Iran cleaning up nuclear work, satelite photos show.

[seth gecko]

Such things are I will agree seldom rational, but why would Iran do this? They have certainly been holding their own since the end of the Iran-Iraq War without nuclear weapons, the West would have little reason to bother with them if they where not doing everything in their power to give the impression that they are working on a nuclear weapons program.

The Iraqi use of mustard gas during the Iran-Iraq war is often cited as the trigger for Khamenei's quest for nukes - either the ultimate deterrant or the ultimate payback. It was around the time that Iraq was once again in position to possibly threaten Iran when their nuke program really took off, and by most accounts that nuke program ended about the same time Saddam was knocked off & the perceived Iraqi threat to Iran was eliminated. That they were researching & testing nuke weapon components during that time is almost certain.
Iranian leaders aren't as stupid or suicidal as lots of folks assume them to be......they've watched Pakistan get billions of dollars in US aid, and North Korea also receive US aid, while Afghanistan and Iraq both get invaded. Its enough to make them go "hmmmmmm" and figure that the nuclear chip is a good one to have while bargaining. Maybe their nuke program really is on the backburner but they keep up the pretense to avoid getting hit with the US "stick". Maybe their program is dead in the water thanks to sanctions (maraging steel, good for missiles, is also good for centrifuges. Apparently Iran has had some problems with centrifuges because they're forced to use aluminum, which lacks the qualities of maraging steel), but they maintain the impression of a possible nuke weapons program as a show of (false) strength. Its a poker bluff, or brinksmanship.
But it still stands that there just isn't enough evidence of sufficient quality or quantity of a current & active weapons program, so theres no justification for escalating matters.

 

[groggy]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one (if I'm reading you right).
This isn't the case where they can develop and test components in absolute secrecy; certain procedures are going to leave some obvious signs that they won't be able to easily mask. Those are going to be the "red lines" that Bibi & Barry are trying to come to agreement on. It was surveillance technology that initially pointed the IAEA to Parchin, not the other way around (in that the IAEA uncovered something at Parchin first and then pressed for access). Iran isn't required to have the IAEA inspect their military facilities; the IAEA wouldn't even have been looking at Parchin unless some signature was detected first. Any test they do will very very VERY likely be detected long before the IAEA thinks to ask about it. It's THAT surveillance thats going to uncover advancements in Iranian weaponization moreso than IAEA inspectors, and thus far, that surveillance isn't proving what everyone suspects & fears. Maybe the surveillance equipment is useless crap loaded with made-in-China components, or maybe their just not currently building nukes.

Seth, you must have better info then me. The only reports I've been able to find suggest that the 'new' info the IAEA is acting on is really a bunch of previously discarded theories from the famed 'laptop of death'. The new parts of the report ended being the name of the russian scientist, I forget his name now, who came forward after the report and addressed all the allegations. The new head of the IAEA is someone the US and Israel have been trying to get on board for a while now, for precisely this reason.

If you have more credible info, can you link to it?

 

[groggy]

Again, under current conditions do you support the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons? Yes or no.

Under the current conditions I don't support any country having nuclear weapons, but just having them is no grounds for attack.

 

[seth gecko]

Seth, you must have better info then me. The only reports I've been able to find suggest that the 'new' info the IAEA is acting on is really a bunch of previously discarded theories from the famed 'laptop of death'. The new parts of the report ended being the name of the russian scientist, I forget his name now, who came forward after the report and addressed all the allegations. The new head of the IAEA is someone the US and Israel have been trying to get on board for a while now, for precisely this reason.

If you have more credible info, can you link to it?

I'm not sure I understand the question...............
Parchin is a military base & as such wasn't required to be inspected under the NPT. Somebody, somewhere, at some time pointed the IAEA towards Parchin - the IAEA didn't come across evidence on their own. Iran said "we'll let you look around, even though we aren't required to, as a courtesy". That they would restrict access to a military research facility isn't unreasonable at all. Maybe the US should declassify AFP 67 or open the Starfire range to public tours as an example for Iran to follow. But that ain't gonna happen!
The IAEA wants to do a follow-up of Parchin now as they felt their inspection a few years back was inconclusive. Anyone want to bet on what their conclusions would be if a full inspection of Parchin happened tomorrow - my guess is that it would still come up "inconclusive" with the allegation of a clean-up (already alluded to through media outlets). IAEA inspectors won't find anything that proves or disproves a weapons program, although they may find stuff that raises legimate questions......if legimate answers to those questions aren't available, I'd start worrying (well, I actually wouldn't worry too much). The hi-tech covert stuff provides more information than IAEA dudes.

As for linking credible info.......I might have some sources, or I might not, but either way, I enjoy not going to prison, so even if I did have sources not available to regular folks, I wouldn't be passing on that info here or anywhere else. Credible info is available via open sources but folks really need to put aside personal biases and read & understand what's in front of them rather than try to score cheap points in a debate (IMO). Is there a legimate use for 100+ kgs of 19.75% LEU? Heck yes, that we already covered (obviously Netanyahu isn't a TERB member, because he questioned it in his AIPAC speech. He did show a flair for Borsch-belt comedy though - "Anybody here from Florida?" Classic!!)

 

[fuji]

The cat and mouse game has to end.

"No proof that they are working on weapons" is not good enough, we need ongoing proof that they aren't, meaning unrestricted no-nonsense no-notice IAEA inspections of any site that IAEA wants access to.

 

[shack]

Under the current conditions I don't support any country having nuclear weapons, but just having them is no grounds for attack.

Inspections by the U.N. is a far cry from attack. If you are truly against them having nuclear weapons you would support full inspections to ensure that.

 

[groggy]

Inspections by the U.N. is a far cry from attack. If you are truly against them having nuclear weapons you would support full inspections to ensure that.

I support inspections along the legal framework of the NPT, and think Israel should sign up before it be allowed to make any complaints about non-compliance to Iran.
I do not support the politicization of the NPT.

 

[seth gecko]

Good article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuke-intel-20120311,0,7709197.story

 

[shack]

legal framework of the NPT, and think Israel should sign up before it be allowed to make any complaints about non-compliance to Iran.

Is signing up a prerequisite for any other country to lodge complaints or would this only apply to Israel?

 

[groggy]

Is signing up a prerequisite for any other country to lodge complaints or would this only apply to Israel?

This would apply to Israel, India and Pakistan, who I believe are the only three countries in the world who haven't signed the NPT.

 

[groggy]

I'm not sure I understand the question...............
Parchin is a military base & as such wasn't required to be inspected under the NPT. Somebody, somewhere, at some time pointed the IAEA towards Parchin - the IAEA didn't come across evidence on their own. Iran said "we'll let you look around, even though we aren't required to, as a courtesy". That they would restrict access to a military research facility isn't unreasonable at all. Maybe the US should declassify AFP 67 or open the Starfire range to public tours as an example for Iran to follow. But that ain't gonna happen!
The IAEA wants to do a follow-up of Parchin now as they felt their inspection a few years back was inconclusive. Anyone want to bet on what their conclusions would be if a full inspection of Parchin happened tomorrow - my guess is that it would still come up "inconclusive" with the allegation of a clean-up (already alluded to through media outlets). IAEA inspectors won't find anything that proves or disproves a weapons program, although they may find stuff that raises legimate questions......if legimate answers to those questions aren't available, I'd start worrying (well, I actually wouldn't worry too much). The hi-tech covert stuff provides more information than IAEA dudes.

As for linking credible info.......I might have some sources, or I might not, but either way, I enjoy not going to prison, so even if I did have sources not available to regular folks, I wouldn't be passing on that info here or anywhere else. Credible info is available via open sources but folks really need to put aside personal biases and read & understand what's in front of them rather than try to score cheap points in a debate (IMO). Is there a legimate use for 100+ kgs of 19.75% LEU? Heck yes, that we already covered (obviously Netanyahu isn't a TERB member, because he questioned it in his AIPAC speech. He did show a flair for Borsch-belt comedy though - "Anybody here from Florida?" Classic!!)

Ok, sounds like you haven't read any of the more detailed criticisms of the Nov IAEA report. Al Jazeera did a very clear one, where they indicated the problems with the report, its sources, including the famed 'laptop of death' from 2000 or so and the couple of new allegations.

Can you give this article a read and consideration?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/11/201111972030733284.html

It covers most of the allegations for Parchin and their sources. Considering that the info is from a 12 year old planted computer and was acted on in 2005, its not at all likely they will find anything. But what is also becoming clear is that since you can never prove a negative, that Iran 'isn't' building a bomb, the IAEA will never report that they aren't regardless of what they inspect, as long as the increasing politicization of the IAEA continues.

 

[fuji]

I support inspections along the legal framework of the NPT

Iran is in flagrant violation of its NPT obligation as well as in flagrant violation of several binding UN SC resolutions.

Do you support the UN? You surely have loved citing the UN in the past as though it were some sort of authority.

 

[fuji]

But what is also becoming clear is that since you can never prove a negative

Bullshit propaganda, typical groggy crap. If Iran were to allow the full IAEA inspections it is required by law to allow the world would have a great deal of confidence that Iran is not pursuing any weapons program. IAEA inspectors should be able to visit any facility they like when they want without any advance notice to Iran. That sort of regime would provide the requisite confidence in an otherwise completely untrustworthy regime.

 

[seth gecko]

Ok, sounds like you haven't read any of the more detailed criticisms of the Nov IAEA report. Al Jazeera did a very clear one, where they indicated the problems with the report, its sources, including the famed 'laptop of death' from 2000 or so and the couple of new allegations.

Anyone who reads the IAEA report with an open mind and some technical know-how will have their own criticisms. I posted a link to the actual report within a day or so after it was issued. But most people have a tendency to read and repeat what strenghtens their position, whether it is truthful or not

Can you give this article a read and consideration?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/11/201111972030733284.html

Seems like they have their facts & timelines mostly correct (or maybe in sync with USG data would be a better term). But skeptics will find fault with it for reasons of their own making.........most people here jump all over FARS as not being a credible source, until FARS prints an article saying Roshan was dedicated to destroying the Zionist regime (or whatever the exact quote was). Now suddenly its proof that this scientist was working to destroy the world.
I especially like the picture of Mahmoud and his pals wearing the funky 3D glasses at the Tehran I-Max theatre.

It covers most of the allegations for Parchin and their sources. Considering that the info is from a 12 year old planted computer and was acted on in 2005, its not at all likely they will find anything. But what is also becoming clear is that since you can never prove a negative, that Iran 'isn't' building a bomb, the IAEA will never report that they aren't regardless of what they inspect, as long as the increasing politicization of the IAEA continues.

Here's some thoughful stuff, hot off the presses. I find FP to be probably the most balanced piece of journalism out there; they give equal weight to both sides of any argument and usually leave it up to their readers' basic intelligence to make decisions.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/11/top_ten_media_failures_in_the_iran_war_debate

 

[groggy]

Here's some thoughful stuff, hot off the presses. I find FP to be probably the most balanced piece of journalism out there; they give equal weight to both sides of any argument and usually leave it up to their readers' basic intelligence to make decisions.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/11/top_ten_media_failures_in_the_iran_war_debate

That's a pretty fair article, it does outline the reality of the situation fairly accurately.
The one thing is the missing motive for US involvement.
The standard motive listed is oil and resources, and I'd have to say its probably still the only real reason.
You'd only have to look at this leaked memo from 1982, to understand that not much has changed.
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000763462/DOC_0000763462.pdf

 

[seth gecko]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/w...wed-difficulty-of-assessing-nuclear-data.html

 

[seth gecko]

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble yet again, but:

Paul Brannan, a senior analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said he had looked at many images but so far had not found the specific site or signs of any cleanup activity. But he added that the massive scale of development at Parchin made the problem quite challenging. “There’s no way to know whether or not the activity you see in a particular satellite image is cleansing or just regular work,” he said. “They build a lot of stuff. There’s a lot of activity there — always.”

http://isis-online.org/isis-reports...ch-may-contain-high-explosive-test-chamber-a/

 

[groggy]

http://isis-online.org/isis-reports...ch-may-contain-high-explosive-test-chamber-a/

Not much clear info on that post.
They identify the building that the IAEA is interested in, but that's all.

Also of interest, there's an article out on one of the subjects of Mossad assassination in Iran. Looks like he was just an electrical engineering student, possibly killed by mistaken identity, and now the subject of a large disinformation campaign to make him look like he was in on the nuclear programme.

http://www.truth-out.org/how-mossad-justified-its-murder-innocent-iranian-electrical-engineer/1331747276

 

[fuji]

Which of the following does anybody doubt:

1. Iran is enriching uranium

2. Iran is refusing to co-operate fully with IAEA inspections

I can't see what the debate is here. Both those things are in flagrant violation of UNSC resolutions.

What's Iran doing beyond that? WHO THE HELL KNOWS. There is some evidence they have engaged in a variety of prohibited nuclear weapons research but until they comply with #1 and #2 we really just don't know what they are doing, and that's unacceptable.

 

[groggy]

And in other news, Israel now agrees that Iran is not trying to build a bomb right now.
But will that stop them from wanting to bomb them?

http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-18/news/31208230_1_iranian-program-israeli-officials-nuclear-weapons