A nuclear Iran: The world was warned

[hist2004]

A nuclear Iran: The world was warned

BY URI DROMI

Good morning, World, Iran is ready to go nuclear!

A uranium enrichment facility nobody knew of suddenly emerges in the sacred city of Qom, Iran launches missiles that can threaten not only U.S. targets in the Persian gulf, but also Israel and southern Europe, and now the world panics.

Surprised? Not if you're an Israeli. For years we have been sounding the alarm, only to be told to stop crying wolf. Now we are asked to lie low and let the responsible leaders of the world take care of the situation.

In 1993, when I was the spokesman of the Israeli government, my boss, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, made a dramatic turn in his hitherto coherent perception about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Contrary to his previous declarations, that the PLO was not a credible partner for peace, Rabin unexpectedly gave his blessing -- albeit half-heartedly -- to the Oslo process.

I was curious to find out what made him change his mind. He was not a man of elaborate explanations. Sometimes you just had to guess from his body language what made him tick. It was in the middle of an interview when a European journalist mentioned Iran in passing, that Rabin banged the table and said in a coarse voice: ``Exactly!'' The rest came out during a later interview: We have to mend fences with our closer neighbors (the Palestinians and Jordanians), Rabin said, so that we can brace ourselves to tackle the bigger challenge rising over the horizon: Iran.

Taking the cue from Rabin, I started to talk to the representatives of the world media based in Jerusalem about the Iranian nuclear threat. I told them that it was not an Israeli issue only, that a Shiite Iran with nukes would cause havoc in the Sunni Mideast, with serious repercussions for the rest of the world.

The response was usually shoulder shrugging, glazed eyes and insinuations that Israel was trying to lure the United States into attacking Iran for Israel's interests. In short, the tail was trying to wag the dog.

I had to remind them that in 1981, when Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor, it had been condemned right and left, with the United Nations ruling that Israel should pay compensation to Iraq. Ten years later, in the wake of Desert Storm, then-Defense Secretary **** Cheney gave a photograph of the bombed reactor to Maj. Gen. David Ivry, who commanded the Israeli Air Force during the attack, on which he wrote, ``With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job [you] did on the Iraqi Nuclear Program in 1981 which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.''

It's not that we Israelis are smarter than anybody else, or that we are blessed with a unique talent to foresee the future. It's just that whenever there has been a threat to the free world we have been there first, on the frontline, on the receiving end. Not willing ever to surrender to the threat, we came up with our original responses.

When the first Israeli airliner was hijacked to Algiers in 1968, we made El Al the world's safest airline. When Israelis were hijacked while flying Air France, we launched the Entebbe Raid to rescue them.

When Palestinian terrorists blew themselves up in the midst of our cities, we built a security fence that stopped them. Israel bashers condemned us for creating the barrier, which made life difficult for the Palestinians. Yet now, in hindsight, will they admit that life comes before quality of life?

And when our enemies started launching rockets at our cities, while hiding themselves among civilians, we were not intimidated: we went after them, trying to sort the villain from the innocent. We were heavily criticized for the way we did it, we still are: This is a very messy task indeed.

Yet Western soldiers and officers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people who have sent them to the battlefield, all know perfectly well that we have spearheaded a path for them; that we have shown a way where democracies can walk the thin line between keeping human rights and fighting terror effectively.

One day, when the weight of terror will become unbearable, the rest of the world will maybe understand as well.

Uri Dromi is a columnist based in Jerusalem.

Source (http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1262391.html)

[Rictor]

*sigh*

Iran has complied with its NPT commitments by declaring a nuclear site 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. Have they said that the facility will be used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade? Has the IAEA said so? No.

Furthermore, they are of no threat to "the free world", firstly because they have not shown themselves to be a belligerent nation, secondly because they have no missiles that can reach beyond their immediate vicinity (Israel does not equal "the free world") and thirdly because they are unlikely to develop nuclear weapons and in any case would never use them even if they did possess them.

The debate over Iran has grown increasingly irrational. And it's exactly these sorts of articles that are paving the way for a potential attack against a nation that has done nothing to warrant it.

[Loke2]

The debate over Iran has grown increasingly irrational. And it's exactly these sorts of articles that are paving the way for a potential attack against a nation that has done nothing to warrant it.
Perhaps you are right -- OTOH, I find it interesting that most countries in the "free world" are supporting the sanctions against Iran, and are deeply worried.

Contrast this to the last Iraq war: A lot of European countries did not support that war; also the current US president was against it.

The Iran situation seems rather different. Even the French are saying that Iran is working on nukes.

[hist2004]

Iran is no threat to the “free world”, they merely vowed to wipe Israel off the map, support the Hezzie’s & Hamas,
and when they build their nuclear weapon (not if) the Saudis, Turkey, Egypt et al will not feel compelled to follow suit.
It should make for a mellow vacation spot that Middle East.

Hist2004

[Estopped]

The debate over Iran has grown increasingly irrational. And it's exactly these sorts of articles that are paving the way for a potential attack against a nation that has done nothing to warrant it.

I'm in complete agreement.

Israel is just going to have to pipe down and accept that it isn't the centre of the universe.

[dindin]

perhaps you are right -- otoh, i find it interesting that most countries in the "free world" are supporting the sanctions against iran, and are deeply worried.

Contrast this to the last iraq war: A lot of european countries did not support that war; also the current us president was against it.

The iran situation seems rather different. Even the french are saying that iran is working on nukes.
sarkozy need attention

[Rictor]

Iran is no threat to the “free world”, they merely vowed to wipe Israel off the map, support the Hezzie’s & Hamas,
and when they build their nuclear weapon (not if) the Saudis, Turkey, Egypt et al will not feel compelled to follow suit.
It should make for a mellow vacation spot that Middle East.

Hist2004


When Kruschev vowed "we will bury you" at the UN, was it taken to mean that he would launch a nuclear war to rid the world of capitalism? No, of course not. So when Ahmadinejad proclaimed that Israel would disappear from the pages of history (not that he personally would destroy it), how is that any different? Face it: the man is a loudmouth, but his rhetoric does not reflect reality. There has been no indication that the entire Iranian establishment is ready to commit suicide, which is what a nuclear attack would bring, over the Palestinian issue.

Hezbollah and Hamas, as much as we both may dislike them, are focused solely against Israel. Nor are they existential threats, merely annoyances. They in no way threaten "the free world". When is the last time that Hamas attacked Barstow, Texas or Leipzig, Germany?

[Asheren]

If you look at history of nuclear proliferation single rule of a thumb is that if a single country does it its forcing its "enemies" to do same thing. After USA nuclear bomb its ideological enemy USSR got the nukes soon as they could.
North Korea is a bit different pair of shoes because south korea and japan are in close alliance with a nuclear country. Japanese are considered to be able to produce nukes within a year if they need to. Still it forced them to consider droping a neutral policy they were following since ww2. Also some of the dictatorships in the regions are already trying to develop ties with North Korea. Similiar disturbance in regional balance of power will happen if Iran goes nuclear. Countries like Syria, Lebanon and some of african regimes would quite propably join a power block created by nuclear armed Iran. Unlike with pakistan or north korea it could be large enough to require world powers to enter wartime economy if s..t hits the fan and for example Iran actualy try to attack Israel.

Second problem is that new nuclear countries use the nukes create a political pressure on the world. Advantage Iran would most certainly try to exploit.

[hist2004]

When Kruschev vowed "we will bury you" at the UN, was it taken to mean that he would launch a nuclear war to rid the world of capitalism? No, of course not. So when Ahmadinejad proclaimed that Israel would disappear from the pages of history (not that he personally would destroy it), how is that any different? Face it: the man is a loudmouth, but his rhetoric does not reflect reality. There has been no indication that the entire Iranian establishment is ready to commit suicide, which is what a nuclear attack would bring, over the Palestinian issue.

Hezbollah and Hamas, as much as we both may dislike them, are focused solely against Israel. Nor are they existential threats, merely annoyances. They in no way threaten "the free world". When is the last time that Hamas attacked Barstow, Texas or Leipzig, Germany?

The Iranians are not the Russians and if Isreal strikes Iran we will be drawn into it. Hezbollah & Hamas will attack Israel;again we will be drawn
into it.

Hist2004

[Rictor]

The Iranians are not the Russians

Why not? If you believe so, the onus is on you to explain why.


and if Isreal strikes Iran we will be drawn into it. Hezbollah & Hamas will attack Israel;again we will be drawn into it.
So here's a simple solution: Israel shouldn't attack Iran. They have no legal or moral basis for doing so. And the United States should certainly not intervene - after all, the Middle-East's strongest military and only nuclear nation is more than capable of defending itself.

[camerashy]

Lets.......kill them.

[hist2004]

Why not? If you believe so, the onus is on you to explain why.


So here's a simple solution: Israel shouldn't attack Iran. They have no legal or moral basis for doing so. And the United States should certainly not intervene - after all, the Middle-East's strongest military and only nuclear nation is more than capable of defending itself.


The Russians understood MAD (mutually assured destruction) Ahmadinejad and the Mullah’s may not be so convinced.
If the Israelis conclude that Iran and their proxies (Hezbollah & Hamas) will attempt to destroy them as they have
threaten to do, a nuclear armed Iran will increase that likelihood and set the Middle East down the nuclear proliferation
path.

If Israel strikes Iran, the Saudis and other ME countries will voice complaints but privately nod in approval. If the decision
to strike is made it will not be done by Netanyahu but by Ehud Barak. The timing will be when things calm down and are least
expected.

Hist2004

[davey]

Iran has complied with its NPT commitments by declaring a nuclear site 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. Have they said that the facility will be used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade? Has the IAEA said so? No.

Because Iran is an NPT signatory, the IAEA will soon inspect the facility. My forecast is that the IAEA will find that it is not a weapons grade enrichment plant (you can judge from the centrifuges).

As previously, Iran again played perfectly by the rules by declaring the facility when it was required to do so in terms of its NPT obligations.

This uproar is not about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but about keeping competitors out of the nuclear fuel market. The whiners are an exclusive club of uranium enrichers trying to keep the barriers of entry high by politicizing the issue and attaching a nuclear weapons tag to it.


..............I find it interesting that most countries in the "free world" are supporting the sanctions against Iran, and are deeply worried........................Even the French are saying that Iran is working on nukes.

You fill find that it is those countries active in the nuclear fuel market that shout the loudest. They want to keep the developing world out of the arms, space and nuclear markets. Self interest, that's all.

We'll see what the IAEA's findings about this new plant is.

[Rubber Johnny]

after all, the Middle-East's strongest military and only nuclear nation is more than capable of defending itself.

How exactly does one defends itself against a nuclear strike if not by pre-emptive strike? Clearly you're talking out of your ass, without anyone even mentioning a preventing attack on Iran.

As an Israeli I see no profit in attacking Iran just for the sake of it, or just to show who the boss in the region is. What I am worried about, is the fact that a nation that has openly stated their intentions towards Israelies will indeed become a nuclear power and have nuclear strike capabilities.

It's not a hidden fact that Iran opposes Israel and will continue to oppose it no matter which path we will take. Ofcourse I'm not delusional and I don't think Iran will one day decide to launch a nuke at us for no reason. The thing is that Iran's leaders - a dictator that had no problem slaughtering his own people in the streets or cheating the elections(?), and a religous madman with a passion for hating Israel - will not need anything grand to have as a reason to nuke Israel..

When a country goes off and sticks a "DOWN WITH ISRAEL" sign to their ICBM's on every military parade, it's ignorance to ignore what's going to happen once they become nuclear.

Also, as for the "free world", what is your guarentee that Iran won't get ahold of missiles with a larger range? How can you be so sure it will halt it's natural intentions of increasing their range of fire?

[Estopped]

The Russians understood MAD (mutually assured destruction) Ahmadinejad and the Mullah’s may not be so convinced. If the Israelis conclude that Iran and their proxies (Hezbollah & Hamas) will attempt to destroy them as they have threaten to do, a nuclear armed Iran will increase that likelihood and set the Middle East down the nuclear proliferation path.

So do you have any evidence that the mullahs are suicidal?

I'd say history proves them not to be.



If Israel strikes Iran, the Saudis and other ME countries will voice complaints but privately nod in approval. If the decision
to strike is made it will not be done by Netanyahu but by Ehud Barak. The timing will be when things calm down and are least
expected.
Hist2004

The thing is that I don't think Israel can strike Iran and be successful. To many people are assuming they can when the likelihood of success is not good.

[GiladS]

Security and Defense: To attack or not to attack...?

By YAAKOV KATZ (yaakovk@jpost.com)

In 1991, during the First Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel, causing extensive damage, wounding dozens and directly killing one person.

A year later, in 1992, a car bomb went off at the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people. In 1994, another car bomb smashed into the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, killing 85. Both attacks were attributed to Hizbullah terror cells, directed and financed by Iran.

In the summer of 2006, during the Second Lebanon War, Hizbullah fired over 4,000 short-to-medium-range rockets into Israel, causing extensive damage in the North and killing 44 civilians.

Now take all of this, multiply it by three, and you get a prediction for the fallout that can be expected from a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

As the talks with Iran opened on Thursday, one of the main questions on all of the participants' minds was what the one key country not at the talks - Israel - would do. Would it accept a deal struck between the United States, Russia, the European Union and Iran allowing the Islamic Republic to advance with a supervised civilian nuclear program, or would it decide to strike?

An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is not a simple operation and cannot be compared to the two previous strikes Israel carried out against the Syrian reactor in 2007 and the Iraqi reactor in 1981. In those two cases, the reactors consisted of one main facility, above ground and without advanced air defenses.


The same cannot be said of Iran's nuclear program. As discovered last week, the second uranium enrichment facility near Qom was dug inside a mountain with two tunnels for access. According to intelligence revelations, the facility contains 3,000 centrifuges - allegedly to enrich uranium to military levels - that would become operational by the middle of next year.

THIS NEW facility could be just the beginning. According to an article in Foreign Policy this week, the Qom facility is likely not the only nuclear installation that Iran has been hiding.

A centrifuge plant, the article said, requires uranium hexafluoride - a material derived from refined uranium ore and produced at a conversion plant. Iran, it continued, would probably not risk diverting the UH from the known conversion plant in Esfahan, which is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. Therefore, the article argued, Iran has likely set up an accompanying clandestine conversion facility.

An analysis of an Israeli attack plan, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington earlier this year, claimed that a strike would focus on four main facilities - the Natanz enrichment facility, the Bushehr light-water nuclear power reactor, the Arak heavy water facility and the conversion plant in Esfahan. According to the report, Israel would likely have to use close to 100 fighter jets, as well as its entire fleet of aerial fuel tankers.

According to the research, the shortest route for Israel would be via the North, while straddling the Syrian-Turkish border and then the Turkish-Iraqi border all the way to Iran. An alternative could be what is called the central route - flying directly over Jordan and Iraq into Iran. Each route has its political and operational risks.

NEEDLESS TO say, Israel is very skeptical of the possibility that the talks in Geneva that began on Thursday will produce a positive outcome. The discovery of the facility near Qom is the third time Iran has been caught red-handed deceiving the world about the extent of its project.

The first time was in 2002, when an Iranian opposition group revealed in a press conference that Iran was building a massive uranium enrichment facility - filled with thousands of centrifuges - in an underground, heavily-fortified bunker in a place called Natanz.

At the time, media reports speculated that the information revealed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran had come from a foreign intelligence agency, possibly the Mossad. Several years later, in the second case of deception, the CIA uncovered evidence that Iran had secretly tried designing a nuclear weapon and warhead.

This history of deceit - including buying equipment on the nuclear black market - has Israeli defense officials concerned that the facility at Qom is not the last secret Iranian nuclear installation.

"They have deceived the world numerous times until now and will continue to do so," one defense official said this week.

Despite the Israeli skepticism about Thursday's talks, there is not a clear consensus in the West regarding a military strike. Some claim it won't work. Others say it will only set the Iranians back by several years.

A delay, however, may be enough. Before the 1981 strike on the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad, the assessment in the IDF was that the operation would only succeed in delaying Saddam Hussein's nuclear program by a few years. In reality, it was never rebuilt.

One question that remains is what effect a strike would have on the Iranian public, much of which showed clearly after the June elections that it was opposed to the regime and wanted to fight for its freedom. Would a strike unite the public with the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or would it be met by cheers on the streets of Teheran? There is no clear answer.

Contrary to public thinking in Israel, Western intelligence agencies are also still split on the question of whether Iran is in fact currently working on its nuclear "weaponization" program.

A nuclear weapon requires three main components. The first is fissionable material - such as uranium - which Iran is known to be processing at Natanz, Qom and Arak. The second component is the delivery system, such as the Sajil-2, the long-range ballistic missile that Iran test-fired on Yom Kippur.

The third component is the weapons program, essentially the nuclear warhead that puts the first two components together and makes the nuclear weapon. In 2007, the US published a National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran had suspended its weapons program in 2003. This still seems to be the assessment in the US, where intelligence agencies claim that there is still no clear-cut evidence that Iran has renewed that part of its nuclear program.

Israel does not agree and has claimed for years that while Iran suspended the weapons program in 2003 on the eve of the American invasion of Iraq, out of fear that it was next in line, it renewed the program two years later. The Germans and French appear to accept Israel's assessment.

While publicly American officials claim that Iran is ultimately seeking a nuclear weapon - as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a longstanding opponent of military action, declared on Sunday - the difference in intelligence could be used by the Obama administration to pressure Israel into holding back on a military operation.

The Geneva talks are also aimed at doing just that. Although Israel is not optimistic about the outcome of the discussions, it is likely that Jerusalem will need to wait for the dialogue to finish before making any decisions on the matter.

Even if the dialogue fails, Israel will still need to wait to give the EU, Russia, the US and China the chance to impose tough sanctions on Iran, particularly in the energy sector and the supply of refined fuel, a measure believed to be capable of having a real effect on the regime. If the talks do fail, though, and the sanctions imposed are not tough, Israel will be left to decide what to do.

Alternatively the talks may succeed, and if the US reaches a deal under which the Islamic Republic is allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels for energy purposes, Israel's hands will be tied again.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1254393078568&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Zarak]

The Russians understood MAD (mutually assured destruction). Ahmadinejad and the Mullah’s may not be so convinced.

Clearly the Iranians are all genocidal sociopaths with little regard for themselves or their sons and daughters. :roll:

Yes, further nuclear proliferation may further destabilize the region. But not because Iran is a nation of Himmlers.

[hist2004]

So do you have any evidence that the mullahs are suicidal?


Well, even though the Mullah's are divided into different groups whether they be moderate, reformist or conservative, they
are united in their goal of defeating the so called crusader zionists to set the stage for the hidden Iman (Mahdi) to take
control of the world. Sounds irrational enough to me.

Hist2004

[hist2004]

Clearly the Iranians are all genocidal sociopaths with little regard for themselves or their sons and daughters. :roll:


Try reading about Operation Ramadan during the Iran-Iraq War. Then tell me about how they care for their "children".

Hist2004

[GB_FXST]

The Russians understood MAD (mutually assured destruction) Ahmadinejad and the Mullah’s may not be so convinced.
If the Israelis conclude that Iran and their proxies (Hezbollah & Hamas) will attempt to destroy them as they have
threaten to do, a nuclear armed Iran will increase that likelihood and set the Middle East down the nuclear proliferation
path.

If Israel strikes Iran, the Saudis and other ME countries will voice complaints but privately nod in approval.

... snip ...

The timing will be when things calm down and are least
expected.

Hist2004

QFT


How exactly does one defends itself against a nuclear strike if not by pre-emptive strike? Clearly you're talking out of your ass, without anyone even mentioning a preventing attack on Iran.

As an Israeli I see no profit in attacking Iran just for the sake of it, or just to show who the boss in the region is. What I am worried about, is the fact that a nation that has openly stated their intentions towards Israelies will indeed become a nuclear power and have nuclear strike capabilities.

It's not a hidden fact that Iran opposes Israel and will continue to oppose it no matter which path we will take. Ofcourse I'm not delusional and I don't think Iran will one day decide to launch a nuke at us for no reason. The thing is that Iran's leaders - a dictator that had no problem slaughtering his own people in the streets or cheating the elections(?), and a religous madman with a passion for hating Israel - will not need anything grand to have as a reason to nuke Israel..

When a country goes off and sticks a "DOWN WITH ISRAEL" sign to their ICBM's on every military parade, it's ignorance to ignore what's going to happen once they become nuclear.

Also, as for the "free world", what is your guarentee that Iran won't get ahold of missiles with a larger range? How can you be so sure it will halt it's natural intentions of increasing their range of fire?

QFT


Israeli-Iranian MAD is not an option as the Iranians do not seek to establish parity or deterence with Israel. The Iranian regime has been clear and candid regarding their genocidal intentions toward Israel.

[void]

Well, even though the Mullah's are divided into different groups whether they be moderate, reformist or conservative, they
are united in their goal of defeating the so called crusader zionists to set the stage for the hidden Iman (Mahdi) to take
control of the world. Sounds irrational enough to me.

Hist2004

Many people in the US government believe in Judgement Day, and during the cold war they were almost uniformly dedicated to defeating "communism", so why didnt the US at the time nuke the SU and at the same time bring about "Judgement Day"? And didnt George Bush say to Chiraq that "God told him to attack Iraq"? Or that "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East"?

Dont be so quick to judge the Iranian regime as being filled with crazies, because if you turn those standards on other countries youll see that maybe there are lots of governments who are "crazy".

[hist2004]

Many people in the US government believe in Judgement Day, and during the cold war they were almost uniformly dedicated to defeating "communism", so why didnt the US at the time nuke the SU and at the same time bring about "Judgement Day"? And didnt George Bush say to Chiraq that "God told him to attack Iraq"? Or that "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East"?

Dont be so quick to judge the Iranian regime as being filled with crazies, because if you turn those standards on other countries youll see that maybe there are lots of governments who are "crazy".

Drawing a moral equivalency between the US and Iran is ridiculous.

Hist2004

[void]

Drawing a moral equivalency between the US and Iran is ridiculous.

Hist2004

I honestly do not understand the (from my POV) irrational fear of the "crazy" Iranians. So they have a loud mouth President but overall their government structure seems to be fairly rational. A nuclear Iran would be bad yes, but so is a nuclear North Korea, or a nuclear Pakistan, or a nuclear "insert country here".

Give me a reason why there is such a concern about Iran regarding nukes, but there was not concerning North Korea or Pakistan, both of which have imo FAR less stable governments.

[Zarak]

Try reading about Operation Ramadan during the Iran-Iraq War. Then tell me about how they care for their "children".

Hist2004

Apparently the Confederacy, the PLA, the Soviet Union, Zulu, et al. are/were evil suicidal regimes, too.

The scaremongering got old a decade ago, to be quite frank.

[hist2004]

Apparently the Confederacy, the PLA, the Soviet Union, Zulu, et al. are/were evil suicidal regimes, too.

The scaremongering got old a decade ago, to be quite frank.

I'll assume you read about the use of teenagers to clear minefields
and would rather not answer and stay on subject; no matter believe
as you will, I'm not here to change minds.

Hist2004

[Zarak]

I'll assume you read about the use of teenagers to clear minefields
and would rather not answer and stay on subject; no matter believe
as you will, I'm not here to change minds.

Hist2004

My comment was completely on topic.

Despite its huge 'waste' of manpower in the desperate fight against the Nazis, the Soviet Union never committed suicide as a nation by using nuclear weapons. Despite its huge 'waste' of manpower in the Korean and Third Indochina wars, the PLA has never committed suicide as a nation by using nuclear weapons. Pickett's Charge didn't mean that the Confederacy would fight to the last man, woman, child, and dog. etc.

In fact, the basis behind such desperate actions is TO SURVIVE, as a nation or a people or what have you.

[Backpacker]

Try reading about Operation Ramadan during the Iran-Iraq War. Then tell me about how they care for their "children".

Hist2004
This actually proves their rationality, that they would do anything to sustain the state.

[StickyPop]

I think the fact that the Iranian government directly supports terrorist groups is more than enough to be scared of a nuclear Iran. Who knows what the hell could happen when WMDs go into even worse hands than the ones who created them.

[Backpacker]

I think the fact that the Iranian government directly supports terrorist groups is more than enough to be scared of a nuclear Iran. Who knows what the hell could happen when WMDs go into even worse hands than the ones who created them.
The US supported plenty of terrorist groups during the cold war (this isn't a matter of debate, its a cold hard fact) and we didn't give them nukes.

[Rictor]

I'll assume you read about the use of teenagers to clear minefields
and would rather not answer and stay on subject; no matter believe
as you will, I'm not here to change minds.

Hist2004

See, the problem with believing that Iran has an inherently irrational government, one composed exclusively of sociopath who do not adhere to common action-reaction rules, is that any level of technology above swords and arrows looks threatening to you. There is simply no way for them to satisfy you. You basically advocate that they be denied access to all modern weapons - a right which every nation, big and small, has.

Not only modern weapons, but modern technology itself. What I've heard from people who hold your views is that Iran must not only renounce nuclear weapons, but the nuclear enrichment cycle itself! All of a sudden, they are not allowed to possess technical know-how! Not a missile or a plant, but information must be denied to them!

Is it not enough that Iranian airlines are falling like flies due to an embargo on spare parts, killing countless civilians along the way?

[void]

Interesting excerpt from an article regarding the "imminent threat" of Iranian nukes:



Seventeen years ago, in January 1992, the U.S. Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons.” That same month, Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb… (The nuclear threat) must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” In that same year, Robert Gates, then director of the CIA, asked, "Is [Iran’s nuclear program] a problem today?" He answered, "Probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem." Three years later, a senior Israeli official declared: "If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."

Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014—the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992.


Looks like Iran is always 5 years away from developing a nuke according to the US and Israel.

[ColinP]

A rational government with nukes is less of a problem then a government that is made up of less than pragmatic leaders. If dying and going to heaven to receive your reward is more important than your life on earth, then yes you scare me, sadly a lot of the Islamic culture today is pushing the suicide to heaven route, which increases everyone's worry.
I don't believe the average Iranian wants a nuke war and I don't believe the majority of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard wants it either. The question is will the triggerman be rational or convinced that nuking Israel a direct route to heaven and screw the consequences for everyone else. The leaders of Iran have shown they can be brutal and indifferent to the suffering of ther own people. I would be less worried if Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Eygpt had nukes, those are rational players who will make predictable moves and have a desire to live and survive.

[Ambassador]

I wonder what excuses people will make when we find out 10 years later that Iran still hasn't built nukes yet...

People of 10 years ago were saying 'omfg Iran/Iraq are building WMDz!!1!shift+1!!shift+1!!!1!' Today we know neither of them have such. What about 10 years later?

Combined with void's article, it just shows that our own irrationality when it comes to Iran knows no bounds.

[budgie]

FONT=Verdana]Surprised? Not if you're an Israeli. For years we have been sounding the alarm, only to be told to stop crying wolf. Now we are asked to lie low and let the responsible leaders of the world take care of the situation.

That part is pure unsubstantiated opinion. The world has shown great interest and there has been plenty of effort made, by the EU, US, UN, IAEA to curtail Iran's programs.

[Player]

A rational government with nukes is less of a problem then a government that is made up of less than pragmatic leaders. If dying and going to heaven to receive your reward is more important than your life on earth, then yes you scare me, sadly a lot of the Islamic culture today is pushing the suicide to heaven route, which increases everyone's worry.
I don't believe the average Iranian wants a nuke war and I don't believe the majority of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard wants it either. The question is will the triggerman be rational or convinced that nuking Israel a direct route to heaven and screw the consequences for everyone else. The leaders of Iran have shown they can be brutal and indifferent to the suffering of ther own people. I would be less worried if Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Eygpt had nukes, those are rational players who will make predictable moves and have a desire to live and survive.

Very good point, that is exactly why the Iranian regime can't be trusted. The behavior of the Iranian regime is suspicious enough by itself: provoking the world while hiding its nuclear program.

In my opinion, to form a reasonable stance regarding the issue of Iran's nuclear program, one should take a look at history and learn a thing or two from it; There were many mad leaders in the history of humankind who were careless enough to genocide entire populations and to conduct various war crimes, even when they knew the risk. It would be very naive to think that the Iranian leaders aren't capable of doing the same, especially considering how much they care for their own people (not much obviously).

[Backpacker]

In my opinion, to form a reasonable stance regarding the issue of Iran's nuclear program, one should look at history and learn a thing or two from it; There were many mad leaders in the history of humankind who were careless enough to genocide entire populations and to conduct various war crimes, even when they knew the risk. It would be very naive to think that the Iranian leaders aren't capable of doing the same, especially considering how much they care for their own people (not much obviously).
What are you talking about, the Iranian government has proven to be rational, what about them isn't?

[TheKorean]

^The fact that they are Islamic Republic ruled by hardcore Anti-American, Anti-Israel piece of crap who thinks anything non-Islam is wrong and whatever they are doing is right. Generally an insane little man they call Ayatollah or whatever.

[Backpacker]

^The fact that they are Islamic Republic ruled by hardcore Anti-American, Anti-Israel piece of crap who thinks anything non-Islam is wrong and whatever they are doing is right. Generally an insane little man they call Ayatollah or whatever.
They may be anti-American and anti-Israeli, but Israel is anti-Iranian, does that mean they're not to be trusted with their stockpiles of nukes? Of course not. The leaders of Iran have shown time and time again that they are rational in the sense that they will aim to sustain the state. This is covered in the first day of any IR-101 course in any school.

[Elbs]

but Israel is anti-Iranian

how so? do explain, zen master.

[TheKorean]

They may be anti-American and anti-Israeli, but Israel is anti-Iranian, does that mean they're not to be trusted with their stockpiles of nukes? Of course not. The leaders of Iran have shown time and time again that they are rational in the sense that they will aim to sustain the state. This is covered in the first day of any IR-101 course in any school.

^They are religious fanatics man. Any government ruled by religion is irrational. Period.

[Ambassador]

^^For one, Israel's disregard for Iran's nuclear rights.

[Backpacker]

how so? do explain, zen master.
Do you honestly think there's not the danger of war between the two states? Israel constantly threatens to strike Iran like they did to Iraq.


^They are religious fanatics man. Any government ruled by religion is irrational. Period.
No, no its not, that's simply not true. Point out how the Islamic Republic of Iran is irrational.

[Player]

What are you talking about, the Iranian government has proven to be rational, what about them isn't?

Are you blind or just stupid? (no offense)

What is so rational about isolating themselves from the rest of the world, thus damaging their economy, let alone the rest?

What is so rational about threatening countries with a genocide?

What is so rational about provoking the West?

What is so rational about promoting propaganda to brainwash the common Iranians to hate the US, Israel and the West?

What is so rational about oppressing their own people?

And finally, what is so rational about using Photoshop to show off their massive long range missile capability? p-)

[Backpacker]

Are you blind or just stupid? (no offense)

None taken, i feel debate on the issue is important


What is so rational about isolating themselves from the rest of the world, thus damaging their economy, let alone the rest?They view the potential gain to their economy through nuclear power and incentive to become self-sufficient as a greater long term gain to their country then trade with some of the world in the short term


What is so rational about threatening countries with a genocide?Mis-quoted.
Ahmadinejad said Israel would cease to exist in the same way Reagan (or whoever) said the USSR would cease to exist, internal decay. It was covered a couple pages back i think. Bottom line, he didn't threaten to destroy them, repeating it again and again doesn't make it true


What is so rational about promoting propaganda to brainwash the common Iranians to hate the US, Israel and the West? Its actually the most rational thing they could do, we constantly villify our enemies in order to build public support as well as unify our own populace, its an extremely common political tactic, we've all heard republicans call democrats "spineless leftists" while the liberals call the republicans "war mongers" - its really the same issue, its all about rallying the base.


What is so rational about oppressing their own people?Again, internal stability. If they weren't waging a counter-insurgency against PJAK, they would lose that region.


And finally, what is so rational about using Photoshop to show off their massive long range missile capability? p-)ha ha, they're never going to live that one down.
Seriously though, again its rational because they don't want to appear weak, they want to have a credible deterrent, they made the gamble they wouldn't get caught and they lost it.

[Ambassador]

What is so rational about isolating themselves from the rest of the world, thus damaging their economy, let alone the rest?


Rationalism: Preservation of Iran's domestic economy for use in the future when the World Order has changed, e.g. hypothetical Russian-Chinese hegemony in the East 30 years later, as opposed to a total American domination of the World today



What is so rational about threatening countries with a genocide?


Rationalism: Consolidation of Iran's strategic influence among regional anti-Israel Iranian allies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Palestinian/Arab minorities



What is so rational about provoking the West?


Rationalism: Making the West spend disproportionate amount of resources while spending as little resources of its own, and to cause political rift between major powers such as the U.S., Russia, and China

One example will be the missile-shield proposals.



What is so rational about promoting propaganda to brainwash the common Iranians to hate the US, Israel and the West?


Rationalism: So that the common Iranians will defend Iran when the West and Israel attacks, for the purpose of safeguarding national existence and national interest



What is so rational about oppressing their own people?


Rationalism: They'll be easier to bully and order around in times of deep crisis



And finally, what is so rational about using Photoshop to show off their massive long range missile capability? p-)

Rationalism: If the Photoshop was successful and if the World believed that Iran was stronger than it was, it would have improved the credibility of its strategic deterrence

It failed of course, and negatively affected its credibility. Being rational doesn't always mean that one will succeed in its endeavor.

[Player]

None taken, i feel debate on the issue is important
They view the potential gain to their economy through nuclear power and incentive to become self-sufficient as a greater long term gain to their country then trade with some of the world in the short term

So that's why they would give up on their international relations? Doesn't make much sense to me. They could work on becoming self-sufficient without destroying their relations with the West and many countries around the world. Even the most self-sufficient countries need international relations in order to trade.


Mis-quoted.
Ahmadinejad said Israel would cease to exist in the same way Reagan (or whoever) said the USSR would cease to exist, internal decay. It was covered a couple pages back i think. Bottom line, he didn't threaten to destroy them, repeating it again and again doesn't make it true

One time mis-quoted, I could understand. Two times, happens. But three times, four times, five times...? Is he ever not mis-quoted because he seems to repeat the same threats on a regular basis.


Its actually the most rational thing they could do, we constantly villify our enemies in order to build public support as well as unify our own populace, its an extremely common political tactic, we've all heard republicans call democrats "spineless leftists" while the liberals call the republicans "war mongers" - its really the same issue, its all about rallying the base.

But by doing that, you don't really care about your people. So how do you expect the people of "hostile" countries to feel safe with such a tyrannical regime?

[Estopped]

I'll assume you read about the use of teenagers to clear minefields
and would rather not answer and stay on subject; no matter believe
as you will, I'm not here to change minds.

Hist2004

Russians did the same in WW2.

[Ambassador]

So that's why they would give up on their international relations? Doesn't make much sense to me.

To you, it might not. To some of us, it does.

For example, 30 years ago, close relationship with the Soviet Union was beneficial to a country. Today, close relationship with the U.S. is better than a close relationship with Russia. Tomorrow, it will be different again. The World Order is now steadily reformulating itself to a multi-polar arrangement. Iran preparing a long-term plan for a reintegration into a new World Order is as rational and pragmatic as anyone planning to keep the U.S. the sole superpower of the World forever.

My use of 'Tomorrow' is figurative and subjective. It might happen, it might not. But there's still the possibility. And Iran chose to believe in it.



One time mis-quoted, I could understand. Two times, happens. But three times, four times, five times...? Is he ever not mis-quoted because he seems to repeat the same threats on a regular basis.


Player must understand that threatening to wipe Israel off the map is not irrational at all.

China vowing to disintegrate Taiwan and make it its own territory is not irrational, and neither is South Korea's 'reunification' rhetoric, which will involve the obliteration of the North Korean regime, be it through diplomatic, economic, or military means, irrational.

Wiping a country off the map does not necessarily need to incorporate the use of nuclear weapons.



But by doing that, you don't really care about your people. So how do you expect the people of "hostile" countries to feel safe with such a tyrannical regime?

Tyrannical regime are smart when it comes to matters of survival. Iran understands that whatever nuclear war it incites, it's going to lose. Iran might choose to go for nuclear armament, yes. In the same manner, it's also as likely that Iran will not go for a nuclear armament, when seen from a third-party perspective, because either are as good or as bad as the other in ensuring Iran's continued existence.

[Backpacker]

So that's why they would give up on their international relations? Doesn't make much sense to me. They could work on becoming self-sufficient without destroying their relations with the West and many countries around the world. Even the most self-sufficient countries need international relations in order to trade.

No they couldn't - or at least thats what they think.
They are establishing the nuclear power because they know that some day the oil and natural gas will run out and, if they maintain the status quo, they will then have nothing. However if they diversify now, they can sell the oil for profit now as well as establishing a stable future. That is far better then ending up like Saudia Arabia is now (which arguably is what they would become).

Here's why the two are mutually exclusive, the "West" (i use that term loosely) would never voluntarily tolerate a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran because the two entities are ideological enemies, Iran opposes US intervention in the Gulf countries, whereas it is seen as essential for overall hegemonic strategy in America. Iran is also near confident that the force exerted by Israel and other "anti-Iranian interests" wield enough force to never make it possible.
Iran saw in the '90's what was done to Iraq with regard to sanctions, Iraq was promised aid, food, release of sanctions in exchange for inspections, Iraq fulfilled their side of the bargain then through inaction by the US (and to be fair, a good deal of bureaucratic mismanagement and just sheer bad luck) Iraq got hosed over bad. Iran see's no reason the same wouldn't happen with them, that they would be forced to immediately stop work for incentives they wouldn't see for years, if at all. Plus, Iran has complied with the majority of IAEA regulations what has it gotten Iran, zilch, nada, nothing.


One time mis-quoted, I could understand. Two times, happens. But three times, four times, five times...? Is he ever not mis-quoted because he seems to repeat the same threats on a regular basis.
I'm reffering to the example that is always quoted by people seeking to the neo-cons of "we will wipe Israel off the map". Plus, even if it was said, its merely rhetoric, Bush said the war in Iraq was a crusade, does that make it true, of course not.


But by doing that, you don't really care about your people. So how do you expect the people of "hostile" countries to feel safe with such a tyrannical regime?
a) this doesn't have any relation on whether or not they would be an existential threat to Israel
b) Iran is facing a genuineness insurgency, its like asking why the US is "oppressing the Taliban" - its simply not true.

[dindin]

^They are religious fanatics man. Any government ruled by religion is irrational. Period.
''SIGH"


Every single government, n this planet base n some kind irrational religion,

[GB_FXST]

... snip ...

I'm reffering to the example that is always quoted by people seeking to the neo-cons of "we will wipe Israel off the map". Plus, even if it was said, its merely rhetoric, Bush said the war in Iraq was a crusade, does that make it true, of course not.


a) this doesn't have any relation on whether or not they would be an existential threat to Israel

... snip ...



The gulf separating Bush and Ahmadinejad is wide indeed. By the way, Bush later apologized for use of the word Crusade because of Muslim sensibilities.

The problem with rhetoric is that it can all too easily become action. Mein Kampf was also once dismissed as just rhetoric.

[Backpacker]

The gulf separating Bush and Ahmadinejad is wide indeed. By the way, Bush later apologized for use of the word Crusade because of Muslim sensibilities.
....And Khameni apologized for Ahmadinejad, but as with all media stories, this doesn't make the headlines because its not sensational.

[Universal_Soldier]

A nuclear Iran is as much a danger to itself as it is a danger to Israel and it's neighbors cos no bad deed will go unpunished.

[GB_FXST]

....And Khameni apologized for Ahmadinejad, but as with all media stories, this doesn't make the headlines because its not sensational.

Link please.

Khamenei’s comments on Israel are no less provocative than Ahmadinejad’s.

Less than two weeks ago, he again called Israel a “cancer”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6841604.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6841604.ece)

Links to other enlightened utterances:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/ayatollah_khamenei_in_his_own.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/ayatollah_khamenei_in_his_own.html)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/khamenei-israel-a-tumor-hezbollah-will-never-disarm.html (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/khamenei-israel-a-tumor-hezbollah-will-never-disarm.html)

[timetraveller]

QFT



QFT


Israeli-Iranian MAD is not an option as the Iranians do not seek to establish parity or deterence with Israel. The Iranian regime has been clear and candid regarding their genocidal intentions toward Israel.

Answer me this question

Do you really want military action against Iran even though we have seen all protests are you willing to risk uniting the country that is clearly divided because of your personal grievance against the leadership of Iran

[GB_FXST]

Answer me this question

Do you really want military action against Iran even though we have seen all protests are you willing to risk uniting the country that is clearly divided because of your personal grievance against the leadership of Iran

I do not have a personal grievance against Iran.

I prefer that military action not be taken against Iran. It is an option of last resort.

I am skeptical that international sanctions will be effective in forestalling Iran’s nuclear option.

I do not believe that Iran is interested in parity or MAD.

I believe that an Iranian nuclear option will be used.

I have very few options: I can choose to die or I can choose to fight.

[dracon49]

For years there are talks with Iran and they led to nowhere.

[Backpacker]

Link please.


In 2005, Ali Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei) responded to Ahmadinejad's remark that Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) should be "wiped off the map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech)" by saying that "the Islamic Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) has never threatened and will never threaten any country."[116] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#cite_note-115) Moreover, Khamenei's main adviser in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Akbar_Velayati), refused to take part in Ahmadinejad's Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad's remarks, Velayati said that the Holocaust was a genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) and a historical reality.


Khamenei’s comments on Israel are no less provocative than Ahmadinejad’s.Again, rhetoric, its no different when American senators "we should strike Iran" or when US presidents say "the military option is not off the table".




...
I do not believe that Iran is interested in parity or MAD.
...

Why is the Iranian government uniquely not rational?

[GB_FXST]

Again, rhetoric, its no different when American senators "we should strike Iran" or when US presidents say "the military option is not off the table".



Why is the Iranian government uniquely not rational?

So, in 2005 Khamenie backpedals on Ahmadinejad’s declared intention to “wipe Israel off the map.” But, in 2009, he again calls Israel a “cancer.”

At best, he is talking from both sides of his mouth. I would not buy a car from him; and I do not trust his intentions towards Israel.


There are other countries led by irrational regimes, but we are talking about Iran.

I do not believe that Iran is developing a nuclear option for parity or MAD based deterrence because I take their statements about “wiping Israel off the map” and “curing the cancer of Israel from the Islamic world” at face value. I also think that Iranian theologians are speaking honestly and candidly when they speak about the emergence of the Mahdi, or the Twelfth Imam, which, according to their theological interpretation, will be brought about by an Armageddon-type conflict.

I disagree with the idea that Iranian and Western rhetoric are equal and self cancelling. Western commentary on Iran’s nuclear option is in response to 1) Iran’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, and 2) Iran’s threats of genocide. Rational leaders in the West do not want a brutal, revolutionary theocracy to be armed with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, the nature of the rhetoric is very different. No one in Israel has threatened unprovoked destruction of Iran. No one has ever compared Iran to a “cancer.”

I think that the Iranian Mullahs chose the word “cancer” with great care and symbolism. We all know how cancer is treated. Often, the patient suffers greatly. To kill the cancer, the patient is often brough near death through medicinal poisons or radiation therapy.

The analogy is rather simple and clear. The patient (Palestinians / Islamic world) will suffer a terrible treatment (nuclear radiation) to rid the cancer (Israel) from its body.

[BudW]

A nuclear Iran: The world was warned

BY URI DROMI

Good morning, World, Iran is ready to go nuclear!

A uranium enrichment facility nobody knew of suddenly emerges in the sacred city of Qom, Iran launches missiles that can threaten not only U.S. targets in the Persian gulf, but also Israel and southern Europe, and now the world panics.

Surprised? Not if you're an Israeli. For years we have been sounding the alarm, only to be told to stop crying wolf. Now we are asked to lie low and let the responsible leaders of the world take care of the situation.

In 1993, when I was the spokesman of the Israeli government, my boss, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, made a dramatic turn in his hitherto coherent perception about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Contrary to his previous declarations, that the PLO was not a credible partner for peace, Rabin unexpectedly gave his blessing -- albeit half-heartedly -- to the Oslo process.

I was curious to find out what made him change his mind. He was not a man of elaborate explanations. Sometimes you just had to guess from his body language what made him tick. It was in the middle of an interview when a European journalist mentioned Iran in passing, that Rabin banged the table and said in a coarse voice: ``Exactly!'' The rest came out during a later interview: We have to mend fences with our closer neighbors (the Palestinians and Jordanians), Rabin said, so that we can brace ourselves to tackle the bigger challenge rising over the horizon: Iran.

Taking the cue from Rabin, I started to talk to the representatives of the world media based in Jerusalem about the Iranian nuclear threat. I told them that it was not an Israeli issue only, that a Shiite Iran with nukes would cause havoc in the Sunni Mideast, with serious repercussions for the rest of the world.

The response was usually shoulder shrugging, glazed eyes and insinuations that Israel was trying to lure the United States into attacking Iran for Israel's interests. In short, the tail was trying to wag the dog.

I had to remind them that in 1981, when Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor, it had been condemned right and left, with the United Nations ruling that Israel should pay compensation to Iraq. Ten years later, in the wake of Desert Storm, then-Defense Secretary **** Cheney gave a photograph of the bombed reactor to Maj. Gen. David Ivry, who commanded the Israeli Air Force during the attack, on which he wrote, ``With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job [you] did on the Iraqi Nuclear Program in 1981 which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.''

It's not that we Israelis are smarter than anybody else, or that we are blessed with a unique talent to foresee the future. It's just that whenever there has been a threat to the free world we have been there first, on the frontline, on the receiving end. Not willing ever to surrender to the threat, we came up with our original responses.

When the first Israeli airliner was hijacked to Algiers in 1968, we made El Al the world's safest airline. When Israelis were hijacked while flying Air France, we launched the Entebbe Raid to rescue them.

When Palestinian terrorists blew themselves up in the midst of our cities, we built a security fence that stopped them. Israel bashers condemned us for creating the barrier, which made life difficult for the Palestinians. Yet now, in hindsight, will they admit that life comes before quality of life?

And when our enemies started launching rockets at our cities, while hiding themselves among civilians, we were not intimidated: we went after them, trying to sort the villain from the innocent. We were heavily criticized for the way we did it, we still are: This is a very messy task indeed.

Yet Western soldiers and officers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people who have sent them to the battlefield, all know perfectly well that we have spearheaded a path for them; that we have shown a way where democracies can walk the thin line between keeping human rights and fighting terror effectively.

One day, when the weight of terror will become unbearable, the rest of the world will maybe understand as well.

Uri Dromi is a columnist based in Jerusalem.

Source (http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1262391.html)

Did Israel make weapons grade uranium?

[dracon49]

What does it matter if Israel made or not?...

[Ambassador]

Well, one very obvious underlying controversy, is why Israel is permitted to have 200 nukes while Iran isn't even allowed to have one, or actually any other Arab/Islamic countries in the region for that matter.

Though I'm pretty sure someone's gonna come and give a 'Israel is rational while Iran isn't, therefore it deserves nukes while Iran doesn't' type of bollocks lol

[dracon49]

Well, we arent part of the NPT, so we can do whatever we want. If they want nukes, so they can resign from the NPT and then ofcourse will still be against it(that Iran will have nukes), but from a legal point of view will not be able to say anything, because they will not violate any treaty and they will be able to kick the inspectors from their country and do whatever they want.

[yond]

Well, one very obvious underlying controversy, is why Israel is permitted to have 200 nukes while Iran isn't even allowed to have one, or actually any other Arab/Islamic countries in the region for that matter.

Usually people just assume Israel has nukes, but you even stated a number. care to explain exactly where did you get that number from?!

[TheOpposition]

I could care less. Far worse countries have nukes. My issue is can they keep them contained. Dont want to see a generation of chernobyls

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

Well, one very obvious underlying controversy, is why Israel is permitted to have 200 nukes while Iran isn't even allowed to have one, or actually any other Arab/Islamic countries in the region for that matter.

Well it's nuclear proliferation - we don't need more of it
not to mention Iran is a signatory of the NPT.

[LineDoggie]

Did Israel make weapons grade uranium? Did Israel threaten to wipe out Iran? Douchebag.....

[GB_FXST]

Well, one very obvious underlying controversy, is why Israel is permitted to have 200 nukes while Iran isn't even allowed to have one, or actually any other Arab/Islamic countries in the region for that matter.

Though I'm pretty sure someone's gonna come and give a 'Israel is rational while Iran isn't, therefore it deserves nukes while Iran doesn't' type of bollocks lol

It really does boil down to the fact that Iran is ruled by a theocracy that has exhibited brutal indifference to human life and threatened to commit genocide.

Some facts:

- Israel has never acknowledged the existence of a nuclear arsenal.

- As noted above, Israel is not bound by the NPT. So, if they were to be in possession of a nuclear device, they are not in violation of an international accord or law.

- What do you mean by “permission”? Which power or coalition is in a position to deny Israel the option of a nuclear device? The UNSC has never passed a binding resolution on Israeli nuclear weapons. No Western or major power is at war with Israel, or has a political mandate to take action against Israel alleged possession of nuclear material/bombs.


I think that you are really bemoaning that there is some sort of double standard for Israel, India Pakistan on the one hand, and Iran on the other hand. I do not believe that there is a double standard.

- Israel, India and Pakistan, unlike Iran, are not signatories to the NPT, and thus, not in violation of the NPT.

- Israel, India and Pakistan, unlike Iran, have not threatened another state with genocide.

[cmoor]

Some facts:

- Israel has never acknowledged the existence of a nuclear arsenal.


Prime minister Olmert openly admitted in a press interview that israel has nukes, didn't he?

[void]

It really does boil down to the fact that Iran is ruled by a theocracy that has exhibited brutal indifference to human life and threatened to commit genocide.

Some facts:

- Israel has never acknowledged the existence of a nuclear arsenal.

- As noted above, Israel is not bound by the NPT. So, if they were to be in possession of a nuclear device, they are not in violation of an international accord or law.

- What do you mean by “permission”? Which power or coalition is in a position to deny Israel the option of a nuclear device? The UNSC has never passed a binding resolution on Israeli nuclear weapons. No Western or major power is at war with Israel, or has a political mandate to take action against Israel alleged possession of nuclear material/bombs.


I think that you are really bemoaning that there is some sort of double standard for Israel, India Pakistan on the one hand, and Iran on the other hand. I do not believe that there is a double standard.

- Israel, India and Pakistan, unlike Iran, are not signatories to the NPT, and thus, not in violation of the NPT.

- Israel, India and Pakistan, unlike Iran, have not threatened another state with genocide.



Looks like a simple solution for Iran then is to withdraw from the NPT? Everything will be fine then?

[GB_FXST]

Prime minister Olmert openly admitted in a press interview that israel has nukes, didn't he?

Please post the link.

Veiled references and insinuations may have been made.

But, AFAIK, Israel has never officially, unequivocally admitted the possession of nuclear weapons.

[Hollis]

Looks like a simple solution for Iran then is to withdraw from the NPT? Everything will be fine then?


That is one part, if it was so easy. I guess you don't understand the part of the threats to wipe another country off of the map comes in.

[BudW]

Please post the link.

Veiled references and insinuations may have been made.

But, AFAIK, Israel has never officially, unequivocally admitted the possession of nuclear weapons.

http://proliferationpress.com/2006/12/11/news-alert-israel-admits-to-holding-nukes/

[Universal_Soldier]

Well, one very obvious underlying controversy, is why Israel is permitted to have 200 nukes while Iran isn't even allowed to have one, or actually any other Arab/Islamic countries in the region for that matter.

Though I'm pretty sure someone's gonna come and give a 'Israel is rational while Iran isn't, therefore it deserves nukes while Iran doesn't' type of bollocks lol

I've seen you on other threads claiming that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and not weapon oriented...hmm I wonder what made you change your mind now?

One could say that you are making progress :)

[dracon49]

Looks like a simple solution for Iran then is to withdraw from the NPT? Everything will be fine then?
Then no one will be able to tell them that they violated any treaty.

[GB_FXST]

Looks like a simple solution for Iran then is to withdraw from the NPT? Everything will be fine then?

I assume that Iran perceives a downside to a withdrawal from the NPT as they have not taken that step. One issue that comes to mind is that being an NPT signatory lends some credence to their claim that they are no developing nuclear weapons.

But, in principle, yes, withdrawal from the NPT would appear to alleviate or remove some element of the UNSC’s jurisdiction.


There is, of course, still the issue that the West does not want a theocracy that has exhibited brutal indifference to human life and threatened to commit genocide, to be in possession of nuclear weapons.

[GB_FXST]

http://proliferationpress.com/2006/12/11/news-alert-israel-admits-to-holding-nukes/





On it’s face, it doesn’t seem that big of a deal.

PM Olmert today indirectly admitted (http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=proliferationpress.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpost.com%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fcid%3D1164881872535%26pagename%3DJPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) that Israel has nuclear weapons–a biggest known nuclear secret around.

... snip …



That is not an official acknowledgement.

The link to the actual article, with Olmert's quote and subsequent PMO retraction.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881872535&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881872535&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

Israel’s official policy has always been one of opacity, and this has not changed.

[Ambassador]

I've seen you on other threads claiming that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and not weapon oriented...hmm I wonder what made you change your mind now?

One could say that you are making progress :)

Insistence and ambivalence are two different things. (obviously)

My work ethics that I had to develop for the past few years compelled me not to unanimously agree that Iran is completely, totally, definitely and absolutely seeking to build a nuclear weapon. I entertain the possibility that Iran's nuclear program is not peaceful. But I cannot give you my complete agreement yet.

If you are wondering why I choose to elaborate only the probability that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, it's because there already are so many others who elaborate the universally accepted notion that Iran is undoubtedly pursuing nuclear armament. That does not mean that I find their conjectures baseless.

As for the NPT issue, Israel is saved from the flame of international condemnation for not signing the NPT merely because Israel wields a credible strategic authority within the Western circle of influence, and because Israel gaining supremacy in the Middle East by the virtue of nuclear arsenal is beneficial to the West. (And the World order happens to lean heavily in the West's favor too)

It is not righteousness that makes these countries tolerate Israel's pursuit of national interest and impede Iran's own efforts, but rather their selfishness and greed for indisputable power. Of course, that is the fundamentally characteristic of every nation in the World, both old and new. The West pushes for sanction in Iran and does not do so with Israel because it wants to establish its own power in the region and consolidate the security of its own interests; Russia and China too is attempting to deter the West's efforts because they want their own security and power also.

If South Korea dropped the NPT agreement and started building nuclear weapons, the whole world would have gone ape**** and seek to politically undermine South Korea. And the West wouldn't even help us; rather they'd attempt to rid us of this capability, and they already did. (in 2004) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14633-2004Sep11.html)

But when Israel itself refuses to sign the NPT and deploy usable nukes, no one in the West ever bother Israel about it. You can see now how it is not Iran's theocratic ideology that's making the West politically and economically oppress Iran, nor its genocide rhetoric, but rather the West's selfish calculation of how it can benefit from it that makes the West do so.

I'm not saying it's wrong for the West to be selfish and calculating. I'm, as always, just pointing out the obvious facts and answering my own questions. ; )

[Estopped]

Looks like a simple solution for Iran then is to withdraw from the NPT? Everything will be fine then?

The NPT is worthless. It's now a tool to protect the status quo.

That's why as Iran moves closer and closer to breakout capacity it starts to get more respect and bargaining power. It wasn't that long ago that they were quibbling about Iran enriching at all, or having the Bushehr power plant. Now they are negotiating to take 1200kg's of enriched uranium made by Iran to be converted into nuclear fuel rods for a research reactor.

[the_Wicked]

I'd really like to hear from all the one supporting Iran's nuclear program as legitimate - who stands to profit from a nuclear Iran aside from Iran, and why does it matter whether a strike is "morally justified" if it means essentially preventing a second cold war (in the ME this time)?

[Cataphract_Persia]

I'd really like to hear from all the one supporting Iran's nuclear program as legitimate - who stands to profit from a nuclear Iran aside from Iran, and why does it matter whether a strike is "morally justified" if it means essentially preventing a second cold war (in the ME this time)?

They support Iran having a peacefull nuclear programm (the right of every nation in the world)

Quote/" strike is "morally justified" if it means essentially preventing a second cold war (in the ME this time)?"

hypocrat.... Israel is the nation which owns over 200 nuclear Bombs(illegally) and started the so called "cold war" in the Middle East not Iran.

Iran did not brake any international Law, Israel did.

[Kvakva]

Russians did the same in WW2.
What are you talking about?

[0rphie]

NPT has three pillars: two of which: 1. no new country seek to acquire nuclear weapons. 2. Countries that do possess nuclear weapons do disarm. The West accuses Iran of violating #1. Iran in turn accuses The West in the violating #2.
And by the way we already heard about Iraq WMD

[Zarak]

I'd really like to hear from all the one supporting Iran's nuclear program as legitimate - who stands to profit from a nuclear Iran aside from Iran, and why does it matter whether a strike is "morally justified" if it means essentially preventing a second cold war (in the ME this time)?

All nations are inherently selfish, a nuclear Iran benefiting only Iran does not mean it is inherently wrong.

'Moral justification' is all a load of BS though. Israel will do what is in its best interests, just like Iran will. Although by 'preventing a second cold war' with a strike on Iran, Israel could potentially start a shooting war, which is far less preferable.

[GB_FXST]

They support Iran having a peacefull nuclear programm (the right of every nation in the world)

Quote/" strike is "morally justified" if it means essentially preventing a second cold war (in the ME this time)?"

hypocrat.... Israel is the nation which owns over 200 nuclear Bombs(illegally) and started the so called "cold war" in the Middle East not Iran.

Iran did not brake any international Law, Israel did.

What International Law has Israel violated?

[Backpacker]

So, in 2005 Khamenie backpedals on Ahmadinejad’s declared intention to “wipe Israel off the map.” But, in 2009, he again calls Israel a “cancer.”

At best, he is talking from both sides of his mouth. I would not buy a car from him; and I do not trust his intentions towards Israel.


There are other countries led by irrational regimes, but we are talking about Iran.

I do not believe that Iran is developing a nuclear option for parity or MAD based deterrence because I take their statements about “wiping Israel off the map” and “curing the cancer of Israel from the Islamic world” at face value. I also think that Iranian theologians are speaking honestly and candidly when they speak about the emergence of the Mahdi, or the Twelfth Imam, which, according to their theological interpretation, will be brought about by an Armageddon-type conflict.

I disagree with the idea that Iranian and Western rhetoric are equal and self cancelling. Western commentary on Iran’s nuclear option is in response to 1) Iran’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, and 2) Iran’s threats of genocide. Rational leaders in the West do not want a brutal, revolutionary theocracy to be armed with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, the nature of the rhetoric is very different. No one in Israel has threatened unprovoked destruction of Iran. No one has ever compared Iran to a “cancer.”

I think that the Iranian Mullahs chose the word “cancer” with great care and symbolism. We all know how cancer is treated. Often, the patient suffers greatly. To kill the cancer, the patient is often brough near death through medicinal poisons or radiation therapy.

The analogy is rather simple and clear. The patient (Palestinians / Islamic world) will suffer a terrible treatment (nuclear radiation) to rid the cancer (Israel) from its body.

Well, i think we've reached the regression point to our argument, where its now our personal interpretations of the event, and i don't think the cancer statement is as elaborate as what you're describing it, i think its just intended to be a 'malignant entity'.
I also don't see the presence of non-rational theocrats at top levels, their ultimate goal is the preservation of the state, i believe you are overstating the apocalyptic entities. But like i stated, this is just our personal interpretation of the situation

[Fat Lazy American]

Well, i think we've reached the regression point to our argument, where its now our personal interpretations of the event, and i don't think the cancer statement is as elaborate as what you're describing it, i think its just intended to be a 'malignant entity'.

Bad Diagnosis:

"You have Stage IV lung cancer."

Not-so-bad-Diagnosis:

"You have a Stage IV malignant entity originating in your lungs."

[Backpacker]

Bad Diagnosis:

"You have Stage IV lung cancer."

Not-so-bad-Diagnosis:

"You have a Stage IV malignant entity originating in your lungs."
Congratulations, you're almost completely misinterpreting my statement.

[Zarak]

Congratulations, you're almost completely misinterpreting my statement.

He has a Stage IV malignant entity in his cerebral cortex.

[GB_FXST]

Congratulations, you're almost completely misinterpreting my statement.

I gotta say that in English there is no real definitive difference between “cancer” and “malignant entity”. The latter maybe sounds more clinical, less emotional. It’s just semantics.

At any rate, it may be best just to agree to disagree on Iran’s intentions. You wont change my mind; I wont change yours.

[Estopped]

What are you talking about?

Sending men into a minefield. In desperate times people do desperate things.

[Kvakva]

Sending men into a minefield. In desperate times people do desperate things.


Originally Posted by hist2004 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4454479#post4454479)
I'll assume you read about the use of teenagers to clear minefields
and would rather not answer and stay on subject; no matter believe
as you will, I'm not here to change minds.

Hist2004

I don't see men.

Russians did the same in WW2.
I don't see men. Did russians send teenagers to clear minefields? Or did the troops advanced through minefields.

[the_Wicked]

People here are actually trying to defend what the Iranians did with the children? Well, on second thought I guess it doesn't count as evil if the west didn't do it :roll:

[the_Wicked]

All nations are inherently selfish, a nuclear Iran benefiting only Iran does not mean it is inherently wrong.

'Moral justification' is all a load of BS though. Israel will do what is in its best interests, just like Iran will. Although by 'preventing a second cold war' with a strike on Iran, Israel could potentially start a shooting war, which is far less preferable.

Absolutely agreed. So what? Why are you supporting Iran, are you Iranian? And a shooting war is much preferable to a cold war. See how many shooting wars THE cold war started or escalated.

[Ambassador]

And a shooting war is much preferable to a cold war.

If you don't mind me saying, this statement was a load of [censored].

I guess a destructive war is fun to people who've not experienced it yet.

[Estopped]

I don't see men.

I don't see men. Did russians send teenagers to clear minefields? Or did the troops advanced through minefields.

What difference does it make?
Human beings were sent through mine fields.

There's plenty of ****ed up things that "supposedly" civilised nations did in times of war. Just look at Japan and the ****ed up **** that they did during WW2. They were the aggressor nation aswell. Iran was in chaos and was being attacked. I don't think it was right, but i certainly understand the conditions that led to it. I very much doubt it was government policy to use children to clear minefields.

[Zarak]

Absolutely agreed. So what? Why are you supporting Iran, are you Iranian? And a shooting war is much preferable to a cold war. See how many shooting wars THE cold war started or escalated.

I'm not supporting Iran at all. As an American, neither another war in the region nor a nuclear Iran seem like a good idea to me. I know how a war, with Iran lashing out against oil production and transportation in the region, will effect me, my family, and my country. Iraq and Afghanistan are also at major turning points and further instability in the region would have extremely negative consequences for my country. A nuclear Iran is less of a threat to my livelihood for the foreseeable future.

I understand the Israeli viewpoint, completely. But I put my family and my country ahead of all others, just like I believe everyone else on Earth does.

[Erik Sleivöks]

I very much doubt it was government policy to use children to clear minefields.

It is possible that it was not the Iranian government’s official policy, but it happened massively.
However you are right, strange things happen in war and Iranians to not have the monopoly to such things.

On the other hand; what is sure, it that those who ordered these absurdities during the Iran-Iraq war are exactly the same that are in the government today.

[Kvakva]

What difference does it make?
Human beings were sent through mine fields.

Sending teenagers is one thing, sending soldiers is another and should not be thrown into the same pot.


And a shooting war is much preferable to a cold war.
Yes especially than its some place far and its not you and your family getting shot at.

[Estopped]

Sending teenagers is one thing, sending soldiers is another and should not be thrown into the same pot.


Because no teenagers ever went to war :cantbeli:

[Kvakva]

Because no teenagers ever went to war :cantbeli:
You know what am i talking about.
Hist wrote about teenagers, you replied that russians did it too (send teenagers). I've asked russians did what? And you said they send troops. Big difference. So spare me your :cantbeli:as you wrote BS about russians sending teenagers into minefields in ww2 and now you want to make it like oh noes teenagers went to war.

[Ambassador]

It was not Iran's outright disrespect for teenage life that motivated Iran to send teenagers into battle during the Iran-Iraq war, but rather that Iran decided the usage of child/teenager soldiers is acceptable if it could help prevent Iran's national annihilation.

I can attest that South Korea itself employed a lot of teenagers during the Korean War too. I also know that it is not Korea's disrespect for teenagers' life that made Korea do so; it was actually a rather rational behavior that is fully expected of a nation composed of intelligent humans who were naturally concerned about ensuring their survival. South Korea was desperately trying to defend itself against the overwhelmingly powerful North Korea (back then) in the 1950 Korean war. But South Korea lacked able-bodied soldiers at that time, so it had to draft teenagers too. To Korea's rational mind, stimulated by survival instinct, teenagers were just yet another prospective element of combat that could be utilized to gain an undeniable advantage in a battlefield. (additional firepower, additional manpower, additional cannon fodder, you name it) Korea needed more soldiers to participate in its war efforts lest it would have become so compromised as to have been almost impossible for South Korea to resist North Korea anymore, ever.

I can say that Iran was in an even more desperate situation than South Korea during the Iran-Iraq war, most precisely because, unlike South Korea during the Korean War, Iran had no meaningful allies. There would not have been any other nations that might have come to Iran's aid if Iran botched up their war efforts. Iran had two choices; forgo idealism, adapt pragmatism and utilitarianism, and use all available means to defend itself; or, stay self-righteous all the way, and be annihilated from the face of the Earth.

Put yourself in the same situation. What would you do?

Those thousands of Iranian teenagers who sacrificed themselves crossing a minefield in turn saved a thousand other more invaluable legitimate soldiers who, by virtue of their sacrifice, was allowed to live to fight for another day. From a military context, the utilization of teenager soldiers was worth it. From a pragmatic point of view, it was the best thing to do.

I also have to ask now what Iran utilizing child soldiers out of rationalism have anything to do with a 'nuclear Iran'.

[Erik Sleivöks]

Dear Mr. Ambassador,

I don’t know much about religion in Korea, but I know a fair bit about religion in Iran.

These children were sacrificed on the altar of their leader’s incompetence.

They where indoctrinated, fooled, and attached together (in the case some of them should have some regrets) before being sacrificed in order to compensate for their leaders extreme incompetence.

[Ambassador]

I'm also telling you that these extremely incompetent leaders are also those who protected Iran from Iraq who at that time was the most powerful country in the Middle East, fully armed to the teeth with the finest Western military technology like Israel is, like Iran once was.

I don't care if you have humanitarian issues with the current Iranian regime. All I'm saying is that, given Iran's precarious political position, their utilitarian mindset is rightly placed. I do not support Iran's lackluster enforcements of human and civil rights; I just do not care, that's it.

If you think I'm being selfish, think about whether you yourself give a **** about what happens to strangers half a world away.

[Estopped]

You know what am i talking about.
Hist wrote about teenagers, you replied that russians did it too (send teenagers). I've asked russians did what? And you said they send troops. Big difference. So spare me your :cantbeli:as you wrote BS about russians sending teenagers into minefields in ww2 and now you want to make it like oh noes teenagers went to war.

I'm sorry but there isn't a big difference. The Russian general sent troops through a minefield so that there would detonate the mines and they would die. Troops or kids. It's exactly the same thing. For the purpose of that act they were troops.

I don't think the Russians are a moral authority when it comes to wartime actions.

[Kvakva]

I'm sorry but there isn't a big difference. The Russian general sent troops through a minefield so that there would detonate the mines and they would die. Troops or no kids. It's exactly the same thing. For the purpose of that act they were troops.

I don't think the Russians are a moral authority when it comes to wartime actions.
I wrote plain and simple. Russians did not send teenagers into minefields to blow up. There is nothing in my post about moral authority etc. (this is not about - russians are angels, ok?). Since Hist was talking about teenagers your comment about russians doing the same as iranians is bs. It is very simple.

[Estopped]

I wrote plain and simple. Russians did not send teenagers into minefields to blow up. There is nothing in my post about moral authority etc. (this is not about - russians are angels, ok?). Since Hist was talking about teenagers your comment about russians doing the same as iranians is bs. It is very simple.

:cantbeli:

I'm willing to bet that a good amount of the soldiers put through the minefields were teenagers.

Hell, I had family that joined up in WW2 that were 16 at the time. So don't give me this moralistic bullshiit. It was a terrible thing to do in a desperate time.

[Ambassador]

If you say that Russians would be more willing to send teenage soldiers instead of genuine adult soldiers through a minefield after an evaluation of their combat worthiness, you are right.

That doesn't mean they did so, however. You lack proof.

[Estopped]

If you say that Russians would be more willing to send teenage soldiers instead of genuine adult soldiers through a minefield after an evaluation of their combat worthiness, you are right.

That doesn't mean they did so, however. You lack proof.

You are putting words into my mouth and then trying to argue against them.

I'm saying there is a good chance that the Russians weren't bothered about the age of the soldiers they put through the mine field. They were given a mission and a number of teenagers/men to play with.

[Kvakva]

:cantbeli:

I'm willing to bet that a good amount of the soldiers put through the minefields were teenagers.
You can bet or state with proof?
18 years old you are a man an adult not a teenager not a kid anymore. You play with big boys you answer like them and you get judged like them because you are one of them.


Hell, I had family that joined up in WW2 that were 16 at the time. So don't give me this moralistic bullshiit. It was a terrible thing to do in a desperate time
The only moralic bs is from you. Find were i am talking about morality or f0ck yourself. You had a family that joined at 16 and? Are you saying that russians packed just teenagers and send them into minefields like iranians? I had realtives that got killed as kids and?

[Estopped]

You can bet or state with proof?
18 years old you are a man an adult not a teenager not a kid anymore. You play with big boys you answer like them and you get judged like them because you are one of them.

Eighteen.

That's still a teenager my semantically challenged friend.

[Kvakva]

Eighteen.

That's still a teenager my semantically challenged friend.
18 you are adult. Adult laws apply to you. You can be 33 and still be a "kid" don't care. Plain and simple you turn 18 don't matter what you fill like you are an adult. You can't pull i am not an adult card and spare me, responsibily for your own actions, laws etc are applied to you fully.

[Estopped]

You can bet or state with proof?
18 years old you are a man an adult not a teenager not a kid anymore. You play with big boys you answer like them and you get judged like them because you are one of them.

On the balance of probabilities and Russia's desperate state I'd say with about 92% confidence that a good number of soldiers were under 20. Twenty million Russians died in WW2.



The only moralic bs is from you. Find were i am talking about morality or f0ck yourself. You had a family that joined at 16 and? Are you saying that russians packed just teenagers and send them into minefields like iranians? I had realtives that got killed as kids and?

You are running rings around yourself. You got into some kind of confused state between arguing based on a moral argument: Russia wouldn't do that - but when I pointed out that I did you reverted to some retarded literalist argument that the aforementioned poster said "teenager". Now i'm lowering myself to your argument and stating that the Russians did employ teenagers in the war effort.

[Estopped]

18 you are adult. Adult laws apply to you. You can be 33 and still be a "kid" don't care. Plain and simple you turn 18 don't matter what you fill like you are an adult. You can't pull i am not an adult card and spare me, responsibily for your own actions, laws etc are applied to you fully.

Eighteen is a teenager. You were arguing whether they were teenagers or not. Now you want to change tact and talk about conceptions of adulthood. Can you please stick to one theme.

I'm actually not sure what you're arguing about anymore. I'm in total agreement with Erik that sending the teenagers to the minefields was a disgusting act by extremely callous people. But in WW2 it wasn't unusual for teenagers (some younger than 15) to go to war.

[Kvakva]

On the balance of probabilities and Russia's desperate state I'd say with about 92% confidence that a good number of soldiers were under 20. Twenty million Russians died in WW2.



You are running rings around yourself. You got into some kind of confused state between arguing based on a moral argument: Russia wouldn't do that - but when I pointed out that I did you reverted to some retarded literalist argument that the aforementioned poster said "teenager". Now i'm lowering myself to your argument and stating that the Russians did employ teenagers in the war effort.

So being under 20 -> teenager?

Russia DID NOT SEND TEENAGERS LIKE THE IRANIANS INTO THE MINEFIELDS. Plain and simple. What is so hard to get here? But you go and start stating that i am talking about some moral bs that i am not. You statement was bs and i said that it is. You now jump and start guessing this and that. There is a big f0cking diference between what russians did and what the iranians did.
If i say this is a car that means it is a car. It does not mean its a good or crap car. There is no hidden message in my posts.


Eighteen is a teenager. You were arguing whether they were teenagers or not
18 you get your pasport, you answer for your own actions you are an adult. Manhood whatever. At the age of 18 years you are an adult by laws.

[Backpacker]

Its also important to point out here that during the Iran-Iraq war, none of these kids were drafted, i've heard plenty of stories that these kids would have to sneak off in the middle of the night because there would be no way else they could get to the frontline. This was exactly the case with, Hossein Fahmideh, the most famous Artesh soldier during the war. These are not forced conscription as with the the militias in Africa, these are volunteers who utterly believe in what they are doing.

Interesting that no one ever criticisms the movie "Red Dawn" for its portrayal of 'child-soldiers'. I'm not entirely serious with this, but its an interesting point, the epitome of ra-ra-ra flag-waving patriotism from the '80's relied on using teenagers as soldiers to fight the Russians.

[Estopped]

So being under 20 -> teenager?

Yes. What's comes before 20?

NINETEEN


Russia DID SEND TEENAGERS LIKE THE IRANIANS INTO THE MINEFIELDS. Plain and simple. What is so hard to get here? But you go and start stating that i am talking about some moral bs that i am not. You statement was bs and i said that it is. You now jump and start guessing this and that. There is a big f0cking diference between what russians did and what the iranians did.

Yes they did. There is no difference. At the end of the day callous people were making decisions with the lives of the others. To me it doesn't matter if they are 50 or 15. It's still wrong.


If i say this is a car that means it is a car. It does not mean its a good or crap car. There is no hidden message in my posts.

I disagree. And if you aren't then you're still wrong.



18 you get your pasport, you answer for your own actions you are an adult. Manhood whatever. At the age of 18 years you are an adult by laws.

And you're still a teenager. Why are you finding this difficult to understand?

If you want to be anally re tentative about the "teenager" issue you should be prepared to die by the sword.

[GB_FXST]

It was not Iran's outright disrespect for teenage life that motivated Iran to send teenagers into battle during the Iran-Iraq war, but rather that Iran decided the usage of child/teenager soldiers is acceptable if it could help prevent Iran's national annihilation.

I can attest that South Korea itself employed a lot of teenagers during the Korean War too. I also know that it is not Korea's disrespect for teenagers' life that made Korea do so; it was actually a rather rational behavior that is fully expected of a nation composed of intelligent humans who were naturally concerned about ensuring their survival. South Korea was desperately trying to defend itself against the overwhelmingly powerful North Korea (back then) in the 1950 Korean war. But South Korea lacked able-bodied soldiers at that time, so it had to draft teenagers too. To Korea's rational mind, stimulated by survival instinct, teenagers were just yet another prospective element of combat that could be utilized to gain an undeniable advantage in a battlefield. (additional firepower, additional manpower, additional cannon fodder, you name it) Korea needed more soldiers to participate in its war efforts lest it would have become so compromised as to have been almost impossible for South Korea to resist North Korea anymore, ever.

I can say that Iran was in an even more desperate situation than South Korea during the Iran-Iraq war, most precisely because, unlike South Korea during the Korean War, Iran had no meaningful allies. There would not have been any other nations that might have come to Iran's aid if Iran botched up their war efforts. Iran had two choices; forgo idealism, adapt pragmatism and utilitarianism, and use all available means to defend itself; or, stay self-righteous all the way, and be annihilated from the face of the Earth.

Put yourself in the same situation. What would you do?

Those thousands of Iranian teenagers who sacrificed themselves crossing a minefield in turn saved a thousand other more invaluable legitimate soldiers who, by virtue of their sacrifice, was allowed to live to fight for another day. From a military context, the utilization of teenager soldiers was worth it. From a pragmatic point of view, it was the best thing to do.

I also have to ask now what Iran utilizing child soldiers out of rationalism have anything to do with a 'nuclear Iran'.

Nihilism again?

Congratulations, you have managed to somehow rationalize – at least for your self – Iran’s depraved indifference to the fate and welfare of its very own children.

The Iranian government did not save Iran, they saved themselves.

When the Iranian government sent its children to clear minefields armed with plastic keys to heaven they showed themselves to be nothing but despots and tyrants: corrupted creatures interested in nothing but their own power, guided by nothing but greed.

With the example of such indifference to their children, one shudders to think what they are capable of doing to the children of those who they consider enemies.



Its also important to point out here that during the Iran-Iraq war, none of these kids were drafted, i've heard plenty of stories that these kids would have to sneak off in the middle of the night because there would be no way else they could get to the frontline. This was exactly the case with, Hossein Fahmideh, the most famous Artesh soldier during the war. These are not forced conscription as with the the militias in Africa, these are volunteers who utterly believe in what they are doing.

... snip ...




Volunteers? I doubt it.




… snip …

In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack." The Iranians made little, if any, progress despite these sacrifices.

… snip …



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm)


At any rate, the use of children, even if not conscripted/drafted, for a purpose culminating in certain death is simply beyond the pale.

[Kvakva]

Yes. What's comes before 20?

NINETEEN
18 17 16 ... 5 and? Why not say he is a kid at the age of 20?


Yes they did. There is no difference. At the end of the day callous people were making decisions with the lives of the others. To me it doesn't matter if they are 50 or 15. It's still wrong.

No they did not do the same thing. And yes there is a difference.

I disagree. And if you aren't then you're still wrong.

It was that in my post there is no hidden message/meaning, that my post means what it is written plain and simple. Have no idea what you wrote about.


And you're still a teenager. Why are you finding this difficult to understand?

No, at the age of 15 your parents are responsible for your actions. At the age of 18 you are responsible for your own actions you are considered an adult by state, by laws by others (except you mom for her you'll be a kid even at 40). You can consider yourself a teenager at the age 34 i don't care and doesn't matter you are an adult plain and simple.

If you want to be anally re tentative about the "teenager" issue you should be prepared to die by the sword.
The only annaly re tentative is you. If you have trouble understanding what and at what age teenager is.

[tanks_alot]

The only annaly re tentative is you. If you have trouble understanding what and at what age teenager is.

For the love of god, use the word minor and end this argument....

More to the point, while i'm no where near an expert on the Iran-Iraq war, but didn't Iran continue to use the children human waves tactics after Saddam offered a cease fire?

So the whole, "we used our kids as meat bags in order to save our country from being destroyed", doesn't really hold water.

[Erik Sleivöks]

I'm also telling you that these extremely incompetent leaders are also those who protected Iran from Iraq who at that time was the most powerful country in the Middle East, fully armed to the teeth with the finest Western military technology like Israel is, like Iran once was.

I don't care if you have humanitarian issues with the current Iranian regime. All I'm saying is that, given Iran's precarious political position, their utilitarian mindset is rightly placed. I do not support Iran's lackluster enforcements of human and civil rights; I just do not care, that's it.

If you think I'm being selfish, think about whether you yourself give a **** about what happens to strangers half a world away.

Your lack of understanding in this matter is simply amazing; however it is probably due to your young age and complete lack of any whatsoever experience in the real world.

Anyway you will probably learn one day.


PS: please don’t use bad words, it just looks silly.:)

[Estopped]

18 17 16 ... 5 and? Why not say he is a kid at the age of 20?

Because you kept harping on about teenagers

No they did not do the same thing. And yes there is a difference.

Yes they did. It's the same. A callous general orders people through a minefield expecting that they die. It's wrong no matter what age they are. I was just demonstrating how stupid your argument was. The Russians almost certainly sent teenagers to their death by walking them through the minefield.

It was that in my post there is no hidden message/meaning, that my post means what it is written plain and simple. Have no idea what you wrote about.

Clearly you are confused then. I don't see why you are so upset with my argument when apparently you are employing a literalistic argument.

No, at the age of 15 your parents are responsible for your actions. At the age of 18 you are responsible for your own actions you are considered an adult by state, by laws by others (except you mom for her you'll be a kid even at 40). You can consider yourself a teenager at the age 34 i don't care and doesn't matter you are an adult plain and simple.

The Teen years start from 13 and go to nineteen. You were arguing that Russians didn't send teenagers. I'm saying you are wrong. Now you are backtracking and trying to change your flawed argument. And that's with no evidence that the Russians didn't send teenagers through the minefield when its been documented that in WW2 there were child soldiers as young as 14 joining up and going to the frontlines. Russia lost 20 million people in the war. You are basically pushing fantasy if you think none of them were teenagers.


You don't even know how to form an argument.

[Estopped]

For the love of god, use the word minor and end this argument....

rofl

It's so pointless what he's arguing. Why can't he just accept that its wrong eitherway. Sending anyone through a minefield is barbaric.

[Kvakva]

rofl

It's so pointless what he's arguing. Why can't he just accept that its wrong eitherway. Sending anyone through a minefield is barbaric.
Why dont you get it into your skull that i am not agruing about sending ppl into minefields, but that russians did not send teenagers iranian style. Is that better for you to understand? Is this what is hard to understand that "sending teenagers like the iranians" means doing exactly the same thing as what iranians did.

Because you kept harping on about teenagers

Because it was what Hist wrote and you claimed that russians did the same. They did not. They did not do the same thing as iranians. Yet in your eyes sending teenagers into minefield like iranians did is the same as that russians send troops into minefields and there were teens (yet 18-19y are normal soldiers) among whose men. By the way provide a link to a source atlest who was it that did this.

Yes they did. It's the same. A callous general orders people through a minefield expecting that they die. It's wrong no matter what age they are. I was just demonstrating how stupid your argument was. The Russians almost certainly sent teenagers to their death by walking them through the minefield.

The death of 15year old and 50 is not the same. They picked teenagers and send them to minefields to get blown up is this what you are saying?

Clearly you are confused then. I don't see why you are so upset with my argument when apparently you are employing a literalistic argument.

Maybe its my english. I am not upset with you. What i am and was trying to say - you wrote bs about russians doing the same as iranians, period. Yet you went to write about moral claims and so on.

The Teen years start from 13 and go to nineteen. You were arguing that Russians didn't send teenagers. I'm saying you are wrong. Now you are backtracking and trying to change your flawed argument. And that's with no evidence that the Russians didn't send teenagers through the minefield when its been documented that in WW2 there were child soldiers as young as 14 joining up and going to the frontlines. Russia lost 20 million people in the war. You are basically pushing fantasy if you think none of them were teenagers.

You are assuming something i have never said and keep it as your fantasy that i ment this and that. Maybe this will clear something - "doing something like someone" means "doing the same thing" atleast in my eyes. So by saying that russians did the same thing as iranians you ment that they did the same thing, they took teenagers and send them into minefields same way as iranians? I'll give an example of what i mean : if i went to steal a car and shot 2 ppl in the way, saying that you did the same thing means that you stole a car and shot ppl too just like i did.

And i stand on my statement that 18y old is not a teen anymore. Yet you brought it up with your family went to war at 16 (15y old and 50 y deaths are the same) and after that 19 is still a teen. NO.
I see you consider 18-19y old soldiers teens and from this we have another part of this argument. If a soldier is 18-19 he is a soldier a normal conscript soldier. Nothing horrible about that. They are soldiers officially. And they are adults.

[Fat Lazy American]

rofl

It's so pointless what he's arguing. Why can't he just accept that its wrong eitherway. Sending anyone through a minefield is barbaric.

No, sending armed adult soldiers through a minefield isn't particularly barbaric. It's war. And no, they weren't sent through to "clear the minefield", they were sent through to get armed soldiers to the other side. Yes, groups that go through a minefield first will take much higher casualties. But a soldier that gets through the minefield alive has still achieved an objective. An unarmed child is merely there to commit suicide, and he has not achieved his goal if he passes through the minefield.

It's the difference between a soldier running interference through an open area to draw fire away from comrades and sending children into a firefight either to draw fire or as human shields.

The fact that you appear unwilling to make a distinction is telling and it would probably be best if you completely avoid discussing the laws of war henceforth, as you apparently feel they are all entirely violable.

[the_Wicked]

If you don't mind me saying, this statement was a load of [censored].

I guess a destructive war is fun to people who've not experienced it yet.

Actually you'd be surprised to hear that I've experienced it at the tender age of 5.

And way to go ignoring the other part of the post, where I say a cold war almost inevitably leads to *multiple* shooting wars. A shooting war with Iran NOW would be of a very limited scale compared to a shooting war at the end of a couple decades of cold war like buildup, ESPECIALLY if Iran is nuclear. It's called long-term vision.

[Clayton Gold]

Wow.. Two pages of bickering over the definition of "teenager", and skipping through minefields.

You guys read the thread topic right ?

===========

These threads are pretty tiresome.

Nuclear Iran, there's not much really to discuss now - Either we bomb the plants, or STFU at this point, IMO.

[the_Wicked]

Yes especially than its some place far and its not you and your family getting shot at.

Yeah it would've been really much better if me and my family weren't in the way. Except if you haven't notice I live in Israel (and near Tel Aviv at that) so I'm going to be the first to be targeted (by missiles probably). I still think a limited-scale short local war now is worth it to prevent a continent-wide cold war later.

[Kvakva]

Yeah it would've been really much better if me and my family weren't in the way. Except if you haven't notice I live in Israel (and near Tel Aviv at that) so I'm going to be the first to be targeted (by missiles probably). I still think a limited-scale short local war now is worth it to prevent a continent-wide cold war later.
So you deliberately want to endanger lives of your family? I can understand if you are alone (at that place) and you want a war, but not to bring war onto your family.

[Ambassador]

Nihilism again?

Congratulations, you have managed to somehow rationalize – at least for your self – Iran’s depraved indifference to the fate and welfare of its very own children.

The Iranian government did not save Iran, they saved themselves.

When the Iranian government sent its children to clear minefields armed with plastic keys to heaven they showed themselves to be nothing but despots and tyrants: corrupted creatures interested in nothing but their own power, guided by nothing but greed.

With the example of such indifference to their children, one shudders to think what they are capable of doing to the children of those who they consider enemies.


We all are. We use different means to achieve our ambitions. Iran just chose to use a more cruel method that suits its survival interest and station in life in their limited world more than self-righteousness. Iran has thought, why be kind and moral in that situation, when it does not help the war effort. They also knew they could get away with it, so they did so.

If a group of extraterrestrial merciless aliens came to Earth to obliterate it, and if I was one of the man in authority at that time, I would ultimately accede to using teenagers as military personnel also if our line of adult soldiers were in danger of being depleted, if I knew it could help protect humanity and in the process save myself. The overwhelming majority of the world population will say I'm wrong. But if you go for survival, that's still the best thing to do. Either you use teenage soldiers and increase your chance, by whatever magnitude, of surviving the alien onslaught, or you die. At this comfortable moment, even I myself find it so easy to dismiss such a hedonistic proposal. But when I start feeling truly scared for my life, I know I'll change my mind and and abuse my authority to do desperate things just because I was in power, like the Iranians. Even if I somehow understand that it's ethically wrong to do it, I'll still do it, because I'm a fallible human being.

And what I just said gave you more reason to badmouth me, eh?

Anyhow, put that in a smaller scale, and that would be Iran.

I only explained to you what motivated Iran to do what it did. Tell me which part of my explanation was incorrect. I completely agree that, from the moralistic point of view that most of us are accustomed to, what Iran did is completely wrong. But I analyzed it from a survivalist point of view also to understand what other kind of similar situation can push Iran again to do the same thing, so that I can also learn how to prevent such kind of situation from arising.

My moralistic conclusion supported by my rational analysis is that, if you are truly concerned about the welfare of the Iranian people, (or the welfare of other group people under Iran's sphere of influence, be it the Israelis, Jewish, Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, etc) for as long as Iran's theocratic regime is in power, it is not a good idea to politically, economically, and militarily oppress Iran too much, (moral oppression will have little effect) making it desperate, as it will only lead to more cruelty against the Iranian people and potentially lead Iran to harm other country's people also. Whether or not I care about what kind of cruelty is bestowed upon the Iranians is another issue. For the most part I choose to remain stoic because I know it's useless for me to think about it; my perception of the Iranian regime will not bring any goodness to me or anyone, as I lack the power to influence the circumstances in anyway.

I say, Iran's morally wrong in sending teenage soldiers. And I ask now, what has changed? Did our conclusion of 'Iran is amoral' help the improve situation?

At least if you think about Iran's motivation rationally, you can expect under which kind of circumstances Iran will do such kind of amoral things next time, and seek to prevent it somehow. There are many ways prevent the same kind of atrocities from happening again; one most obvious way would be to change the Iranian regime, in which case you have to think of 'how to change the regime without causing too much collateral harm' also. It's up to you to come up with your own solutions based on the rational conclusion I gave.


Your lack of understanding in this matter is simply amazing; however it is probably due to your young age and complete lack of any whatsoever experience in the real world.

Anyway you will probably learn one day.


PS: please don’t use bad words, it just looks silly.

Kindly point out to me what the hell I didn't understand, thank you.

[Estopped]

Why dont you get it into your skull that i am not agruing about sending ppl into minefields, but that russians did not send teenagers iranian style. Is that better for you to understand? Is this what is hard to understand that "sending teenagers like the iranians" means doing exactly the same thing as what iranians did.

You haven't made that argument at all. If you want to get a point across you should make it more clear.


Because it was what Hist wrote and you claimed that russians did the same. They did not. They did not do the same thing as iranians. Yet in your eyes sending teenagers into minefield like iranians did is the same as that russians send troops into minefields and there were teens (yet 18-19y are normal soldiers) among whose men. By the way provide a link to a source atlest who was it that did this.

The Russians sent the infantry to clear the minefields. For all intents and purposes it is the same. It's a callous disregard for human life that I find most disturbing.


The death of 15year old and 50 is not the same. They picked teenagers and send them to minefields to get blown up is this what you are saying?

Why are they not the same?

And i very much doubt there were many 50 year old regiments marching through the minefields.


Maybe its my english. I am not upset with you. What i am and was trying to say - you wrote bs about russians doing the same as iranians, period. Yet you went to write about moral claims and so on.

It probably is your english. You don't communicate your arguments very well and to be frank our debate is rather childish. If you were willing to drop this sorry argument you could actually do alot better.


You are assuming something i have never said and keep it as your fantasy that i ment this and that. Maybe this will clear something - "doing something like someone" means "doing the same thing" atleast in my eyes. So by saying that russians did the same thing as iranians you ment that they did the same thing, they took teenagers and send them into minefields same way as iranians? I'll give an example of what i mean : if i went to steal a car and shot 2 ppl in the way, saying that you did the same thing means that you stole a car and shot ppl too just like i did.

I think its barbaric to send kids through a minefield.



And i stand on my statement that 18y old is not a teen anymore. Yet you brought it up with your family went to war at 16 (15y old and 50 y deaths are the same) and after that 19 is still a teen. NO.

The facts contradict you. You are WRONG.

EighTEEN is still a teen.



I see you consider 18-19y old soldiers teens and from this we have another part of this argument. If a soldier is 18-19 he is a soldier a normal conscript soldier. Nothing horrible about that. They are soldiers officially. And they are adults.

They are teenagers. Being an adult is a different concept. They can be a teenager and an adult.

You are just confused.

[Estopped]

Actually you'd be surprised to hear that I've experienced it at the tender age of 5.

And way to go ignoring the other part of the post, where I say a cold war almost inevitably leads to *multiple* shooting wars. A shooting war with Iran NOW would be of a very limited scale compared to a shooting war at the end of a couple decades of cold war like buildup, ESPECIALLY if Iran is nuclear. It's called long-term vision.

In the longterm the advantage lies with Iran. If the sanction are relaxed Iran will quickly eclipse Israel. And given the changes that are happening in the world I can see that happening in a few years, if not sooner.

The Israeli advantage relies on relative Iranian weakness. An aerial assault by Israel would be compromises if Iran had modern air-defences. Now imagine if they actually had an airforce.

[Estopped]

No, sending armed adult soldiers through a minefield isn't particularly barbaric. It's war. And no, they weren't sent through to "clear the minefield", they were sent through to get armed soldiers to the other side. Yes, groups that go through a minefield first will take much higher casualties. But a soldier that gets through the minefield alive has still achieved an objective. An unarmed child is merely there to commit suicide, and he has not achieved his goal if he passes through the minefield.

It's the difference between a soldier running interference through an open area to draw fire away from comrades and sending children into a firefight either to draw fire or as human shields.

The fact that you appear unwilling to make a distinction is telling and it would probably be best if you completely avoid discussing the laws of war henceforth, as you apparently feel they are all entirely violable.

Except we're talking about running soldiers through a minefield to explode mines. Conceptually its the same thing. The intent is exactly the same.

[Clayton Gold]

Dude, start a thread about teenagers, and minefields, etc.

What does discussing which country is morally superior while running through minefields have to do with the Iranian nuclear program ?

[Kvakva]

Estopped
I stated my point clearly about doing the same. Russians did not do the same thing as the iranians.

Iranian President Ali-Akbar Rafsanjani declared that “all Iranians from 12 to 72 should volunteer for the Holy War.” Thousands of children were pulled from schools, indoctrinated in the glory of martyrdom, and sent to the front lines only lightly armed with one or two grenades or a gun with one magazine of ammunition. Wearing keys around their necks (to signify their pending entrance into heaven), they were sent forward in the first waves of attacks to help clear paths through minefields with their bodies and overwhelm Iraqi defenses.
I have made an example what it means to do the same thing. And said they did not do the same.
But you choose not to see it and reply with :

I think its barbaric to send kids through a minefield.



The Russians sent the infantry to clear the minefields. For all intents and purposes it is the same. It's a callous disregard for human life that I find most disturbing.

Do provide a source or a date about it. Fat Lazy American wrote about it.
I have said the same thing and yet you continue to answer "I think its barbaric to send kids through a minefield." It is pointless as all you answer is morallity which has nothing to do with what i wrote and "I think its barbaric to send kids through a minefield." Fat Lazy American has pointed that it is not the same thing, but for you it is. This is going nowhere. I'll be the first and end this conversation.

[Hollis]

Wow.. Two pages of bickering over the definition of "teenager", and skipping through minefields.

You guys read the thread topic right ?

===========

These threads are pretty tiresome.

Nuclear Iran, there's not much really to discuss now - Either we bomb the plants, or STFU at this point, IMO.


Good idea, a few people are on holiday for a while, I would suggest getting back on topic or not posting if you can not.

To be clear, this post is not about teenagers, Russia, WWII. See name of thread to understand what the topic is.

[GB_FXST]

We all are. We use different means to achieve our ambitions. Iran just chose to use a more cruel method that suits its survival interest and station in life in their limited world more than self-righteousness. Iran has thought, why be kind and moral in that situation, when it does not help the war effort. They also knew they could get away with it, so they did so.

If a group of extraterrestrial merciless aliens came to Earth to obliterate it, and if I was one of the man in authority at that time, I would ultimately accede to using teenagers as military personnel also if our line of adult soldiers were in danger of being depleted, if I knew it could help protect humanity and in the process save myself. The overwhelming majority of the world population will say I'm wrong. But if you go for survival, that's still the best thing to do. Either you use teenage soldiers and increase your chance, by whatever magnitude, of surviving the alien onslaught, or you die. At this comfortable moment, even I myself find it so easy to dismiss such a hedonistic proposal. But when I start feeling truly scared for my life, I know I'll change my mind and and abuse my authority to do desperate things just because I was in power, like the Iranians. Even if I somehow understand that it's ethically wrong to do it, I'll still do it, because I'm a fallible human being.

And what I just said gave you more reason to badmouth me, eh?

Anyhow, put that in a smaller scale, and that would be Iran.

I only explained to you what motivated Iran to do what it did. Tell me which part of my explanation was incorrect. I completely agree that, from the moralistic point of view that most of us are accustomed to, what Iran did is completely wrong. But I analyzed it from a survivalist point of view also to understand what other kind of similar situation can push Iran again to do the same thing, so that I can also learn how to prevent such kind of situation from arising.

My moralistic conclusion supported by my rational analysis is that, if you are truly concerned about the welfare of the Iranian people, (or the welfare of other group people under Iran's sphere of influence, be it the Israelis, Jewish, Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, etc) for as long as Iran's theocratic regime is in power, it is not a good idea to politically, economically, and militarily oppress Iran too much, (moral oppression will have little effect) making it desperate, as it will only lead to more cruelty against the Iranian people and potentially lead Iran to harm other country's people also. Whether or not I care about what kind of cruelty is bestowed upon the Iranians is another issue. For the most part I choose to remain stoic because I know it's useless for me to think about it; my perception of the Iranian regime will not bring any goodness to me or anyone, as I lack the power to influence the circumstances in anyway.

I say, Iran's morally wrong in sending teenage soldiers. And I ask now, what has changed? Did our conclusion of 'Iran is amoral' help the improve situation?

At least if you think about Iran's motivation rationally, you can expect under which kind of circumstances Iran will do such kind of amoral things next time, and seek to prevent it somehow. There are many ways prevent the same kind of atrocities from happening again; one most obvious way would be to change the Iranian regime, in which case you have to think of 'how to change the regime without causing too much collateral harm' also. It's up to you to come up with your own solutions based on the rational conclusion I gave.



Kindly point out to me what the hell I didn't understand, thank you.

I do not come here to bad mouth you or anyone else.

When talking about Iran the single most important variable is time.

Given enough time the Mullah lead regime will develop a nuclear weapons option.

Given enough time the people of Iran will cast off the yoke of the Mullahs.

However, I believe that the former will come before the latter. The West does not have the luxury of wanting for the next Iranian revolution. The people of Iran do not have the luxury of time either.

I cannot recall if it is this thread or one of the other “Iran nuclear bomb” threads, but someone raised the concept that a conventional Iran-Israel war now will be much less devastating, destructive and deadly than a WMD war later. That analysis is correct.

So the most humane response is not to leave the Iranian regime alone. Rather, it is to continue to pressure the regime, and forestall the development of the bomb. Because, once that option is developed the regime will be stronger and more intractable, the Middle East will be less stable, and the people of the Middle East (Iranians, Israelis, Jordanians, whoever) will be at greater risk of a nuclear holocaust.

[SilentType]

We're all just skipping our way to the apocalypse. We'll see a nuclear exchange in our life time folks. The sunset of our generation will be bathed in the glow of a mushroom cloud. I just hope it's a limited engagement on soil foreign to the United States of America.

Meanwhile Obama is reducing missile defense and removing the layers of protection without a single thing in return. I guess it's good I don't live in a major U.S. or European city. Ironic that the majority of those who voted for Obama and support ending missile defense live in the most likley targeted areas. Sort of like when Hawaii wanted increased missile defense when North Korea was talking about sending a missile for a test in their direction. I thought we just needed talks or sanctions and everything would work out Hawaii liberals? Hawaii is filled with liberals, but they sure wanted that evil military industrial complex system when the real world presented itself.

Israel. Well, best of luck in the next three years. You'll be lucky if Obama doesn't cut your U.S. grant money and you're 100% on your own dealing with the whole Iran thing. Sorry, I didn't want it that way, but that's the way it is.

[the_Wicked]

So you deliberately want to endanger lives of your family? I can understand if you are alone (at that place) and you want a war, but not to bring war onto your family.

:cantbeli:That whistling sound you've just heard was my point flying over your head.

Now I'll try spoon-feeding it to you: I think a shooting war now would endanger my family and myself much less than a cold war with Iran, for the reasons I've already outline like a bajillion times in the thread.

Anyone else wants a shot at distorting my words/ignoring them?

[the_Wicked]

In the longterm the advantage lies with Iran. If the sanction are relaxed Iran will quickly eclipse Israel. And given the changes that are happening in the world I can see that happening in a few years, if not sooner.

The Israeli advantage relies on relative Iranian weakness. An aerial assault by Israel would be compromises if Iran had modern air-defences. Now imagine if they actually had an airforce.

In other words, just what I've said - better start a short limited shooting war now than risk a total war at the end of a cold war later.

[hist2004]

Two Leaks and the Deepening Iran Crisis - Stratfor

October 6, 2009

Two major leaks occurred this weekend over the Iran matter.

In the first, The New York Times published an article reporting that staff at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear oversight group, had produced an unreleased report saying that Iran was much more advanced in its nuclear program than the IAEA had thought previously. According to the report, Iran now has all the data needed to design a nuclear weapon. The New York Times article added that U.S. intelligence was re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007, which had stated that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The second leak occurred in the British paper The Sunday Times, which reported that the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's highly publicized secret visit to Moscow on Sept. 7 was to provide the Russians with a list of Russian scientists and engineers working on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The second revelation was directly tied to the first. There were many, including STRATFOR, who felt that Iran did not have the non-nuclear disciplines needed for rapid progress toward a nuclear device. Putting the two pieces together, the presence of Russian personnel in Iran would mean that the Iranians had obtained the needed expertise from the Russians. It would also mean that the Russians were not merely a factor in whether there would be effective sanctions but also in whether and when the Iranians would obtain a nuclear weapon.

We would guess that the leak to The New York Times came from U.S. government sources, because that seems to be a prime vector of leaks from the Obama administration and because the article contained information on the NIE review. Given that National Security Adviser James Jones tended to dismiss the report on Sunday television, we would guess the report leaked from elsewhere in the administration. The Sunday Times leak could have come from multiple sources, but we have noted a tendency of the Israelis to leak through the British daily on national security issues. (The article contained substantial details on the visit and appeared written from the Israeli point of view.) Neither leak can be taken at face value, of course. But it is clear that these were deliberate leaks—people rarely risk felony charges leaking such highly classified material—and even if they were not coordinated, they delivered the same message, true or not.

The Iranian Time Frame and the Russian Role

The message was twofold. First, previous assumptions on time frames on Iran are no longer valid, and worst-case assumptions must now be assumed. The Iranians are in fact moving rapidly toward a weapon; have been extremely effective at deceiving U.S. intelligence (read, they deceived the Bush administration, but the Obama administration has figured it out); and therefore, we are moving toward a decisive moment with Iran. Second, this situation is the direct responsibility of Russian nuclear expertise. Whether this expertise came from former employees of the Russian nuclear establishment now looking for work, Russian officials assigned to Iran or unemployed scientists sent to Iran by the Russians is immaterial. The Israelis—and the Obama administration—must hold the Russians responsible for the current state of Iran's weapons program, and by extension, Moscow bears responsibility for any actions that Israel or the United States might take to solve the problem.

We would suspect that the leaks were coordinated. From the Israeli point of view, having said publicly that they are prepared to follow the American lead and allow this phase of diplomacy to play out, there clearly had to be more going on than just last week's Geneva talks. From the American point of view, while the Russians have indicated that participating in sanctions on gasoline imports by Iran is not out of the question, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev did not clearly state that Russia would cooperate, nor has anything been heard from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on the subject. The Russian leadership appears to be playing "good cop, bad cop" on the matter, and the credibility of anything they say on Iran has little weight in Washington.

It would seem to us that the United States and Israel decided to up the ante fairly dramatically in the wake of the Oct. 1 meeting with Iran in Geneva. As IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei visits Iran, massive new urgency has now been added to the issue. But we must remember that Iran knows whether it has had help from Russian scientists; that is something that can't be bluffed. Given that this specific charge has been made—and as of Monday not challenged by Iran or Russia—indicates to us more is going on than an attempt to bluff the Iranians into concessions. Unless the two leaks together are completely bogus, and we doubt that, the United States and Israel are leaking information already well known to the Iranians. They are telling Tehran that its deception campaign has been penetrated, and by extension are telling it that it faces military action—particularly if massive sanctions are impractical because of more Russian obstruction.

If Netanyahu went to Moscow to deliver this intelligence to the Russians, the only surprise would have been the degree to which the Israelis had penetrated the program, not that the Russians were there. The Russian intelligence services are superbly competent, and keep track of stray nuclear scientists carefully. They would not be surprised by the charge, only by Israel's knowledge of it.

This, of course leaves open an enormous question. Certainly, the Russians appear to have worked with the Iranians on some security issues and have played with the idea of providing the Iranians more substantial military equipment. But deliberately aiding Iran in building a nuclear device seems beyond Russia's interests in two ways. First, while Russia wants to goad the United States, it does not itself really want a nuclear Iran. Second, in goading the United States, the Russians know not to go too far; helping Iran build a nuclear weapon would clearly cross a redline, triggering reactions.

A number of possible explanations present themselves. The leak to The Sunday Times might be wrong. But The Sunday Times is not a careless newspaper: It accepts leaks only from certified sources. The Russian scientists might be private citizens accepting Iranian employment. But while this is possible, Moscow is very careful about what Russian nuclear engineers do with their time. Or the Russians might be providing enough help to goad the United States but not enough to ever complete the job. Whatever the explanation, the leaks paint the Russians as more reckless than they have appeared, assuming the leaks are true.

And whatever their veracity, the leaks—the content of which clearly was discussed in detail among the P-5+1 prior to and during the Geneva meetings, regardless of how long they have been known by Western intelligence—were made for two reasons. The first was to tell the Iranians that the nuclear situation is now about to get out of hand, and that attempting to manage the negotiations through endless delays will fail because the United Nations is aware of just how far Tehran has come with its weapons program. The second was to tell Moscow that the issue is no longer whether the Russians will cooperate on sanctions, but the consequence to Russia's relations with the United States and at least the United Kingdom, France and, most important, possibly Germany. If these leaks are true, they are game changers.

We have focused on the Iranian situation not because it is significant in itself, but because it touches on a great number of other crucial international issues. It is now entangled in the Iraqi, Afghan, Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese issues, all of them high-stakes matters. It is entangled in Russian relations with Europe and the United States. It is entangled in U.S.-European relationships and with relationships within Europe. It touches on the U.S.-Chinese relationship. It even touches on U.S. relations with Venezuela and some other Latin American countries. It is becoming the Gordian knot of international relations.

STRATFOR first focused on the Russian connection with Iran in the wake of the Iranian elections and resulting unrest, when a crowd of Rafsanjani supporters began chanting "Death to Russia," not one of the top-10 chants in Iran. That caused us to focus on the cooperation between Russia and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on security matters. We were aware of some degree of technical cooperation on military hardware, and of course on Russian involvement in Iran's civilian nuclear program. We were also of the view that the Iranians were unlikely to progress quickly with their nuclear program. We were not aware that Russian scientists were directly involved in Iran's military nuclear project, which is not surprising, given that such involvement would be Iran's single-most important state secret—and Russia's, too.

A Question of Timing

But there is a mystery here as well. To have any impact, the Russian involvement must have been under way for years. The United States has tried to track rogue nuclear scientists and engineers—anyone who could contribute to nuclear proliferation—since the 1990s. The Israelis must have had their own program on this, too. Both countries, as well as European intelligence services, were focused on Iran's program and the whereabouts of Russian scientists. It is hard to believe that they only just now found out. If we were to guess, we would say Russian involvement has been under way since just after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, when the Russians decided that the United States was a direct threat to its national security.

Therefore, the decision suddenly to confront the Russians, and suddenly to leak U.N. reports—much more valuable than U.S. reports, which are easier for the Europeans to ignore—cannot simply be because the United States and Israel just obtained this information. The IAEA, hostile to the United States since the invasion of Iraq and very much under the influence of the Europeans, must have decided to shift its evaluation of Iran. But far more significant is the willingness of the Israelis first to confront the Russians and then leak about Russian involvement, something that obviously compromises Israeli sources and methods. And that means the Israelis no longer consider the preservation of their intelligence operation in Iran (or wherever it was carried out) as of the essence.

Two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Israelis no longer need to add to their knowledge of Russian involvement; they know what they need to know. And second, the Israelis do not expect Iranian development to continue much longer; otherwise, maintaining the intelligence capability would take precedence over anything else.

It follows from this that the use of this intelligence in diplomatic confrontations with Russians and in a British newspaper serves a greater purpose than the integrity of the source system. And that means that the Israelis expect a resolution in the very near future—the only reason they would have blown their penetration of the Russian-Iranian system.

Possible Outcomes

There are two possible outcomes here. The first is that having revealed the extent of the Iranian program and having revealed the Russian role in a credible British newspaper, the Israelis and the Americans (whose own leak in The New York Times underlined the growing urgency of action) are hoping that the Iranians realize that they are facing war and that the Russians realize that they are facing a massive crisis in their relations with the West. If that happens, then the Russians might pull their scientists and engineers, join in the sanctions and force the Iranians to abandon their program.

The second possibility is that the Russians will continue to play the spoiler on sanctions and will insist that they are not giving support to the Iranians. This leaves the military option, which would mean broad-based action, primarily by the United States, against Iran's nuclear facilities. Any military operation would involve keeping the Strait of Hormuz clear, meaning naval action, and we now know that there are more nuclear facilities than previously discussed. So while the war for the most part would be confined to the air and sea, it would be extensive nonetheless.

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow's actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.

The least that can be said about this is that the Obama administration and Israel are trying to reshape the negotiations with the Iranians and Russians. The most that can be said is that the Americans and Israelis are preparing the public for war. Polls now indicate that more than 60 percent of the U.S. public now favors military action against Iran. From a political point of view, it has become easier for U.S. President Barack Obama to act than to not act. This, too, is being transmitted to the Iranians and Russians.

It is not clear to us that the Russians or Iranians are getting the message yet. They have convinced themselves that Obama is unlikely to act because he is weak at home and already has too many issues to juggle. This is a case where a reputation for being conciliatory actually increases the chances for war. But the leaks this weekend have strikingly limited the options and timelines of the United States and Israel. They also have put the spotlight on Obama at a time when he already is struggling with health care and Afghanistan. History is rarely considerate of presidential plans, and in this case, the leaks have started to force Obama's hand.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

www.stratfor.com (http://www.stratfor.com)

[MedVader]

I can't believe people actually pay money for the crap that stratfor peddles.

2 options, war or sanctions that convince Iran to capitulate?:lol: They are letting the fanboy in them color their judgement.

For every nuclear facility declared or undetected, 3 go on undetected. They are not limited by centrifuges anymore.

The most likely outcome is that Iran simply becomes regarded as a defacto nuclear power within the next 24 months, similar to Brazil or Japan. This game is essentially over and the US is not going to war.

Israel has no capability to go to war... unless they go nuclear. Which is not all that far out of a proposition.

[Frutzel]

I think I heard such news before

First day "The enemy is building dangerous weapons!"
2 days later "Enemy has more weapons than expected!"
3 days later "The enemy is as bad as Darth Vader"
4 days later "Strike is inevitable" etc.....

These articles seem to become as common as the toilet visit

[dracon49]

Too much talks with no action sadly.

[the_Wicked]

I think I heard such news before

First day "The enemy is building dangerous weapons!"
2 days later "Enemy has more weapons than expected!"
3 days later "The enemy is as bad as Darth Vader"
4 days later "Strike is inevitable" etc.....

These articles seem to become as common as the toilet visit

Yeah and that obviously proves them false, how exactly?

[Wahnsinn]

Yeah and that obviously proves them false, how exactly?

If the big boys can have nuclear power then why can't Iran? Who the hell are we to say they can't play with uranium?

Iran isn't a threat to the world, they just have a loudmouth leader who mouths off in front of the world, all talk, no action.

[GiladS]

Iran isn't a threat to the world, they just have a loudmouth leader who mouths off in front of the world, all talk, no action.

Haven't you considerd that maybe with nuclear capabilities Iran will be much more bold?

Israel knows this, the Arabs states know this and the U.S knows this.

Burying your head in the sand like an ostridge has never helped much in such situations.

[GiladS]

CIA: Israel helped prepare Qom report

By JPOST.COM STAFF (updates@jpost.com)

The CIA was aware of Iran's 'secret' nuclear plant in Qom already in 2006, and European and Israeli intelligence agencies were involved in compiling a presentation on the facility to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the US intelligence agency's director, Leon Panetta, revealed in an interview with Time magazine published overnight Wednesday.


The Islamic republic recently revealed that it had been secretly constructing a new uranium enrichment plant inside a mountain just north of the holy city of Qom, and has agreed to discuss future international inspection of the facility.

"It was built into a mountain; obviously that raised question marks," Panetta reportedly said of the site, located some 100 kilometers south of Teheran. The CIA director revealed that he learned of the facility after he was confirmed as head of the agency in January, and said the US spent months on efforts to gather more intelligence on the facility, including "conducting covert operations into that area."
British, French and Israeli intelligence agencies were involved in compiling a presentation on the Qom site that was prepared "in the event that that information leaked out or that [the Obama Administration] wanted to present it to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Panetta added.


According to Iranian ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the newly-revealed site was constructed as a "contingency plan" for a possible Western attack on the country's nuclear installations.
"We have been continuously threatened… by the Zionist regime of Israel and also during the Bush administration... It is unjustified for any country to just ignore these kind of threats.

Therefore we had to have a contingency plan in order to have a sustained enrichment program," Soltanieh told the BBC's HARDtalk show on Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861896402&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Wahnsinn]

Haven't you considerd that maybe with nuclear capabilities Iran will be much more bold?

Israel knows this, the Arabs states know this and the U.S knows this.

Burying your head in the sand like an ostridge has never helped much in such situations.

I'm not burying my head in the sand. I'm saying the countries with nuclear weapons can't tell those without that they can't have them, unless they do the whole world a favour and get rid of their own ones. Double standards. Is Iran more likely to bomb a country than America? Probably not.

[GiladS]

I'm not burying my head in the sand. I'm saying the countries with nuclear weapons can't tell those without that they can't have them, unless they do the whole world a favour and get rid of their own ones. Double standards. Is Iran more likely to bomb a country than America? Probably not.

Comparing Iran to the U.S and Israel is foolish.

Do we want Iran to have the power that comes with a nuclear arsenal? No. Even the Arabs states in the region don't want this.

This whole talk of double standards and hypocrisy by denying Iran nuclear capabilities is also foolish.

[SilentType]

If the big boys can have nuclear power then why can't Iran? Who the hell are we to say they can't play with uranium?

Iran isn't a threat to the world, they just have a loudmouth leader who mouths off in front of the world, all talk, no action.

Do you have an automobile?

Do you use electricity?

Did you type that post on a plastic keyboard?

If the answer to any of the above is "yes" than that is why Iran can not have a nuclear weapon and frankly Israel shouldn't have them either. If there is ONE nuclear weapon detonated in the middle east the economy of the entire world would collapse to a chaotic level.

Wouldn't have to be intentional. Could be an accidental launch, misread interpretations of potential enemies...million ways that the middle east could errupt into a nuclear war. Could be one is stolen. The more nuclear weapons out there the greater the chances of one going off. Simple statistics.

That's why the U.S. went into Iraq. Couldn't risk nuclear detonation in the middle east no matter how slim the chances of it happening are.

[GiladS]

The 3-minute video that may prove Iran's nuclear intentions http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif
By Yossi Melman (ymelman@haaretz.co.il)


VIENNA - The last place you would expect to hear the apocalyptic soundtrack of the movie "Chariots of Fire" would be Iran. This 1981 film recounts the story of a Jewish British athlete and his teammate, a devout Christian, who refuses to compete on Sunday, his day of rest. But this soundtrack accompanies a highly secret video, produced by Iranian nuclear scientists, but never screened before the general public - a three-minute film depicting a computerized simulation of the detonation of a warhead, most likely a nuclear one. Whether it was intentional or merely coincidental, the nameless Iranian editor decided to use the soundtrack of the British blockbuster to accompany the video.

This film was, however, screened on February 26, 2008, in the fourth-floor conference room of Building C at the Vienna headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) overlooking the Danube. The host of the screening was Finnish nuclear physicist Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's deputy director general and head of its inspection department, officially called the Department of Safeguards. In attendance were representatives of the 35 member states that constitute the organization's board of governors. It was one of the most important meetings ever held by the IAEA.

In the seven years prior to the gathering, Heinonen visited Iran many times as part of his inspections on behalf of the agency. Iranian intelligence agents followed his every move, hoping to catch him doing something that could either embarrass him or be used for blackmail purposes. They offered him bribes, but the stern-faced Finnish nuclear scientist never took the bait.

Heinonen even laid out his own money for the clock with a Farsi inscription that now adorns one of the walls in his office. He found it in one of the warehouses of the Kalaye Electric Company, in the southern outskirts of Tehran. The Iranians were adamant that Kalaye produced only electronic watches and clocks, although the IAEA discovered that it clandestinely manufactures centrifuges for uranium enrichment. These centrifuges are being used today in Iran's nuclear program, both at the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz and at the recently discovered plant in Qom.

A dedicated official, esteemed by agency colleagues for his integrity, Heinonen is known to oppose the conciliatory approach toward Iran that has for years been the policy of IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei, who will be leaving his post at the end of the year. Heinonen managed to recruit his boss' agreement to invite the representatives of the board of governors' member states to the briefing on that wintry Vienna day. The purpose: a briefing on the suspected "military aspects" of Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran claims is intended only for peaceful purposes.

The video depicted a room made of stone. At the center stood a Perspex mock-up - equipped with a flashing red light - of a ball-shaped bomb resting in the metallic, gold-plated cone of a missile warhead. In the most important scene in the film, the computer simulation shows the launched warhead reentering the atmosphere and exploding 600 meters above the earth's surface. According to experts, this is the ideal altitude for detonating a nuclear bomb in order to generate the maximum degree of destruction on the ground.

At the briefing, Heinonen noted that the type of warhead represented by the model could fit an Iranian Shahab missile.

Thus, with the soundtrack of "Chariots of Fire" in the background, the participants in Vienna had the impression they were viewing a PR marketing film produced to advance the sales of some corporation. Some present thought it was a training film intended to demonstrate to senior Iranian officials - either members of the country's political or religious echelons, or the top brass of its Revolutionary Guard - that Tehran had reached an advanced stage in its nuclear program.

In addition to the video, Heinonen displayed documents in Farsi, which he said dated back to July 2003-January 2004, and which included a number of sketches. Both the film and sketches showed a machine that can produce light-weight aluminum warheads.

Heinonen was very cautious, emphasizing there was no evidence proving that what they had seen was necessarily a mock-up of a nuclear warhead; it could have been a conventional one. Nonetheless, his listeners were stunned. It was clear to most of them that it was likely a nuclear device.

As one of those who was present explained to Haaretz: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck." That is, one can assume the Iranians have conducted research and calculations for weaponization - how to assemble a nuclear device - as part of a secret military nuclear program alongside their civilian one.

At the briefing, Heinonen told participants that he and other IAEA officials had asked the Iranians for an explanation of the video - specifically, about the warhead, its simulated reentry into the earth's atmosphere, the detonation of its nuclear payload at an altitude of 600 meters, the ball-like mechanism and so on. However, as befitting their usual tactics, the Iranians delayed their response, and then argued that the materials - the footage, photos and sketches - were a total fabrication, produced by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency or Israel's Mossad, or perhaps by both of them together. According to the Iranians, the forgery was intended to frame them, to present Iran as a country engaged in developing nuclear weapons, and thus operating in blatant violation of international conventions.

The Iranians' next move was to admit half-heartedly that the video was authentic, but that it depicted a computer simulation of a reentry vehicle of a conventional warhead - not a nuclear one.

Smuggled out

Three years prior to the Vienna gathering, reports leaked to the media and also published by Haaretz already claimed that Iran was involved in secret research for weaponization purposes. The reports were based on secret documents that had reached the IAEA. This data, according to the reports, had been concealed in a laptop smuggled out of Iran, ostensibly by a scientist who had been a part of his country's nuclear program, and who handed the computer over to the German intelligence service, the BND.

Recently, however, a new version of events has surfaced. David Albright, a physicist who serves as president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C., wrote that the data was smuggled out as "electronic media" and not via a laptop. A former IAEA inspector, Albright is considered to have very good relations with the agency as well as with American intelligence. In recent years, ISIS has beat even the media in publicizing on its Web site information about the nuclear programs of Iran and Syria. Indeed, Albright was the first to publish aerial photos of the nuclear site at Qom.

Albright explained last month that the scientist who smuggled out the secret data was indeed an agent for German intelligence, who suspected Iran's security services had discovered his espionage activities. For that reason, he gave his wife the "electronic media," including the video, and instructed her to go to Turkey and hand it over to American diplomats there. A short while afterward, reported Albright, the scientist-agent vanished without a trace: Apparently, he was arrested by Iranian intelligence and executed for treason.

When it reached the United States, the data was sent to the Sandia National Laboratories to verify whether it was authentic and whether the simulation of the detonation of a nuclear device had, in fact, been carried out. Subsequently, probably in 2005, the information was transmitted in censored format to the IAEA. However, after examination, the organization's experts could not determine definitively whether it was genuine.

Nonetheless, the data convinced the IAEA's board of governors that Iran had indeed reneged on its obligations, and the agency decided to submit a report on the matter to the UN Security Council. In 2006, that body imposed sanctions on Iran for breaching its safeguards agreements and called upon it to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities. However, because of the internal dispute within the IAEA, the Vienna briefing was held only two years later.

Heinonen and his team compiled a 67-page report and asked ElBaradei to include it as an appendix to one of the IAEA's seasonal reports on Iran. However, on this issue, ElBaradei gained the upper hand: Convinced that there was no evidence of an Iranian military program, he refused to append the internal report and even asked that the fact of its very existence be concealed.

A few weeks ago, Haaretz revealed the very existence of the appendix. However, the bitter truth is that such information cannot change the reality on the ground. Iran continues to enrich uranium while claiming that it has no military nuclear program. Russia and China insist on opposing harsh sanctions on Iran. Israeli spokespersons have hinted at, or even threatened, a military operation against Iran, but they prefer it be carried out by the United States. The United States and the European Union oppose the use of force and find themselves isolated in their attempts to deal with Tehran's nuclear challenge. This week, the IAEA said it had no comment when asked by Haaretz about the information presented at the Vienna briefing.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121587.html

[MedVader]

Aaahhh, the infamous withheld 67 page report.

Probably chock full of documents about secret uranium shipments from Niger.:lol:

[RoyB]

Do you have an automobile?

Do you use electricity?

Did you type that post on a plastic keyboard?

If the answer to any of the above is "yes" than that is why Iran can not have a nuclear weapon and frankly Israel shouldn't have them either. If there is ONE nuclear weapon detonated in the middle east the economy of the entire world would collapse to a chaotic level.

Wouldn't have to be intentional. Could be an accidental launch, misread interpretations of potential enemies...million ways that the middle east could errupt into a nuclear war. Could be one is stolen. The more nuclear weapons out there the greater the chances of one going off. Simple statistics.

That's why the U.S. went into Iraq. Couldn't risk nuclear detonation in the middle east no matter how slim the chances of it happening are.
A major conventional war in the ME would have the same effects. Israel's nukes are the only reason of why such a war didn't took place in the last 30+ years.

[the_Wicked]

I think the notion that Israel shouldn't have nukes, especially coming from the only nation in the world that actually nuked cities in its history, is ludicrous. Israel is a stable democracy that has had nukes for half a century and never used them to this day. On the other hand, it's highly doubtful Iran is responsible enough to be entrusted with nukes, and even if it is, who exactly is going to benefit from Iran getting nukes (besides Iran of course)? Why should be allow them to have them if there are 1001 scenarios for stuff that could go wrong with Iranian nukes?

[Sootan]

I think the notion that Israel shouldn't have nukes, especially coming from the only nation in the world that actually nuked cities in its history, is ludicrous. Israel is a stable democracy that has had nukes for half a century and never used them to this day. On the other hand, it's highly doubtful Iran is responsible enough to be entrusted with nukes, and even if it is, who exactly is going to benefit from Iran getting nukes (besides Iran of course)? Why should be allow them to have them if there are 1001 scenarios for stuff that could go wrong with Iranian nukes?

Scenarios like undermining Israel's nuke supremacy in the Middle East?

[Wahnsinn]

I think the notion that Israel shouldn't have nukes, especially coming from the only nation in the world that actually nuked cities in its history, is ludicrous. Israel is a stable democracy that has had nukes for half a century and never used them to this day. On the other hand, it's highly doubtful Iran is responsible enough to be entrusted with nukes, and even if it is, who exactly is going to benefit from Iran getting nukes (besides Iran of course)? Why should be allow them to have them if there are 1001 scenarios for stuff that could go wrong with Iranian nukes?

Who benefits from any country having nuclear weapons? Nobody except the country with them.

[the_Wicked]

Scenarios like undermining Israel's nuke supremacy in the Middle East?

Scenario's like a government coup that places Iranian nukes in terrorist hands.


Who benefits from any country having nuclear weapons? Nobody except the country with them.

Absolutely correct! So why not prevent yet another country, which is by the way very outspoken in its antagonism toward the west, from having them?

[BudW]

The nuke sites have to go, that being said be prepared to pay a very high price likely
a world wide depression.

[Tejano]

Let them do what ever they want.

If Israel attacks them, OK. Just don't get us involved.

If Iran attacks Israel, OK. Just don't get us involved.

The end.

[Telmar]

A major conventional war in the ME would have the same effects. Israel's nukes are the only reason of why such a war didn't took place in the last 30+ years.

I'm not that sure. I don't think that Israel's nukes have for the moment had a decisive effect on dissuasion.

Egypt and Jordan are at peace with Israel since the end of the seventies, and the current regimes are rather friendly to Israel. Syria cannot do anything alone, and would be defeated conventionnaly with not too much difficulty. Lebanon is a turmoiled state and certainly not in a position to launch an attack on Israel, and this since the mid seventies.

Iraq attacked Israel conventionnaly with Scuds during GW1 so the nukes were not a deterrent. Thank God though that Israel did not retaliate as the situation could have quickly been untenable.

Nukes are deterrent to organized states. But Israel's main enemies,apart from Iran, are not organized states. At least not directly. IMO the nukes served no purpose up to now.

[Wahnsinn]

Absolutely correct! So why not prevent yet another country, which is by the way very outspoken in its antagonism toward the west, from having them?

Or, why don't all the countries with nuclear weapons show they are mature and get rid of them before moaning at Iran, making themselves hypocrites? Who the hell are we to tell them they can't have nuclear weapons when we do?

I sincerely hope that America, Russia, Isreal etc are responsible enough not to plunge the world into nuclear war but I doubt it sometimes.

[Snoshi]

Iraq attacked Israel conventionnaly with Scuds during GW1 so the nukes were not a deterrent. Thank God though that Israel did not retaliate as the situation could have quickly been untenable.
Iraq attacked Israel for different reasons, because it wanted Israeli retaliation.. Israeli attack against Iraq would be a blessing for Saddam.

[the_Wicked]

Or, why don't all the countries with nuclear weapons show they are mature and get rid of them before moaning at Iran, making themselves hypocrites? Who the hell are we to tell them they can't have nuclear weapons when we do?

Get rid of nuclear weapons WHILE Iran is developing theirs? And what exactly are the disarmed nations going to do once Iran completes its nuclear program and holds the entire world hostage? Your suggestion is worthless.

And who the hell are we? We are 1) The most powerful, and 2) The most humane and civilized nations on Earth. We are not the ones who hang homo******s on the streets. We are not the ones who shout death to people with whom we disagree. We have all the right in the world to stop an irresponsible regime from getting this sort of power, but even if we didn't, who cares about rights? Its in the west's interests, therefore the west should do it.



I sincerely hope that America, Russia, Isreal etc are responsible enough not to plunge the world into nuclear war but I doubt it sometimes.

64 years and counting without a nuclear holocaust.

[shoora]

Why should be allow them to have them if there are 1001 scenarios for stuff that could go wrong with Iranian nukes?
You know, I have much more doubts in Pakistan than in Iran. Iran does not looks like reckless state. And Pakistan is world biggest terrorist traning camp since 1978. Who knows what is going to happen when US looses control over Pakistani government.
I know that Iran provides funds for Palestinians, which makes Iran big enemy of Israel. But isn't Saudi Arabia is a biggest donor for muslim terrorists.
Looks to me, you should start from pushing Pakistan and S.A.. and leave Iran for desert. Otherwise, you sending mixed message.

And who the hell are we? We are 1) The most powerful, and 2) The most humane and civilized nations on Earth. We are not the ones who hang homo******s on the streets. We are not the ones who shout death to people with whom we disagree. We have all the right in the world to stop an irresponsible regime from getting this sort of power, but even if we didn't, who cares about rights? Its in the west's interests, therefore the west should do it.
Wow! So, you really don't care if someone disagree with you :-)

[the_Wicked]

You know, I have much more doubts in Pakistan than in Iran. Iran does not looks like reckless state. And Pakistan is world biggest terrorist traning camp since 1978. Who knows what is going to happen when US looses control over Pakistani government.
I know that Iran provides funds for Palestinians, which makes Iran big enemy of Israel. But isn't Saudi Arabia is a biggest donor for muslim terrorists.
Looks to me, you should start from pushing Pakistan and S.A.. and leave Iran for desert. Otherwise, you sending mixed message.

It's too late for Pakistan, it already have multiple functioning nukes. Unless we can magically guarantee that they won't use them against invading forces (how to do this I don't know, maybe with fairy dust or unicorns or something) an invasion or bombing mission is a no go. Besides, they've had them for some time and haven't used them yet.


Wow! So, you really don't care if someone disagree with you :-)

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

[Wahnsinn]

Get rid of nuclear weapons WHILE Iran is developing theirs? And what exactly are the disarmed nations going to do once Iran completes its nuclear program and holds the entire world hostage? Your suggestion is worthless.



I'm afraid you completely misunderstood me there. Of course the US won't give up it's nuclear weapons, of course the UK et cetera won't. But until they do, who are they to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons? Is Iran really going to listen to the only country that has fired nuclear weapons in anger, admitted it was wrong and kept them anyway with much seriousness? I know I wouldn't.

In my opinion, no country should have weapons that powerful to use, humans just aren't that responsible. But we don't live in a perfect world, so this is to be expected and frankly, I don't give a **** who launchs a nuke, I'm probably still gonna get one through my letterbox, sadly.

[the_Wicked]

I'm afraid you completely misunderstood me there. Of course the US won't give up it's nuclear weapons, of course the UK et cetera won't. But until they do, who are they to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons? Is Iran really going to listen to the only country that has fired nuclear weapons in anger, admitted it was wrong and kept them anyway with much seriousness? I know I wouldn't.

In my opinion, no country should have weapons that powerful to use, humans just aren't that responsible. But we don't live in a perfect world, so this is to be expected and frankly, I don't give a **** who launchs a nuke, I'm probably still gonna get one through my letterbox, sadly.

That's absolute nonsense. "Hypocrisy" as you call it is irrelevant. There are those who are responsible and trustworthy to hold nukes, and there are those who don't. On that basis, the west has the right to judge who would get nukes and who don't. MY way of thinking leads to world peace and stability, YOUR thinking leads to rogue regimes having the power to destroy the world but hey, at least we gave ourselves the ideological pat on the back, right? :roll:

[Elbs]

I'm afraid you completely misunderstood me there. Of course the US won't give up it's nuclear weapons, of course the UK et cetera won't. But until they do, who are they to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons? Is Iran really going to listen to the only country that has fired nuclear weapons in anger, admitted it was wrong and kept them anyway with much seriousness? I know I wouldn't.

I'm sorry, but when did the US admit that the atomic bombings were wrong?

[Wahnsinn]

That's absolute nonsense. "Hypocrisy" as you call it is irrelevant. There are those who are responsible and trustworthy to hold nukes, and there are those who don't. On that basis, the west has the right to judge who would get nukes and who don't. MY way of thinking leads to world peace and stability, YOUR thinking leads to rogue regimes having the power to destroy the world but hey, at least we gave ourselves the ideological pat on the back, right? :roll:

The US won't give up it's nuclear weapons, I know that. I see no real benefit in the US government having the power to destroy the world over a "rogue regime".


I'm sorry, but when did the US admit that the atomic bombings were wrong?

I am sadly mistaken then.

[sterrius]

There are those who are responsible and trustworthy to hold nukes

So we can just trust the word of those 6 countrys that they are never going to use a nuke against a country that don`t have them?

Sorry but politics, power and war is never that simple!

Even if have some "responsible and trustworthy" status! How can a country join in? because today you just can`t!

So as long those 6 countrys refuse to do the right thing (finding some way to give up nukes), you will see countrys trying to build them or having the ways to produce them very fast if needed.

Today is iran.. in 10 years will see another, another and another.... how long until someone achieve sucess and start a nuclear race again? And how much races can be stoped?

OBS: Sorry any english mistake!

[Ambassador]

Trustworthiness and responsibility lie on the country's adherence to survival instinct.