Iran announces mass uranium production

[Odin]

From the AP:

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

Iran is prepared to start "industrial scale" enrichment of uranium, the vice president said Monday, expanding a key nuclear process that the United Nations has demanded the country halt.

The announcement came as Iran celebrated the one-year anniversary of its first success in enriching small amounts of uranium at its Natanz enrichment facility in central Iran.

"Now we are entering the mass production of centrifuges and starting to launch industrial scale enrichment, another step toward the flourishing of Islamic Iran," Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said at a ceremony at Natanz.

Aghazadeh, who heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, did not elaborate. Industrial-scale enrichment is the term Iran uses to mean a capability to produce greater levels of nuclear fuel — which would suggest Iran has increased the number of centrifuges working at Natanz.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to speak later at the ceremonies and announce "good nuclear news," according to state-run TV. The Iranian press has speculated he will announce the installation of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz.

The U.N. has imposed limited sanctions on Iran until it suspends enrichment a key process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the basis of a warhead. The United States and its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a claim the country denies.

Iranian state television reported Monday that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general who is banned from traveling abroad under the sanctions has visited Russia without any difficulty.

Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, who is also deputy interior minister for security affairs, was quoted on the state TV Web site as saying that his six-day journey to Moscow, which ended Monday, showed "the ineffectiveness of the resolution."

The resolution calls on all governments to ban visits by the 15 individuals and says that should such visits occur — presumably for exceptional circumstances — the countries should notify a U.N. committee.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Krivtsov confirmed that Zolqadr visited Russia. He told The Associated Press that the resolution does not prohibit visits by the listed individuals, but calls for heightened vigilance "directed first of all at people who are directly related to nuclear programs" — suggesting that Zolqadr was not.

The unveiling of new centrifuges at Natanz, in central Iran, would be a strong show of defiance toward the United Nations, which has vowed to ratchet up sanctions as long as Iran refuses to suspend enrichment. The Security Council has set a new deadline of late May.

Tensions are also high between Iran and the West following the 13-day detention of 15 British sailors by Iran. The sailors, who were seized by Revolutionary Guards off the Iraqi coast, were released on Wednesday, but since then have said they were put under psychological pressure by their captors to force them to "confess" to being in Iranian waters when captured, angering many in Britain.

Diplomats from developing nations were attending Monday's celebrations at Natanz, but diplomats from European Union boycotted to protest Iran's refusal of the U.N. demands, said the Foreign Ministry in Germany, which currently holds the EU presidency.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said his country was willing to negotiate with the West and offer assurances that its program is peaceful. But he said the West must accept its nuclear program as a fact.

"We are ready to reach understanding with the Westerners through a corridor of real negotiations — in the current situation, in which Iran's nuclear activities have been concluded," state television quoted Larijani as saying.

"The understanding regards assuring the other party about the peacefulness of Iran's nuclear activities," he said. "But we do not give in our rights."

Across Iran, school bells rang to mark the "national day of nuclear energy." The government sent out SMS messages of congratulations for the occasion to millions of mobile phone users.

In Tehran, some 200 students formed a human chain at Iran's Atomic Energy Organization while chanting "death to America" and "death to Britain." The students burnt flags of the U.S. and Britain.

On April 9, 2006, Iran announced it had first enriched uranium using an array of 164 centrifuges.

Iran has said its next step is to set up 3,000 centrifuges, but it is not clear where the project stands.

Experts say the Natanz plant needs between 50,000 to 60,000 centrifuges to consistently produce fuel for a reactor or build a warhead.

In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped into a "cascade" of thousands of centrifuges, which spin the gas at supersonic speeds to purify it. Uranium enriched to a low level, at least 3 percent, can be used as fuel, while at a far higher level, more than 90 percent, it can be used to build a weapon.

Iran currently has two cascades of 164 centrifuges each operating at an aboveground portion of the Natanz facility in central Iran. The two cascades have produced small quantities of non-weapons grade enriched uranium, U.N. nuclear inspectors have said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/...a/iran_nuclear

*********************************************************

So what exactly do we do now? Clearly this points out yet again the futility of taking the UN route, so anyone have any solutions to the Iranian drive for increased nuclear activity?

**scratches head** hhhhmmmmm 2 Carriers in the gulf already, increased military (the surge) in iraq, boy the direction it appears to be going looks like loads of fun for everyone !

[Ice]

We do absolutely nothing besides put pressure on the government to stop. There are moderates in the Iranian government who are probably getting fed up with Awantadinnerjacket's nuclear policy. Attacking would be a horrible idea for the following reasons:

A) Oil goes up... economy goes bad... Remember what happened with the small British hostage crisis?

B) A united Iran that hates the West is not a good thing.

C) I really don't feel like adding another 3 trillion dollars to our deficit for a war that could have been avoided.

[Odin]

We do absolutely nothing besides put pressure on the government to stop.

Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....

I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.

There are moderates in the Iranian government who are probably getting fed up with Awantadinnerjacket's nuclear policy.

Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.

Oil goes up... economy goes bad... Remember what happened with the small British hostage crisis?

Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.

A united Iran that hates the West is not a good thing.

given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.

I really don't feel like adding another 3 trillion dollars to our deficit for a war that could have been avoided

I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

[Devastatin Dave]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

[KukriKhan]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

[Odin]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Well that assumes we leave intact thier ability to move into these area's dosent it? I suspect that airstrikes will envitably lead to targeting military infrastructure as well (I am not advocating that, its just my read on the evolution of the event).

I also think that any land grab by Iran, in a weakened state, will envoke a reaction from Sunni majority states in the region. Iran is a powerful nation but its ability to act unilaterally is some what contigent on regional support for its policies which it dosent have.

[gunslinger]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

I really don't think that scenario is too worrisome. The U.S. military has lost a lot of face due to the inability to end the insurgency in Iraq, but it is still nearly invincible in a "conventional war" against an army like the IRG. I'm sure the U.S. generals and policymakers would actually love to see the Iranian army come storming across Iraq's borders. Such overt actions are much easier to explain to the French, Germans, Russians, etc. than the fact that Iran is already comitting acts of war by supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

[Devastatin Dave]

. Such overt actions are much easier to explain to the French, Germans, Russians, etc. than the fact that Iran is already comitting acts of war by supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[Adrian II]

"Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three and five years have been made again and again — for more than 15 years.

For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to this gross exaggeration of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the rest of the American intelligence community may know where Iran's nuclear installations are located. Or they may not. They may know how those installations are inter-connected, which ones are the most important, and how they can be hit and destroyed. Or they may not.

If their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind."

Dixit Martin van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Hebrew University and said to be the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

[doc_bean]

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys. But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran, so this is a non-issue.

Regardless it would probably be a bad idea to attack them, China would probably want part of the 'action' which could be very bad in the long term. The muslim world 'might' unite and that would be a VERY bad thing, and in the short term oil prices will go though the roof, possibly crippling US economy.

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

[BigTex]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

There's almost no way they could win in an offensive conventional war agaisnt the USA and Britian. They'd definately try, but for one thing the only strength Iran has against the USA in a conventional role is the terrian of Iran. We may not be able to easily invade, but bombing and defending the borders is very possible, and Iran knows that.

We've already seen their inability to control the radicals in their government with them taking 15 hostages. What do you think will happen once they have nuclear weapons or just nuclear waste?

[Pannonian]

"Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three and five years have been made again and again — for more than 15 years.

For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to this gross exaggeration of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the rest of the American intelligence community may know where Iran's nuclear installations are located. Or they may not. They may know how those installations are inter-connected, which ones are the most important, and how they can be hit and destroyed. Or they may not.

If their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind."

Dixit Martin van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Hebrew University and said to be the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

Don't forget his remark that Iran would be mad if they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons.

We've already seen their inability to control the radicals in their government with them taking 15 hostages. What do you think will happen once they have nuclear weapons or just nuclear waste?

That's why it's so important to get them on our side so we can help them retain control of any potential nuclear matter. To paraphrase, it's better to have them in the tent urinating out, than out urinating in. If you can't stop someone from getting something, you might as well try and get control of it once they have it.

[KukriKhan]

So it's green-light time for the US Navy & Air Force to bomb what might be nuke facilities someday, and military installations, as a pre-emptive measure, and our Euro friends will buy it, as long as we don't put boots-on-the-pavement of Tehran?

[Ice]

Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....

More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.

I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on

Yes, I agree.

, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.

Not a good idea.

Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.

The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.

Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.

Very high. It would send the US economy into a deep recession.

given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.

Oh, it can get MUCH MUCH worse. Like I said, a war with Iran would cripple our economy due to the fact they can cause even more instability in the already volatile Middle East.

I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.

Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

[Odin]

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys. But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran, so this is a non-issue.

Regardless it would probably be a bad idea to attack them, China would probably want part of the 'action' which could be very bad in the long term. The muslim world 'might' unite and that would be a VERY bad thing, and in the short term oil prices will go though the roof, possibly crippling US economy.

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

Yet again Doc you dont dissapoint, you offer no solution or even an attempt at one, merely listing the potential negative outcomes to prior actions or future choices is pure armchair general and smacks of lack of imagination,and no real thought of your own.

instead we get

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys.

and

But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran

Come on, go out on a limb, put the "U.S. dosent have the balls" rhetoric to the side and lets hear what you think should be done about the Iranian nuclear issue.

Love to hear you give us an original thought on it Doc, rather then the tired recycled jib jabs you currently offer.

Of course coming from a position of

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

I suspect you dont really have a solution, or would even attempt to formulate one anyway.

ahhh makes it much easier to take the easy way out dosent it, I mean its easy to beat the same tired drum at nauseum after the fact.

Again, I find your contribution less then enlightening

[KukriKhan]

Steady lads. We're only on page 1 of this topic, so let's not start so early with personal criticisms, but rather: keep it on-topic: 'what is to be done about Iran's uranium production, and why'?

[Odin]

More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.

Perhaps we disagree on the effect of any UN sanction, what was that Iranian generals name who was just in Moscow that was apart of the current ban ? It isnt working without full implementation by the soviets and the chinese, they dont seem to be on board.

The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.

I am not educated enough about the process of how one becomes a supreme leader in Iran to offer a counter argument. Currently though, he is not a moderate.

It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.

I honestly agree, my position is based on the current situation though. It dosent appear to be heading in the direction you are noting as far as the time line. Our carriers arent there just for show I just havent seen any historical precedent for it.

Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

I agree, I want to talk to these people 1 on1 and figure it out. I am not concerned with loss of prestige or recognition, I want Rice to visit Tehran and start a conversation with them now, so if your time line is correct by then we can recognize and monitor thier peaceful civilian nuclear program.

But, thats not the way it seems to be progressing.

[Odin]

Steady lads. We're only on page 1 of this topic, so let's not start so early with personal criticisms, but rather: keep it on-topic: 'what is to be done about Iran's uranium production, and why'?

Sorry, edit my post if you need to.

@Doc: I appologize for any personal shots that was my gut reaction to your post, in the future I will reread before hitting submit. Nothing personal was meant, I genuinely would like to hear your opinion, with the shots at the U.S. left aside.

[doc_bean]

You expect there to be a solution ? Like a puzzle you can solve or a game you can beat ?

Like I said there is none, military action is almost out of the question and economic sanction will only take us so far (until they decide we've had enough of their oil that is).

The thing to do is recognize our losses, try to keep face and let them have their nuclear technology. Undermine their government with propaganda (long live the internet, and radio stations with strong transmissions) and hope for the best.

If we were really serious about it we could bomb their installations (again) but I don't know how reliant we are on their oil supply, or if they don't have hidden reactors and decoys, nor do I have a clear vision as to what this will add to the west vs Islam 'war'. So I'd go for the accepting our loss.

Also: you seem angry about my 'US doesn't have the balls' comment, clearly missing the 'not even the US' part, clearly indicating that if anyone would be able to pull something like this off it would be the US.

So hey, sorry if I don't offer 'the solution', if you want solutions ask 4th graders, they have the answer to everything, I just see possibilities, better ones and worse ones, to consider. Nor am I really interested in 'the solution', people who preach one are often virtually impossible to argue with, and frankly, not very interesting, though some of them here at the Org can be quite funny.

But if you don't care to read my posts anymore, I'm pretty sure the Org offers a block option. You should perhaps look into that

[Adrian II]

Don't forget his remark that Iran would be mad if they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons.

I speak to him every now and then (met him years ago at a conference and we stayed in contact) and I know that he thinks Iran could already have a rudimentary nuclear device without us knowing anything about it.

Van Creveld holds that Western intelligence on such issues is horribly, depressingly, criminally bad and policy is built on hunches and extraneous considerations instead of solid data and clear thinking. I think he is right. The Iraq adverture was based on three notions derived from so-called intelligence that were all three nonsensical.

Yes, Tehran would be crazy not to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea showed them the way. Nuclear arms usually act as a sedative in troubled regions. I think that once Iran has become an established nuclear power, not only Tehran but the whole Gulf region will be much more relaxed and cooperative.

[Odin]

But if you don't care to read my posts anymore, I'm pretty sure the Org offers a block option. You should perhaps look into that

Your right so it does ! I havent used in since I was in the off topic room when I first came here. Thankfully Doc you have very little of substance to say anyway so I wont be missing much.

Cheers

[Vladimir]

Yes, Tehran would be crazy not to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea showed them the way. Nuclear arms usually act as a sedative in troubled regions. I think that once Iran has become an established nuclear power, not only Tehran but the whole Gulf region will be much more relaxed and cooperative.

Hmm, methinks at least one nation in the region might get an ulcer or two.

[doc_bean]

Your right so it does ! I havent used in since I was in the off topic room when I first came here. Thankfully Doc you have very little of substance to say anyway so I wont be missing much.

Cheers

So what exactly do we do now? Clearly this points out yet again the futility of taking the UN route, so anyone have any solutions to the Iranian drive for increased nuclear activity?

**scratches head** hhhhmmmmm 2 Carriers in the gulf already, increased military (the surge) in iraq, boy the direction it appears to be going looks like loads of fun for everyone !

Clearly your posts are more thought out than mine, I apoligize for wasting your time with my pointless rantings about 'global impact' 'economic concerns' and such. Clearly you know the way forward

[Odin]

Yes, Tehran would be crazy not to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea showed them the way. Nuclear arms usually act as a sedative in troubled regions. I think that once Iran has become an established nuclear power, not only Tehran but the whole Gulf region will be much more relaxed and cooperative.

You know a guy at work has a similar view on it and on the one hand I agreed with him that it allows for a degree of stability due to the deterrant factor, but absent in the North Korean comparisson is the cultural nuances of Israels exsistance.

North Korea dosent have an elephant in the room like that I suspect that if the U.S. dosent act first Israel might.

[Adrian II]

You know a guy at work has a similar view on it and on the one hand I agreed with him that it allows for a degree of stability due to the deterrant factor, but absent in the North Korean comparisson is the cultural nuances of Israels exsistance.

North Korea dosent have an elephant in the room like that I suspect that if the U.S. dosent act first Israel might.

There are only two things that Israel can do to stop Iran's nuclear quest:

1. nothing
2. destroy Iran entirely with a nuclear assault

Any thought of commando raids, surprise bombings &cetera is a boy scouts dream.

Israel will have to learn to deal with nuclear neighbours and start talking to them in earnest with an eye to peace and regional cooperation. I am confident that they will.

[Pannonian]

There are only two things that Israel can do to stop Iran's nuclear quest:

1. nothing
2. destroy Iran entirely with a nuclear assault

Any thought of commando raids, surprise bombings &cetera is a boy scouts dream.

Israel will have to learn to deal with nuclear neighbours and start talking to them in earnest with an eye to peace and regional cooperation. I am confident that they will.

I've suggested before that Israel might be better off if they left the protection of the US, and started taking other countries in the region into account. Israeli politicians have historically been masterful pragmatists, playing off all sides against each other, and managing to wring the best deal from sponsors seemingly at intractable odds with each other.

However, since they've aligned themselves with the most powerful country with the world, they've not had to account for anyone other than the US, and have been too closely linked with them as a result. While they are still able to control the direction of policy to some exent, it also means that, once the course is set and Washington has been persuaded of a paradigm in thinking, they cannot easily change course, as that depends entirely on Washington's whim.

So my suggestion for Israel would be to lessen their dependence on the US, engage in more bilateral and multilateral relations with their neighbours, and regain some of their independence. They can't live in a cocoon forever, and this is healthier in the long run.

[Odin]

So my suggestion for Israel would be to lessen their dependence on the US, engage in more bilateral and multilateral relations with their neighbours, and regain some of their independence. They can't live in a cocoon forever, and this is healthier in the long run.

I think this might be true and a decent place to start is the arab peace initiative. Still its hard to deal for peace when you are surrounded by nations who prefer you not to be there if when they are offerring you a peace deal by which you give up something tangible in exchange for a change of mindset (that might not sell to the general public)

[Marshal Murat]

It's nice that Tehran is so considerate.

I think that the U.S. should either
A)Pull out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan
B)Prepare for some serious battles in a nation that hates you, any you have strapped your left arm behind your back.

[Pannonian]

I think this might be true and a decent place to start is the arab peace initiative. Still its hard to deal for peace when you are surrounded by nations who prefer you not to be there if when they are offerring you a peace deal by which you give up something tangible in exchange for a change of mindset (that might not sell to the general public)

Palestine is the key factor in all this. Other countries in the region are only able to make the noise they do because they have the excuse of backing their fellow Arabs/Muslims. If Israel are able to come to a settlement that is generally accepted by the Palestinian people, that excuse disappears. If Israel manages to come up with a settlement that is actively attractive to Palestine, not only does that excuse disappear, it will actually turn against those who have been using the Palestinians as a proxy tool to fight their wars.

What kind of settlement would that be? I don;t know, but I do know it would require a radical change in mindset from Israel to even contemplate it. Why does this all hinge on action from Israel, and little on Palestine? Because Israel is by many levels of magnitude the wealthier, more powerful player in this, and they can afford action much more than the Palestinians.

[Odin]

There are only two things that Israel can do to stop Iran's nuclear quest:

1. nothing
2. destroy Iran entirely with a nuclear assault

Any thought of commando raids, surprise bombings &cetera is a boy scouts dream.

Israel will have to learn to deal with nuclear neighbours and start talking to them in earnest with an eye to peace and regional cooperation. I am confident that they will.

I agree with your options to stop thier quest but I have no doubt in my mind that the Israelies could slow the progress signifigantly with air strikes. That would lead to a broader war which wouldnt be good, but historically I dont see a precedent for israel standing pat and watching and waiting.

If something else dosent happen on the international level with Iran, Israel will be forced to act or sacrafice its tactical advantage as being the one nation in the region with nukes.

I just dont think the israelies are going to watch on the sidelines indefinately, even if it is a boyscout dream thats all they have.