Any chance that Netanyahu's anger helped put this on air?
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iaf-plans-for-iran-attack/
April 13, 2012 : P5+1/Iran summit, take 2.
- Thread starter seth gecko
- Start date
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iaf-plans-for-iran-attack/
What is actively being discussed is the ending of 19.5% enrichment, which Iran will agree to if they've got enough for their medical/research reactors and can guarantee future fuel swaps to replenish their needs (similar to the 2009/2010 talks) in exchange for stepping down sanctions. 3.5% enrichment for reactors poses no risk of use for bombs with NPT oversight and won't be requested as its a fundamental right of the NPT.None of which suggests the fuel swap plan is being actively discussed. My understanding is that it is not.
I like Patrick Buchanan's take on the matter, seems to summarize the situation fairly well:
“Bibi” Netanyahu was disgusted.
"My initial reaction is that Iran has gotten a freebie. It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation."
The Israeli prime minister was referring to Saturday’s meeting in Istanbul of the P5-plus-1 — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany — with representatives from Iran.
Subject: Iran’s nuclear program. After a "constructive" meeting of one day, all agreed to meet again in Baghdad, May 23, and departed.
For Bibi, it was a strategic defeat.
For Israel’s goal is a halt to Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the removal of enriched uranium from that country.
But Catherine Ashton, the foreign minister for the European Union who is leading the P5-plus-1, stated that the West accepts Iran’s position that, as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, she has a right to a peaceful nuclear program and nuclear power.
"Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear power" must be fully respected, Ashton said. No one dissented.
If the United States assents to Iran’s enrichment of uranium, and Iran gives assurances that the Ayatollah’s fatwa against the acquisition of nuclear weapons is being observed, a Washington-Tehran deal may be in the offing.
What would be the elements?
An end to Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, once Iran has a sufficient stock for its program of nuclear medicine.
Transfer of any excess 20 percent uranium outside the country to prevent further enrichment to weapons grade.
Regular intrusive inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities to ensure there is no diversion of uranium to bomb-making.
What would Iran demand?
Step-by-step lifting of sanctions, as it demonstrates it is telling the truth about not seeking nuclear weapons.
Such a deal would end the U.S.-Iran confrontation, yet allow Iran to continue to gain the knowledge, experience, and technical capacity to break out, should it ever decide to take the risk and build the weapons.
Netanyahu believes Israel’s security and survival mandate the nuclear castration of Iran. Sunday, in a detailed report cleared by military censors, Israeli TV showed how an attack would be mounted.
Yet reporter Alon Ben David conceded that the Israeli Air Force "does not have the capacity to destroy the entire Iranian program."
Unlike the Iraqi nuclear reactor and the Syrian reactor Israel bombed in 1981 and 2007, Iran has many more nuclear facilities, spread over a far larger country, farther away and better defended.
And given the public threats by Israel and test runs by the IAF as far as Gibraltar, no attack on Iran will come as a total surprise. There would be losses of planes and pilots.
What would be the results?
While it would destroy some of Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would not end the program but rally Iranians behind the regime. And it might trigger retaliation by Iran and Hezbollah, by missile, against Israel itself.
An Israeli attack on Iran, which President Obama and the U.S. military strongly oppose, would also put the issue of a U.S. war with Iran front and center in the presidential election.
What would America do; what would Obama do?
The election of 2012 could turn on that decision.
Should Iran retaliate against Israel, the Israeli lobby and the neocons would demand that America come to Israel’s defense. Mitt Romney, the GOP hawks, evangelical Christians, conservative commentators and many Democrats would echo the demand, no matter who started the shooting.
A clamor would arise for us to finish the job of smashing Iran’s nuclear facilities.
As Israel is admired and Iran’s regime is detested, Obama could never declare neutrality. And should he order the U.S. military to go to Israel’s aid, his re-election might well be assured.
As commander in chief and first diplomat, Obama holds all the cards.
If Iran is accommodating, the sanctions he has imposed will be seen as successful. If Iran balks in negotiations, he can impose new sanctions.
If Iran walks out of the talks, he can issue ultimata.
If Israel attacks Iran, he can come to Israel’s defense and finish the job of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. If done close to the election, this would assure Obama’s re-election. The "October surprise" of 2012.
What are Iran’s interests and options?
Tehran cannot want war with the United States. For whatever the damage done to U.S. interests, the destruction of Iran’s air, naval and missile forces and nuclear program would be total.
The smartest course for Iran to pursue is to demonstrate to the West that she is reasonable and anxious to prove she has no present or future intention of building atomic weapons.
Which is what Iran was doing in Istanbul.
No wonder Bibi is frustrated. If there is no U.S. attack on Iran by November, and Obama wins, there may never be a U.S. attack on Iran.
Israel cannot do to Iran what Bibi wants done to Iran. Only Obama can.
But how does Bibi get Obama to do it, before November?
None of which suggests the fuel swap plan is being actively discussed. My understanding is that it is not.
The Iranian dude had indicated that Iran might be agreeable to some form of a fuel swap, although no-one from the P5+1 had offered any such deal. And if a swap is offered up at the Baghdad talks, they might come with conditions Iran feels are overly onerus that they walk away again. Or Iran may propose a swap that the P5+1 rejects, again. Right now, they've only agreed to meet again to try to come up with some specific terms & conditions. This might be "quick & easy" as the Iranian suggested, or this level might be the crash & burn most folks were expecting.The EU's Catherine Ashton opened the negotiations with a declaration of Iran's right under the NPT for peaceful nuclear industry. That requires fuel, which either means acknowledging Iran's right to enrich it under the treaty or reviving a fuel swap plan, like the 2010 one the US killed on behalf of Israel.
Its sounding more like the US is treading a fine line. They really don't want a war, but even Obama is susceptible to pressure from the Israel lobby so has to play along. But at least it sounds like its not going to be leading to war, unless Obama loses the elections and Israel can force/trick the US to fight another war for them.
How wise and insightful do you think Pat is?What is actively being discussed is the ending of 19.5% enrichment, which Iran will agree to if they've got enough for their medical/research reactors and can guarantee future fuel swaps to replenish their needs (similar to the 2009/2010 talks) in exchange for stepping down sanctions. 3.5% enrichment for reactors poses no risk of use for bombs with NPT oversight and won't be requested as its a fundamental right of the NPT.
I like Patrick Buchanan's take on the matter, seems to summarize the situation fairly well:
Compared to you?How wise and insightful do you think Pat is?
Do you need to ask?
You clearly know shit about Pat Buchanon. He hates gays, hates evolution, believes in the culture wars, wrote perhaps the worst analysis of WWI and WWII ever published in English, thinks society should be fully christian, things porno is criminal, thinks that Apartheid was just fine thank you very much, and refers to my country as Soviet Canuckistan.Compared to you?
Do you need to ask?
There is a reason you have to poach his articles from the renowned journal "Taki's" magazine. He is a nut and if you like to use him as your authority...enjoy all the baggage that goes with it.
But I guess knowing a little about your source is not very important to you.
Iranian news is a start.https://terb.cc/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-373277.html
Now, I think the best details on the TRR were linked in post #8, but if you have some better anaylsis, please provide a link, as I`d be interested in seeing what you have. I`ve already explained point "a" several times in the above thread (refer posts #8,11,16 & 46).
I`m not sure what you`re missing with regards to the that, but we can go over it a few more times if you still don`t understand the hard data.
But I`ll tell you what I`m missing from your point "b" - when did they open another enrichment plant? what plant are you referring to? Again, if you have some data, please share what you can.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010174934
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010172953
Reuters might be a bit more balanced
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E8DF2I720120215?sp=true
Requirements for TRR reactor easily met by Iranian enrichment
Just to be 100% clear, (from feb 2010 - before signinficant increases in number of centrifuges)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8505426.stmIran`s top nuclear official, Ali Akbar Salehi, was quoted by state news agency Irna as saying Iran "had started the 20% enrichment in a separate cascade in Natanz" for use in a Tehran research reactor.
He said the cascade contained 164 centrifuges and had a production capacity of 3-5kg (6-11lb) a month - more than the 1.5kg (3.3lb) needed for the research reactor.
The Feb 2012 IAEA report has details about the increases in enrichment equipment.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-9.pdf
Second enrichment facility
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092601359.html
Wiki also has enough of that information.
I really have no idea why you are spending so much effort defending Iran from what is obvious to the rest of the world. Iran has a massive enrichment program well beyond it`s need for (a) power generation and (b) medical isotopes. At best, Iran is flexing their muscles by going well beyond their needs under the NPT. At worst, they are building nuclear weapons.
My furry little friend, I think you're taking this waaaaaaaay too personally. If you think dealing with facts rather that joining a lynchmob is "defending" Iran, then I guess I'm defending Iran. I also suppose Groggy can take comfort in your referencing Iranian newsources as legimate sources. But there's still no hard actionable evidence that Iran is doing what you seem to think they are doing.Iranian news is a start.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010174934
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010172953
Reuters might be a bit more balanced
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E8DF2I720120215?sp=true
Requirements for TRR reactor easily met by Iranian enrichment
Just to be 100% clear, (from feb 2010 - before signinficant increases in number of centrifuges)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8505426.stm
The Feb 2012 IAEA report has details about the increases in enrichment equipment.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-9.pdf
Second enrichment facility
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092601359.html
Wiki also has enough of that information.
I really have no idea why you are spending so much effort defending Iran from what is obvious to the rest of the world. Iran has a massive enrichment program well beyond it's need for (a) power generation and (b) medical isotopes. At best, Iran is flexing their muscles by going well beyond their needs under the NPT. At worst, they are building nuclear weapons.
Thanks for taking the time to source all the material; I didn't bother checking them all out as the few that I did look at seemed to confirm what I tried to tell you several times now - there is a legimate need for 20% enriched uranium. I'm still not sure what "new" facilities you're going on about, as your WaPo link seems to reference a 3 year old article, and BBC is a 2 year old article
The IAEA knows about this facility, the US intelligence community knows about it. So whats so new about it???
I'm really not interested in getting into arguments with anonymous entities online; if my posts are such a bother to you, I suggest to use the "ignore" function.
But facts are facts, and speculation is speculation. And although they are doing things that "may" lead to weaponization, there are lots of things that they are NOT presently doing that are required for weaponization. They are simply NOT currently developing nukes. Kreskin might be able to determine if & when they're going to take these steps, but right now we can only act on the facts before us, as unpleasant as that sounds to people. I hope you don't own a gun, because you may use it to commit murder, so we'd better act against you now before you take that step ..........
Thanks again for your efforts.
Ok, I'll admit Buchanon may be about as wise and insightful as you.You clearly know shit about Pat Buchanon. He hates gays, hates evolution, believes in the culture wars, wrote perhaps the worst analysis of WWI and WWII ever published in English, thinks society should be fully christian, things porno is criminal, thinks that Apartheid was just fine thank you very much, and refers to my country as Soviet Canuckistan.
There is a reason you have to poach his articles from the renowned journal "Taki's" magazine. He is a nut and if you like to use him as your authority...enjoy all the baggage that goes with it.
But I guess knowing a little about your source is not very important to you.
But I'll still back this one article as probably close to what's going on.
We call that cherry picking my local mullah friend. It is considered in most quarters intellectually dishonest.Ok, I'll admit Buchanon may be about as wise and insightful as you.
But I'll still back this one article as probably close to what's going on.
But if you like Pat...stick with him. He has a lot in common with the religious fundamentalists that repress human rights on a daily basis in Iran.
I'm not. But we will never find out.If Israel would disarm its nukes, I'm sure Iran would be more co-operative.
The IAEA disagrees with you. And the odd thing is, you seem to believe that all the intelligence in such matters gets made public.My furry little friend, I think you're taking this waaaaaaaay too personally. If you think dealing with facts rather that joining a lynchmob is "defending" Iran, then I guess I'm defending Iran. I also suppose Groggy can take comfort in your referencing Iranian newsources as legimate sources. But there's still no hard actionable evidence that Iran is doing what you seem to think they are doing.
Thanks for taking the time to source all the material; I didn't bother checking them all out as the few that I did look at seemed to confirm what I tried to tell you several times now - there is a legimate need for 20% enriched uranium. I'm still not sure what "new" facilities you're going on about, as your WaPo link seems to reference a 3 year old article, and BBC is a 2 year old article
The IAEA knows about this facility, the US intelligence community knows about it. So whats so new about it???
I'm really not interested in getting into arguments with anonymous entities online; if my posts are such a bother to you, I suggest to use the "ignore" function.
But facts are facts, and speculation is speculation. And although they are doing things that "may" lead to weaponization, there are lots of things that they are NOT presently doing that are required for weaponization. They are simply NOT currently developing nukes. Kreskin might be able to determine if & when they're going to take these steps, but right now we can only act on the facts before us, as unpleasant as that sounds to people. I hope you don't own a gun, because you may use it to commit murder, so we'd better act against you now before you take that step ..........
Thanks again for your efforts.
But I like your gun analogy. If it is illegal to own that gun the police are perfectly justified in coming to take it away from you before you use it. In fact that would be the only rational alternative if you refused to admit you had it and refused to turn it in voluntarily.
Seth's assessment of the IAEA is fair. They have not found evidence of bomb building, what they have reported is 10 year old intelligence sent in from some other country.The IAEA disagrees with you. And the odd thing is, you seem to believe that all the intelligence in such matters gets made public.
But I like your gun analogy. If it is illegal to own that gun the police are perfectly justified in coming to take it away from you before you use it. In fact that would be the only rational alternative if you refused to admit you had it and refused to turn it in voluntarily.
But that analogy isn't quite right, its more like you think the police are perfectly justified in coming to your house and taking stock of all steel and forbidding you to bring steel into your house in case you decide to make a gun.
I think he can be quite insightful.... and a bit crazy - it's a case by case basis with him.... on this I think he's spot on which is why I created a thread (now deleted) for this article before another poster informed me it had been posted here.How wise and insightful do you think Pat is?
OTB
But we're not talking about one gun, we're talking about ballistic missiles fitted with nuclear warheads. The analogy isn't really that good. So while the police could come to your house after you acquire your gun to take it away with their superior firepower, they probably wouldn't until you do some crime, like say, kill 77 people in a shooting spree (see Brevik, Anders). But in this case it's not one gunshot or 77 dead people, it's nuclear weapons not yet acquired by a government that may or may be not be run by millenialist psychos. And once they have it, it will be too late to disarm them.
If Iran ISN'T building a bomb, why can't they prove it? Why the obfuscation?
And anyone who equates Israel's having nuclear weapons with Iran is either a liar or a fool.
If Iran ISN'T building a bomb, why can't they prove it? Why the obfuscation?
And anyone who equates Israel's having nuclear weapons with Iran is either a liar or a fool.
He is a whackjob. But the reasons why he supports a repressive religiously run country are quite obvious.I think he can be quite insightful.... and a bit crazy - it's a case by case basis with him.... on this I think he's spot on which is why I created a thread (now deleted) for this article before another poster informed me it had been posted here.
OTB
You are lying again groggy...you really need to break that habit.Seth's assessment of the IAEA is fair. They have not found evidence of bomb building, what they have reported is 10 year old intelligence sent in from some other country.
But that analogy isn't quite right, its more like you think the police are perfectly justified in coming to your house and taking stock of all steel and forbidding you to bring steel into your house in case you decide to make a gun.
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.
The IAEA disagrees with you. And the odd thing is, you seem to believe that all the intelligence in such matters gets made public.
But I like your gun analogy. If it is illegal to own that gun the police are perfectly justified in coming to take it away from you before you use it. In fact that would be the only rational alternative if you refused to admit you had it and refused to turn it in voluntarily.
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. That's the IAEA inspections, and the int'l intelligence community's efforts. Either Iran isn't currently building bombs, or they are doing it soooooo covertly that it'll never be found by us. Or the inspections/surveillance are half-assed. Everything indicates its the first point, rather than the other two. There is a legitimate need for what they are currently enriching; the HEU they have that could be used for a gun-type bomb hasn't been used and the IAEA regularly confirms that. There's just more & more speculation that prompt more & more demands for intrusive inspections that Iran more & more resists. But no actionable evidence is turning up.But we're not talking about one gun, we're talking about ballistic missiles fitted with nuclear warheads. The analogy isn't really that good. So while the police could come to your house after you acquire your gun to take it away with their superior firepower, they probably wouldn't until you do some crime, like say, kill 77 people in a shooting spree (see Brevik, Anders). But in this case it's not one gunshot or 77 dead people, it's nuclear weapons not yet acquired by a government that may or may be not be run by millenialist psychos. And once they have it, it will be too late to disarm them.
If Iran ISN'T building a bomb, why can't they prove it? Why the obfuscation?
And anyone who equates Israel's having nuclear weapons with Iran is either a liar or a fool.
The talks might be a good stepping stone, also the US's new strategy, of holding Khamenei to his word that nukes are forbidden under Islam & Iran won't ever possess them, could be interesting. But continued applications of a 30-ish year old policy that's had pretty dismal results, or even worse, any military escalation without actionable justification, won't do much to help resolve this issue (IMO).
That's not defending Iran, but more like a prosecutor realizing with evidence in front of him is inadequate to proceed.
Actually Iran is not the most inspected country in the world because they have not allowed a real inspection in over three years.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. That's the IAEA inspections, and the int'l intelligence community's efforts. Either Iran isn't currently building bombs, or they are doing it soooooo covertly that it'll never be found by us. Or the inspections/surveillance are half-assed. Everything indicates its the first point, rather than the other two. There is a legitimate need for what they are currently enriching; the HEU they have that could be used for a gun-type bomb hasn't been used and the IAEA regularly confirms that. There's just more & more speculation that prompt more & more demands for intrusive inspections that Iran more & more resists. But no actionable evidence is turning up.
The talks might be a good stepping stone, also the US's new strategy, of holding Khamenei to his word that nukes are forbidden under Islam & Iran won't ever possess them, could be interesting. But continued applications of a 30-ish year old policy that's had pretty dismal results, or even worse, any military escalation without actionable justification, won't do much to help resolve this issue (IMO).
That's not defending Iran, but more like a prosecutor realizing with evidence in front of him is inadequate to proceed.
And Mr. prosecutor, feel free to research the concept of actions leading to an inference of consciousness of guilt.
