Re: Iran's nuclear program
Well, I must be on the right track if Monsieur le Épais seems to agree with me. I'm terribly afraid Ser Clegnane is right. You can do everything you possibly can to try to prevent a country from getting nuclear weapons, but if they possess the know-how, the will and the materials (and the mullahs of Iran possess all 3) there is really very little to be done.
I don't think Israel will launch airstrikes. They cannot, as it would most likely cause a replay of the 6-days war, and most likely one without the favorable conclusion for Israel, namely all of the nations over there simultaneously attacking Israel. It was a small miracle that didn't happen when they bombed Osiraq, and that was about as good as their public image in the Arab world had ever gotten, or has gotten since (having just ceded the Sinai peninsula back to Egypt).
If an embargo was to have any hope of effect, it should have been started years ago. They probably already have all the raw materials they need right now, and frankly, from a trading perspective, the world needs Iran's oil much more than Iran needs anything from anyplace else. What's more, there's no way China & Russia would honor it.
Were I an EU leader, I would begin negotiating with the Iranians as though Iran already had nuclear strike capability as short of an invasion into Iran, there's next to nothing to be done to stop them from gaining it. The Iraqis never considered that the Israelis would take such a chance as to launch an outright airstrike against them. There's no way Iran, with us right door, hasn't already taken precautions against us or Israel bombing their research facilities. I imagine where they're performing bomb development is impregnable as Cheyene Mountain, out in Colorado. Very little even bunker busters can do against those.
Re: Iran's nuclear program
An article I posted on preperations back in March: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2800_1,00.html
Quote:
So in the tradition of Israeli military adventurism — the honour roll includes the destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 and the raid on Entebbe, Uganda, in 1976 — Jerusalem is preparing for another daring strike.
The risk of delaying a military strike, they say, is that once the Bushehr reactors start up, their destruction might cause an environmental catastrophe on a par with the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986.
Re: Iran's nuclear program
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
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...
:embarassed: I think you're right. Iran and N Korea with nukes. Great... I wonder if they will keep track of them any better than the Russians have...?
Azi
P.S. +2 points to Ser Clegane for use of the spelling djinni. I've never seen that outside of Golden Sun before. Well done!
Re: Iran's nuclear program
Is this true "...Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment"
If so, than the move they are making gets my support. Nuclear Energy is a much better source of power, than Oil, Gas, Coal or any other high energy sources.
Re: Iran's nuclear program
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
Is this true "...Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment"
If so, than the move they are making gets my support. Nuclear Energy is a much better source of power, than Oil, Gas, Coal or any other high energy sources.
At the risk of sounding like Gawain, please allow me to say "Not this again..."
When you reprocess uranium, you get plutonium. They're not doing it to make more efficicient nuclear reactors, they're doing it to make weapons grade material.
Re: Iran's nuclear program
French intelligence has confirmed for the Americans that Iran IS attempting to build nuclear weapons. I don't think this is seriously disputed by many.
IMO North Korea and Pakistan are more deserving of our concern than Iran is, regarding the Possession of nuclear weapons. The Pakistani regime and people have shown themselves to be very supportive of Al Qaeda and have harboured the remnants of the Taliban. Iran was assisting the Northern Alliance alongside the US in the War against the Taliban in Afghanistan while Pakistan supported the Taliban. Iran offered to help the US when we were going into Afghanistan. Iran has also arrested Al Qaeda members and disrupted Al Qaeda cells within Iran which is more than most of our so-called allies have done. At least 200 Al Qaeda suspects are in prison and between 500 and 800 more have been deported.
These showed up in Iran as Al Qaeda and Taliban members fleeing the Afghan conflict. Other groups such as Ansar al-Islam from the territory of America's Kurdish allies were also arrested when they fled from Iraq. Iran took this action because "because they intended to use Iranian territory to launch terrorist strikes on other countries." The Iranians held a candlelight vigils on 9/11 to condemn the terrorist attacks on the US. The Palestinians and Pakistani's danced and celebrated in the streets after the attack. About a week after the attack, a picture appeared of some people in Pakistan holding a large banner that read "America think! why you are hated all over the world." But remember Iran is our enemy while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends!
The Governing Council in Iraq decided in January of 2004 to expel the People's Mujahadeen (MKO) AKA Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) from Iraq with American support though U.S. forces and the Mujahadeen militias have cooperated in the past. MeK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997. MEK members were among those in 1979 who invaded the U. S. Embassy in Tehran, kidnapping 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days.
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the Iranian government banned the Communist MeK and they fled to neighboring Iraq. President Bush did order the group disarmed but this doesn't seem to have been done with much diligence. Twenty years ago, the MeK was responsible for a suicide bombing that killed most of Iran's cabinet and many members of parliament. The MeK broadcasts are beamed into Iran from studios in plain sight of American forces and Pentagon officials attend MeK press conferences in Baghdad. The group’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, maintains offices in several capitals, including Washington, D.C. The United States found itself in the bizarre position of being semi-allied to some of the Iranian hostage takers AGAINST the Iranian government hunting down and arresting Al Qaeda terrorist cells! Some intermediaries have suggested a prisoner exchange, MeK for the Al Qaeda members in Iranian prisons but the Iranian foreign ministry refused saying "We do not do deals when it comes to terrorists." Now who said life wasn't stranger than fiction?
Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Younessi has stated that "Some of these groups are used by intelligence services of countries in the region or by the United States and Israel." The United States accuses Iran of supporting Al Qaeda. The Bush administration claims Al Qaeda operatives are acting from their prison cells to orchestrate terrorist activities. This seems a little odd as the Iranians despise Al Qaeda as much as the Americans do. Al Qaeda is a violent anti-Shiite movement who have conducted acts of terror against Iran as well. The Imam Reza shrine in Mashad for example was bombed by Al Qaeda and they also beheaded some Iranian diplomats in Mazaar-e-Sharif.
Iran's governing council may be fanatical, but they're certainly not stupid.
The United States has repeatedly threatened to invade Iran, list them as part of the axis of evil, invaded their next door neighbour, and have huge military forces deployed in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Condoleezza Rice has given assurances that a military attack by the United States on Iran "is simply not on the agenda at this point. This is less than reassuring as it suggests a scheduling problem that has still to be worked out. Pakistan, Israel, India, and the US have nuclear weapons and the Central Asian Republics are said to have some loose nukes running around as well. A failure of the Iranians to react to all of this is not a realistic expectation.
Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. The Iranian government believes that one of the reasons that the US went to war in Iraq was to complete the encirclement of Iran by American forces, some of which are present in the Central Asian Republics, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, in the Gulf states, and in Iraq. From 1980 until 1988, Iran fought a war against Iraq, with the Iraqi's using chemical weapons largely developed with aid from the west and assistance via the American proxies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. For obvious reasons the europeans and Americans now waxing poetic about the evils of possessing weapons of mass destruction rings hollow in their ears.
Military intervention in Iran would be a disaster of epic proportions. The Iranians used mass infantry assaults against Iraq with a tremendous cost in lives. Iran is a nation of close to 70 million people and it would require a huge army to occupy that nation. The mention of American threats to Iran is a negative factor as it changes the internal issue from one of opposition to the government, to loyalty to one's nation and people. Despite the democratic aspirations of young iranians they are loyal to their nation. Such threats are welcomed by the radical clerics as they help to bolster the image they have of a belligerent America hostile to Iran and helps to short circuit the reformers programs. A war against Iran is a war against the people of Iran and they will respond accordingly. The question is, do we actually want to accomplish something useful here?
Even diehard opponents of the Iranian regime would become our enemy.
" As far as the Islamic Republic of Iran is concerned, people have 25 years experience of this most brutal oppression in Iran and for them, the regime must go. But not through US intervention."
Hamid Taqvaee, is the leader of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran
Needless to say that Communists and Fundamentalist clerics are not real friendly.
Furthermore any such attack would run into problems on the ground with Iraq's growing ties with the government of Iran. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari made a trip to Iran, where he laid a wreath at the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini, signed an economic cooperation pact involving Iraq's oil fields and Iranian refining facilities. Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq has met with the Iranian foreign minister in may of 2005, but he hasn't bothered to meet with the Americans. Not a good sign.
Iraq's new defense minister, Saadoun Dulaimi also visited Iran in July 2005, for talks regarding the border and said in a joint press conference with Iranian Defence Minister Adm Ali Shamkhani“Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries”. Also under discussion was an “Iran- Iraq military Cooperation agreement” which would involve provision of Iranian military training assistance and Iranian military assistance for upgrading Iraq’s armed forces. The failure of the United States to make any effort in this regard has not helped matters. There is no Iraqi Air Force worthy of the name, the former Iraqi tank holdings captured during the war were destroyed for no good reason and charity donations from Hungary and the UAE have exceeded American help in this regard. AFAIK there is not a single American tank in the Iraqi inventory. The story is the same for fighter jets. The Iraqis have no military equipment to speak of so how exactly are they ever going to be ready to defend themselves?
Gulf newspapers quoting sources close to the Iraqi Prime Minister claimed that the Iraqi Prime Minister and Iraqi Defence Minister would be offering pledges to Iran, that Iraqi soil would not be allowed to be used for any United States attacks on Iran. The US has deposed the Sunni minority government from power and replaced them with the Shia's. It is Iran that holds the political and religious allegiance of the Shia leadership and the loyalty of the Shia majority.
To be blunt the US has no real military options for attacking Iran. Iran would strike back hard if attacked and they have most of the advantages in such a confrontation. The Iranian army would not be any real problem in the short term. However, American ground forces are tied down in Iraq and Iranian influence with the Shia groups in Iraq would probably mean that those forces would need to be increased in the event of an attack. A limited US attack against just the reactors would leave Iran the option of supplying the insurgents with equipment and supplies. They could also move "volunteers" into Iraq and Afghanistan as well and begin extensive support for worldwide terror groups. Realistically, American options at this point are somewhat limited.
IMO we suffer from seeing Iran as they were 20 years ago rather than what they are. This is the sort of mistake that we can ill afford to make. I don't think we can stop them and if we cannot we need to consider what is in our best interests!
Re: Iran's nuclear program
Sharrukin, just because they don't like Al Queda and want to rat them out, doesn't mean that Iran doesn't see a use for terrorism. They just prefer their own breed of terrorists. Or did you think Hizbollah has been acting on their own for the past 25 years?
Re: Iran's nuclear program
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Sharrukin, just because they don't like Al Queda and want to rat them out, doesn't mean that Iran doesn't see a use for terrorism. They just prefer their own breed of terrorists. Or did you think Hizbollah has been acting on their own for the past 25 years?
I am not suggesting they don't support terror groups! We do the same and 911 hasn't changed that. Their interests and ours are closer than most nations in the regions including many we call allies. We should act accordingly!
Re: Iran's nuclear program
I still think Nuclear Energy is a good direction.
Also, it would appear from this article, enriching Uranium to produce more U-235 instead of U-238 is a good step in producing uranium fuel. It would appear, spent fuel is used for "plutonium" production, i.e. nuclear weapons. If this next step can be monitored, what it wrong with this. Iran is a different country that it was when in setup the "hizbollah" initially. Does it still support them ? Is there recent proof of this ?
