April 13, 2012 : P5+1/Iran summit, take 2.

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
... If you think dealing with facts rather that joining a lynchmob is "defending" Iran, then I guess I'm defending Iran...
It is 100% reasonable to say that Iran's actions do not justify a military strike and I don't think anyone here (except maybe Lancs) is advocating that. On the other hand, claiming that Iran and its massive enrichment program and related military research is only for civilian purposes when evidence and the IAEA have severe doubts seems like sand and an ostrich head should be involved.


p.s. The 3 year old article said that the facility would take around 2 years to complete. Many other sources (including Iranian officials) have openly discussed the massive increases in the number of centrifuges.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
The gun analogy wasn't the greatest. The point I was hoping to make is that we need much more than speculation that something may occur in the future to escalate actions now. Iran is being inspected more than any other nation (probably in history) and all these investigations are coming up short with actionable evidence. ...
Perhaps a discussion about where the Iranians have refused to allow the inspections would be worth comment.


Simple solution - allow full access.

If there is nothing there, the story is over. As it is, admitted massive number of centrifuges unneeded for civilian purposes, more highly enriched fuel than is needed for civilian purposes, and intentional disruption of inspections gives lots of reasons to worry.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
You are lying again groggy...you really need to break that habit.

The IAEA current reports are not based on 10 year old intelligence. But we have caught you lying before now havn't we.

Iran is refining fuel way beyond civilian needs and continues to refuse to allow reasonable inspections. BO is cutting them a great deal of slack, let's hope they don't waste it and bring a great deal of death and destruction on themselves.
Actually Iran is not the most inspected country in the world because they have not allowed a real inspection in over three years.

And Mr. prosecutor, feel free to research the concept of actions leading to an inference of consciousness of guilt.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, and as such I try to stay away from the legal arguments, and seeing how you're already trying to educate an idiot on the law over in that Khadr thread, you probably don't want to duplicate that with me. I haven't bothered to do the research you've suggested, and likely never will, but if you could provide a Readers Digest version of it, I'd gladly read it.
However, when we get down to the issue of refining beyond civilian needs - thats not quite right.
Their current stock of approx 100kgs of 19.75% LEU is feedstock for the TRR, which is due for reloading any time now. I'll go back to one of my good analogies of the gastank; if they "fill up" the TRR when its due with the entire stock, they can run it for anywhere from 5-20 years, depending on current ouputs of 3Mw or design output of 5Mw. So right now, there's nothing bogus with 109kg of 20% LEU. What is completely bogus is their recent announcement of another research reactor planned for sometime in the future, and that they need to continue enriching to satisfy that reactor. Obviously BS, as a reactor that isn't even built doesn't need fuel, and won't need it until several years from now. I don't think that the Iranians are stupid enough to beleive that the p5+1 are stupid enough to fall for this, so it's an obvious bargaining ploy. And a pretty weak one at that.
Like it or not, there is a legimate need for 100+kgs of 20% LEU. How they refuel the TRR and what they do with the spent fuel should be the concern everyone has (actually, it is the concern that analysts currently have), rather with the false assumption that there is no legimate need for 100kgs of 20% LEU, so it must be for weapons. If they wanted to make a bomb, and had all the abilities to make a bomb, they do have sufficient quantity of sufficiently enriched uranium to do so - 7kgs of 93% HEU, which is the leftovers of what the TRR originally ran on, and it is regularly monitored by the IAEA. Thats not saying that they can't or someday won't make a nuke, but they do already have some of the materials.
I don't beleive it was you, but it think someone mentioned centrifuges somewhere. Yes, Iran has installed lots of centrifuges. But its unclear how many actually work, as many lack the rotor assembly due to shortages in maraging steel. Iran reportedly has tried aluminum and carbon-composites, but those materials don't work properly. Overall, their centrifuge performance is considered sub-par, so greater numbers of centrifuges working inefficiently doesn't mean that much.
And the IAEA inspects Irans 20+ designated nuclear facilities about 4 times a year, and has done so for several years. Do they get to go wherever they want, whenever they want? No, Iran doesn't let them see everything they demand, but they largely are fulfilling the the mandatory requirements, not the voluntary ones. If there is some facility that Iran is keeping secret, the IAEA inspectors won't be the ones finding it. The few tips they've received and were allowed access to investigate have panned out with nothing; althought the IAEA considers the tips and sources credible, they've come up short on details (and you can't cover up this evidence with air freshener and a coat of paint).

Is Iran being an incredibly difficult and challenging situation? Obviously yes. Are they playing a very dangerous game of brinksmanship. Again, obviously yes. Are they currently developing nuclear weapons? Its not an obvious yes. Its closer to a high degree of certainty, no. As much as we distrust Iran, remember that runs both ways, and forcing Iran to submit to more intrusive inspections isn't going to make this problem go away; given the Iranian national character it'll likely make them more defiant & difficult.Any first step towards a solution was to come from the P5+1 (but in a US election year, likely won't happen due to domestic pressures).
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
... Are they currently developing nuclear weapons? Its not an obvious yes. Its closer to a high degree of certainty, no....
I see that semantics are the difficulty. They are not currently making weapons BUT Iran has admitted to a ridiculously high number of centrifuges and is known to have been involved in ballistic missile testing and research into shaped charges. From a 20% enrichment, Iran can have enough fissionable material for a bomb within 6 months. Considering the time the whole IAEA inspection process takes amid Iranian intransigence, they could have a nuke before the world is even aware of their progress. That quite simply is the concern.

You admit that Iran is engaged in brinksmanship so they are a huge part of the problem. No one cares about open and up front civilian nuclear power in Iran, just the shady games they are playing and the risks it implies.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,107
113
I see that semantics are the difficulty. They are not currently making weapons BUT Iran has admitted to a ridiculously high number of centrifuges and is known to have been involved in ballistic missile testing and research into shaped charges. From a 20% enrichment, Iran can have enough fissionable material for a bomb within 6 months. Considering the time the whole IAEA inspection process takes amid Iranian intransigence, they could have a nuke before the world is even aware of their progress. That quite simply is the concern.

You admit that Iran is engaged in brinksmanship so they are a huge part of the problem. No one cares about open and up front civilian nuclear power in Iran, just the shady games they are playing and the risks it implies.
I am not even sure why this is an issue. I don't think anyone including the Israelis are suggesting that Iran is currently making weapons. i think virtually everyone (well the US, the UK, France, the EU, the IAEA for starters) agrees that they are working on the technology which would permit them to make weapons if they so chose.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
Because people like seth seem to think that since they aren't currently putting one together, there is no problem.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
Because people like seth seem to think that since they aren't currently putting one together, there is no problem.
If thats what you think I think, then I think you've misread me.
Afghanistan was at one time a minor problem. Its been mishandled for over a decade. It is now a very big problem and likely to still get bigger. Iran currently is a big problem, but its still manageable. If its mishandled similar to the way A-stan was, it will make A-stan look like a picnic. The incredible amount of misinformation that was going around about A-stan helped expand the problem; opinion polls have a pretty significant impact on the foreign policy formulation in democracies. A similar situation is going on with Iran (its been going on for many many years, and I personally don't beleive that the degree to which its ballooned recently leading into in a US election cycle is a coincidence). Several times now on this board the claim that "there's no civilian need for that much uranium, so it must be a bomb" or a derivative of that gets thrown out, and several times now I've thrown out some facts to counter that. Remember, Iran currently has sufficient quantity and quality of uranium for a weapon without any further enrichment. Its not the 3.5% or 19.75% stuff. They could start working on a bomb right now, today, if they chose to AND have the technical expertise.
US policy, and lets face it, that pretty much drives world policy (except for a few heavyweight nations) regarding Iran hasn't changed much since 1979. It hasn't curbed their intransigence or modified their behaviour, so I don't think theres many people who could seriously call that policy successful. I won't go so far as to call it a failure, so at best I'll call it static. Somebody has to take the initiative to break out, and it won't be Iran......thats guaranteed. So unless you want to go on & on & on with this for 35+ more years, it has to be the US (or the P5+1, and again, lets face it that the US calls the shots). Throw Iran some bone, if you think Iran is undeserving of any concessions, then make it a small bone, but unless we give them something first, likely nothings going to come of these talks. I'll use the situation in A-stan again; the US apologized yet agains because of some inappropriate pictures. News Flash: Afghans aren't dummies, they understand fighting, warfare & death probably better than most Americans. They don't think gory photos are a big deal & it doesn't really faze them. It not something that requires an apology from the US...........but, the US apologized and lost face. The US is willing (maybe not cognizant, because they certainly don't listen to their experts on A-stan but do what's good for the domestic audience) to lose face over a photo, but unwilling to demonstrate a teensy weensy bit of goodwill to Iran to start the ball rolling towards (hopefully) the resolution of a much bigger problem????
At the most contentious, dangerous points of the US-USSR, they was always a means for direct dialogue, so although there may have been a trust deficit between the two, they could at least communicate and take out much of the guesswork that could lead to a massive mistake. Theres no such mechanism with Iran. There are some very good intelligence initiatives going on, but its still extremely inadequate, because we still for the most part don't really know and can't positively ascertain exactly whats going on. And a few dozen IAEA inspectors touring declared facilities every couple months won't do very much to help improve that, if at all.
Thats my opinion (except for the utility of the 19.75% LEU - them's the facts, like it or not), and of course, your opinion may differ.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
If thats what you think I think, then I think you've misread me.
Afghanistan was at one time a minor problem. Its been mishandled for over a decade. It is now a very big problem and likely to still get bigger.
Afghanistan has always been the same problem it currently is. The only thing that has changed is whether the West thinks it's important to be there. Any best case will still result in years of slaughter of civilians by all sides. I hope (but fully expect) that the Taliban will be looking to kill off at least as many opposing civilians as they did when the first took over.

At no time was Afghanistan a real threat to the west other than providing a home for a group that pulled off a major terror attack.


Iran currently is a big problem, but its still manageable. If its mishandled similar to the way A-stan was, it will make A-stan look like a picnic.
It is good to see that you identify Iran as a problem but it's a completely different one. The only connection is a sizable Shia community in both places (okay, they also have widespread abuses of human rights but that rarely seems to be a real political motivation).

Iran is a sizable country with a good level of infrastructure but but more significantly a centralized government with dictatorial power. Iran has oil money to spend on advanced weaponry and on a burgeoning nuclear program which has alarmingly suspect aspects. Considering Iran's significant support for two terror groups who are very opposed to western morals (not to mention Assad) the very real potential of nukes is a threat. At best, Iran will use it's nuclear threat to prevent retaliation against their terror puppets; at worst they will hand a couple to them with instructions to take out Iran's enemies. They have already threatened on several occasions to close off the Gulf (oil) and have talked belligerently about the US and Israel.

Simply put, the world has reason to worry about Iran's unwillingness to allow full investigations and their push towards a nuclear capacity unneeded for civilian purposes. As to bones to throw, I have seen some experts on the Middle East and Persians have commented that there is a different mentality towards negotiation and a greater respect for strength. I'm really not sure how much this applies to Iran's Mullas, under this reasoning any bones will result in Iran thinking it has the ability to demand more. Your comment about US apologies in Afghanistan being a weakness makes that point (similar to Hamas calling Israel's withdrawal a victory for the 'resistance' and not Israel throwing them a bone in negotiations).

I don't think that a military option is good but there does seem to be a need to do something other than Iran continuing on its quest for regional dominance.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
.
Is Iran being an incredibly difficult and challenging situation? Obviously yes. Are they playing a very dangerous game of brinksmanship. Again, obviously yes. Are they currently developing nuclear weapons? Its not an obvious yes. Its closer to a high degree of certainty, no. As much as we distrust Iran, remember that runs both ways, and forcing Iran to submit to more intrusive inspections isn't going to make this problem go away; given the Iranian national character it'll likely make them more defiant & difficult.Any first step towards a solution was to come from the P5+1 (but in a US election year, likely won't happen due to domestic pressures).
consciousness of guilt:

Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as “consciousness of guilt”. For example, such evidence may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person's false statements as to (his/her) whereabouts at the time of the offense may tend to show a consciousness of guilt.
There is an argument, if this were a legal problem not a political one, that the fact that Iran refuses to allow inspections could be evidence that they have violated the NPT.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
Afghanistan has always been the same problem it currently is. The only thing that has changed is whether the West thinks it's important to be there. Any best case will still result in years of slaughter of civilians by all sides. I hope (but fully expect) that the Taliban will be looking to kill off at least as many opposing civilians as they did when the first took over.

At no time was Afghanistan a real threat to the west other than providing a home for a group that pulled off a major terror attack.



It is good to see that you identify Iran as a problem but it's a completely different one. The only connection is a sizable Shia community in both places (okay, they also have widespread abuses of human rights but that rarely seems to be a real political motivation).

Iran is a sizable country with a good level of infrastructure but but more significantly a centralized government with dictatorial power. Iran has oil money to spend on advanced weaponry and on a burgeoning nuclear program which has alarmingly suspect aspects. Considering Iran's significant support for two terror groups who are very opposed to western morals (not to mention Assad) the very real potential of nukes is a threat. At best, Iran will use it's nuclear threat to prevent retaliation against their terror puppets; at worst they will hand a couple to them with instructions to take out Iran's enemies. They have already threatened on several occasions to close off the Gulf (oil) and have talked belligerently about the US and Israel.

Simply put, the world has reason to worry about Iran's unwillingness to allow full investigations and their push towards a nuclear capacity unneeded for civilian purposes. As to bones to throw, I have seen some experts on the Middle East and Persians have commented that there is a different mentality towards negotiation and a greater respect for strength. I'm really not sure how much this applies to Iran's Mullas, under this reasoning any bones will result in Iran thinking it has the ability to demand more. Your comment about US apologies in Afghanistan being a weakness makes that point (similar to Hamas calling Israel's withdrawal a victory for the 'resistance' and not Israel throwing them a bone in negotiations).

I don't think that a military option is good but there does seem to be a need to do something other than Iran continuing on its quest for regional dominance.
I'll continue to argue with you (or anyone else on this board if they're so willing) that Irans current nuclear capacity is unneeded for civilian purposes, for reason I've outlined a few times before already. And having spent more time in Mid-eastern cultures/Muslim nations than in western ones over the past 15-ish years, some may consider me as being a bit of an expert on their "mentality" (I even have a fancy document from a very well-known and highly regarded educational institution to prove it; but since I can't use my honorific to write prescriptions, the insights that I may have on the topic has often gotten me called "appeaser, apologist, sympathizer, etc" by those who may not have my level of knowledge, or more importantly don't know or understand what exactly I do for a living). So I'll agree with the respect for strength in those cultures; and yes it applies to Iran. But there also a great deal of respect towards demonstrations of hospitability, charity, mercy, etc. Iranians aren't stupid, nor are their leaders, and their leaders aren't apocalyptic nutjobs. Iran knows its no match militarily for the US; heck, they even know that their no match for Israel. I've also said this a few dozen times on this board (but I don't blame anyone for not reading my stuff, as I tend to ramble......) but Iran has not made even a fraction of the "threats" that everyone seems to think they make - most of their "threats" are of the "if you do this to us, we'll do this in return" nature. They've "threatened" to close the Gulf every year for the past 30 years, but they never have and they can't do it (they could harrass shipping, and slow things down for some time, but the longest they could cloe the Gulf would be measured in days, not weeks, and most of that time would be us clearing out the debris that used to be Irans Navy). The strenght relationship is established & not even Iran believes that they are the stronger party, but there has to be a demonstration of hospitality or goodwill FROM THE STRONGER ENTITY!!!! Its that step that might get the ball rolling towards an eventual solution, not the application of same-old same old. (Might, because theres no guarantee it will definitely work, but I'll guarantee NOT trying it will lead nowhere fast). But any US politician who tries this will be finished politically (i'll guarantee that one!!!). Within the past few days, the US has tried a new tack, I'm not sure how much media coverage its getting but most of the feeds I get from the major outlets haven't picked it up (and that'll be a good thing towards its success). The US is holding Khamenei to his word - he said Iran won't pursue nukes, and the US is starting to say "we respect the word of the Iranian leader". Good approach; he can't go back on his word or the Assembly or Experts will have his head; if they don't act, the IRG would have to act against them, and if they don't act, pretty much the whole population with be honour-bound to act (assuming they are aware of the situation).
Understanding the situation doesn't make you an appeaser or an ostrich. Dealing with Iran (or A-stan) out of ignorance and you'll likely end up..................well, Sun Tzu said it best when he closed off Chapter 3 (feel free to post the quote if you reply).

Have yourself a great weekend!

PS: the US should apologize for accidental civilian deaths, as they should apologize for deliberate murders of civilians (or whatever Bales did). They should NEVER apologize for the death of a suicide bomber and trophy photos of his remains, or of Marines pissing on dead fighters. Apologizing when required is strenght, apologizing when not required is weakness. Knowing the difference is critical.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
consciousness of guilt:



There is an argument, if this were a legal problem not a political one, that the fact that Iran refuses to allow inspections could be evidence that they have violated the NPT.
Thanks, and as you've pointed out its a political rather than legal problem, as well as being some substantial cultural differences at play, IMHO it might not apply here.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Thanks, and as you've pointed out its a political rather than legal problem, as well as being some substantial cultural differences at play, IMHO it might not apply here.
Yeah, it all gets mixed up. Some like to use it as an analogy for a fair process to assess the threat of Iran, but you can be sure that if there is a military action against Iran on this issue, many will end up debating it's legality, and I think this concept would, and should be at the center of that debate.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
Yeah, it all gets mixed up. Some like to use it as an analogy for a fair process to assess the threat of Iran, but you can be sure that if there is a military action against Iran on this issue, many will end up debating it's legality, and I think this concept would, and should be at the center of that debate.
I have nothing but admiration for the work you law-talkin' dudes do, but I can't tell you the amount of times I've ended a discussion with legal advisors by saying something along the lines of "can't you just give me a simple answer?!?!" If only things were as simple in reality as we argue them online.
I LOVE using analogies, but I'll stop using legal analogies; there just too many actual legal experts on this board........
You have a good weekend also!
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
This is from Fridays prayers in Iran & goes back directly to what I referred to in post #50 re taking Khamenei at his word The speaker is Ayatollah Jannati:


http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13910201000388

Translation:
"We had good success at those meetings [with the 5+1 Group in Istanbul] and the West accepted our right to enrich [uranium]... When the Leader said production of atomic weapons is haram [religiously impermissible] and they too heard it, they declared that they have confidence that our issue was not production of the atomic bomb... Leaders of the West should win the trust of the Iranian people so that they believe that the West is not planning to continue its enmity and sanctions. Therefore, if they still insist on sanctions and negotiations, it is clear that the result of the negotiations will be void."

When the Supreme Leader and the Assembly of Experts issue statements for Iranian domestic comsumption that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons; I'd tend to place my bets that they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons. As dangerous as the Iranian shellgame with the west is, for them to be caught lying domestically would be the end of the regime, as the blatent public violation of religious law by the Supreme Leader & Assembly od Experts would be intolerable by the entire population, not just the minority that currently make up small resisteance groups like the Green Movement. I'd still hedge my bets, as its a very very small possiblity that there is some supersecret weapons program ongoing, but given the current available evidence, it doesn't look like that the case. So what we have is what's before us; they have a stockpile of LEU that has a legimate use in their civilian nuclear technologies, they've done some research into weapons technology in the past (but whether they've acquired the expertise to shift from research to development is unclear but leans towards they haven't), they've had sufficient weapons grade HEU to manufacture a gun-type bomb for many years and it remains securely in their control as confirmed by the IAEA (it hasn't been given to any terrorist group or used to fulfill their "doomsday" belief in the return of the 12th Jedi or any of that nonsense). The hyperbole over the past few months likely had more to do with trying to influence US policy towrds Iran than any actual increase in the threat from Iran or foreseeable threat.
Now would be the appropriate time for the P5+1 to discuss with Iran a lifting of some sanctions (Iran will demand an immediate easing of all sanctions, which is a bargaining stance and they know its not going to happen, but there needs to be a gesture of goodwill, so we throw them a small bone) Analogy time - its similar to the fat guys on Pawnstars dealing with the dude who wants $5000 for some piece of crap worth $300.

PS: I love Iran and hate democracy :rolleyes: (just to make it easier for those who still believe the hype to disagree with whats really happening!!).

PPS: this is an interesting article on the IAEA and Parchin: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...x-Why-are-nuclear-inspectors-so-focused-on-it
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
Interesting take on Iran's nuclear strategy on Al Jazeera the other day:

For Obama's advisers, assuming Iran was simply "playing for time" justifies a heavy reliance on "coercive diplomacy", which combines a boycott of the country's crude oil exports and hints that an Iranian failure to come to agreement would open the way for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. But that conventional wisdom, which the Obama administration inherited from the Bush administration, ignores the accumulated evidence that Iran's diplomacy strategy is to accumulate centrifuges, not in order to support a weapons programme, but rather to negotiate a larger bargain with the United States.

That strategy, gleaned from sources in direct contact with Iranian national security officials and from Iran's actual diplomatic record, can be summed up in three principles:

Iran should negotiate with the United States only when it has achieved sufficient negotiating leverage to achieve substantial concessions.
The objective of negotiations with the United States is to end US policies of overt hostility to the Islamic Republic and have them accept Iran's legitimate role in the regional politics of the Middle East.
Iran's primary negotiating chip in any talks is a stockpile of enriched uranium.
Contrary to the convenient argument that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei resists agreement with the United States, he and leading officials on the Supreme National Security Council have long viewed negotiations with the United States as the only way that the Iran can achieve full security and emerge as a full-fledged regional power.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012422833676280.html
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/parchin_activity_8may2012.pdf
Maybe something, maybe more of nothing. Plain ol' water really wouldn't do much to eliminate traces related to nuclear material, so it's more than likely just washing down equipment (like the earthmovers that were offered up as proof of evil-doing at this site a few months ago). That Iran would try to wash away evidence of nuclear testing using water, while under satellite surveillance in broad daylight really really assumes that either the Iranians are total idiots, or that there's an audience willing to accept the speculation as proof. More than likely the latter, given the release of the "news" just days before the talks begin in Vienna.
My 0.02; your opinions may differ.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
Pretty sad when this is the best intel out there.
OH MY GOD THEY'RE WASHING THE BUILDING BEFORE INSPECTION!!!!

Like you say, if there was anything radioactive there before, it'll just be spread everywhere, same with any other dead giveaway traces.
 
Toronto Escorts