sarcastic post like: 'Gosh, Louis, sorry but, like er, we remember France's reaction the last time the US wanted to get tough with a rogue state...' ~;)

My reply would've been straightforward:
Pre-emptive strikes against non-WMD owning rogue states: Louis and Chirac say no.
Pre-emptive strikes against WMD owning rogue states: Louis in favour, Chirac not.)

Anyway, I fear you're right and that nobody will act - until it's too late. Maybe the Israeli's will.

Europe's diplomacy failed. Not a shame, the world community has to try to find a diplomatic solution first. But now that is has proven to be of no avail, we have to be realistic and act. Sanctions are a joke in this sort of situation.

oh, well I didnt know all that much about Iran.... well then let me remake my statement to: *sigh* ah shit.

Quote:

---

Any attempt by the US to intervene militarily would have been met with the same opposition by France and Germany that our efforts in Iraq were.

---

Why do you think that? After all, it`s not as if France and Germany didn`t join the US in some wars recently.
BTW don`t forget there`s a 'regime change' coming about in Germany very soon.

I dont think that EU countries have a permanent negative stand,on everything US does.European countries supported the first gulf war,and committed troops too.If i remember correctly,even the French shared good portion of fighting back then. ~;) But you are correct that Russia and China are going to water avery resolution in UN on this matter.This would be great place for EU,to really make a stand,because we are the first target for these nukes that are under development. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Why do you think that? After all, it`s not as if France and Germany didn`t join the US in some wars recently.
BTW don`t forget there`s a 'regime change' coming about in Germany very soon.

---

I think DC is right. Opposing the war in Iraq didn't hurt either Chirac or Schröder. Our new president (in two years time) and the next chancellor will have taken notice of that...

And secondly, France and Germany were opposed to the war in Iraq because there was no sound and conclusive evidence of Iraq possessing WMP. Even if it turned out that we were right about that, it will be next to impossible to now favour a strike against a country that technically doesn't posses WMD's either.
The subtlety that Iran inevidably will produce them whereas Iraq probably wasn't capable of doing that will undoubtly be lost on the voting masses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I dont think that EU countries have a permanent negative stand,on everything US does.European countries supported the first gulf war,and committed troops too.If i remember correctly,even the French shared good portion of fighting back then. ~;)

---

Yes. We are in Afghanistan. We are in Kosovo. We were there in the first gulf war. We were there in Korea. We fought on the same side in WW2 and WW1. We even were there in 1776.

And sometimes, as in Algeria or now in Iraq, we fight our own silly little wars without the other.

Why do people think Israel can be stopped from preemptively destroying Bushehr? America won't be able to stop them even if we wanted to. The last thing the Israeli's want is a nuclear arm race in the Middle East, which will be a direct result of Iran gaining this capability.

And why would America need to invade? From the above article:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...an-strikes.htm

Quote:

---

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

---

Pretty screwed up situation - but what are the options here?

a) Airstrike by Israel
This would probably mean that we can kiss any hope of peace in the Middle East goodbye for the next decades. In the worst case this could lead to an open war in the region.

b) Airstrike by the US
Best way to cement the power of the current rulers in Iran. Who knows what that might mean for the situation in Iraq (nothing good I would guess).

In both cases a) and b) expect new recruits flocking to AQ.

Also it is very likely that both options only postpone the inevitable. If Iran has the know-how to make nuclear weapons they will continue to pursue them. The next target will be less obvious.
Any airstrikes will also show other countries that you better try to get your hands on nukes (preferrably without anybody noticing before it's to late) - after all North Korea seems to be in a pretty secure position with the threat of possibly existing nukes.

c) Keep on negotiating/do nothing
Most likely this will lead to Iran having nukes in the end. Not a situation I am personally looking forward to. Unfortunately and realistically we will probably have to get used to the idea of states we rather would not like to see having access to nukes getting their hands on them at some point (this djinni was out of the bottle the moment the first nukes were developed :help: )

d) Embargo on Iran
Might help for a while, but in the end if Iran really wants nukes they will get them sooner or later - and an embargo might actually even increase their determination to get nukes.


In the end we will most likels see either an Iran with nukes or an awful lot of people will pay a very high price for preventing Iran from getting nukes.

I would probably go for option d) and hope for the best, but quite frankly, I do not like any of these options...

Well Iran did say that any strike by Israel on their nuclear reactors will be met with an Iranian strike on Israels reactors. The future is orange.

They have an all solid fuel Shahab-7 they've been working on with Pakistan that has a 12,000 km range.
Nooooooo they are our allies , they wouldn't be helping a member of the axis of evil with its weapons programs ~;)