The Iran Nuclear Debacle

[Adak]

So we have a new Iranian President, who sounds much more cooperative than the last one. Today, Israel's Prime Minister warned us, in a speech at the U.N., that the old Iranian President was "a wolf in wolf's clothing", and the new Iranian President, was "a wolf in sheep's clothing". He plainly stated that Israel will NOT allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, because Iran has stated several times before, that it will wipe out the Jews.

Watching a short excerpt of Netanyahu's speech, it was plain to see that he was being very serious. This is not a trivial matter to him, or I suspect, to any Israeli.

The new President, Mr. Rouhani, was the former nuclear talks mediator for Iran. He's promised to bring a proposal to the mid October meeting with the P5+1 group. Those sanctions are really biting into the Iranian economy, it's clear. He wants them moderated and/or removed, in "months".

As reported recently however, Iran just added 1,000 high speed centrifuges to their Natchez Nuclear facility. Makes me wonder just how many centrifuges are needed to enrich uranium to a low (medical) grade? How many do they have running, in total?

It could be just 1,000, but it could be they kept a lot of the older one's running, as well. If so, they could have 20,000 centrifuges running around the clock. We just don't know - especially about what's going on at their secret nuclear facility built under a mountain. Weapons analysts suspect, that's where the nuclear research and construction of their nuclear weapons, is going on.

This is very troubling all the way around. There is no way I see this being resolved peacefully, short of having full inspections of all facilities by IAEA. The Israeli's will never allow nuclear enrichment, etc., to continue, without such inspections.

If they do decide to attack Iranian bases, they probably can't attack Iran without dragging us into it (either willingly or unwillingly).

Little funny:
Netanyahu: "They (Iran) want their yellowcake, and to eat it too."

[Lamplighter]

Adak, whether I agree with all of it or not, that's a more reasoned posting.

[tw]

Never forget how we got here. Back in 2001, Iranian and US negotiators were conducting talks and actions for better relations between the US and Iran. These included contacts between Iran and US ambassador Ryan Crocker. Iran was providing to the US full intelligence on the Taliban. Including details on where to best bomb the Taliban.

Somehow related to this was a coordinated, successful, and joint US, British, Iranian, Northern Alliance attack (uprising) on the Taliban in the city of Herat.

Then George Jr gave his Axis of Evil speech. Ambassador Crocker was immediately told by Iran, "You blew it." That is when all cooperation with Iran ceased. Iran later concluded that nuclear weapons were needed because the US would unilaterally attack (Pearl Harbor) other nations for no good reason. A first unilateral attack on a nation for no good reason was Iraq. Both Iran and North Korea began serious research and development of nuclear weapons.

[Adak]

@LampLighter, I'm here to please!

@tw: Interesting post. Thanks for that. I'm unable to recall Iran being that cordial with us, since the overthrow of the Shah.

After invading Kuwait, AND Saudi Arabia, and then using poison gas on a few Kurdish towns, AND starting the Iraq-Iran war that lasted for 10 years, I'm surprised the Iranians weren't THRILLED to see Saddam and his Sunni party, removed from power in Iraq.

[Happy Monkey]

They're probably happy with the result, but given the "Axis of Evil" speech, it would hardly endear them to us unless Bush told them beforehand that it was all a sneaky plan to give them a new ally in the region.

[Adak]

And to be honest, Iran has been supporting and supplying weapons and training to Hezbollah, for decades. We've even had a few of their agents caught in Central America, etc.

Pure as the driven sands, they are not. Not that we are, of course. Neither is Israel, but they have the best of reasons after the 1972 Olympics in Germany, and repeated attacks by Hezbollah, etc.

[tw]

By 2000, Iran was surrounded only by nations considered enemies. Iran apparently even had a hand in making the Maliki government possible. Iran considered Sunni's a threat to their people - Shiites. However, what is an enemy and friend tends to be far more complex.

Worse were American government liars inspired by the 'axis of evil' myth. Iran had captured some 200 Al Qaeda fleeing from Iraq. They even presented Americans the photocopies of those Al Qaeda passports in Geneva. (In an ongoing conferences with Americans that included German and Italians as a cover.) Iran provided the names of Al Qaeda they had captured.

Then the George Jr administration proclaimed Iran was protecting Al Qaeda. More lies, based in the extremist attitudes of Cheney, Rumsfled, Feith, and Wolfovitz) that only made reconciliation with Iran impossible.

To better understand what was happening (and being stifled by the wackos in Washington), see two separate conferences with Iran conducted by Dobbins and Crocker.

[Adak]

I see nothing in your reply above, to somehow change the fact that Iran has been subsidizing and training Hezbollah for decades. I have NO problem with them defending their homeland. They should, and certainly all nations have that right.

Sharing some intel is good, but sharing photocopies of their passports, is not like they turned over the Al-Qaeda members, or any real intel they gained from interrogating these guys.

They've been rallying "Death to America" since the Shah was overthrown, and I don't see anything different, up to this latest President's overtures (which Obama really wanted, and tried to set up six times before the phone call was agreed to).

We'll see shortly if their nuclear plan will allow full and verifiable inspections by the IAEA. If so, there would be a possible window for a peaceful settlement. Talk is cheap, and it's true that the longer the negotiations goes on, the shorter the time before Iran could have a compact nuclear weapon and delivery system.

Obama wasted his "red line" doctrine on Syria, but on Iran, I believe the line will definitely be there, and it will be VERY red, unlike the barely pink one used on Syria. I don't see any way around it, if they don't change their policy on this.

I know Obama doesn't want to go to war with Iran - certainly not, but once hard evidence is present of Iran building nuclear weapons, that's what will be staring us in the face, imo. They have had tens of thousands screaming "Death to America" and "Death to Israel", about a hundred times, too many, to ignore.

And let's not forget their attempt to assassinate the Saudi diplomat, right here in the States.

Things might change, but right now, Iran is seen by the West as a long-standing obstacle to a more peaceful Middle East.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Sharing some intel is good, but sharing photocopies of their passports, is not like they turned over the Al-Qaeda members, or any real intel they gained from interrogating these guys.

We don't expedite convicted prisoners to other countries without an extradition treaty. Why should Iran turn their enemies over to the US? Iran was being cooperative - listing some 200 Al Qaeda prisoners they had captured even with photocopies of their passports. Because Iran also hated and distrusted Al Qaeda. However lies from the George Jr administration insisted otherwise.

Iran demonstrated repeatedly that both nations shared common enemies in the Middle East. But Iran had to deal with people who were wacko extremist. They could talk to Dobbins and Crocker. But biased extremists in the George Jr administration, driven by rhetoric, destroyed possible reconciliation. Names particularly responsible for this include Feith, Bolton, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Extremists see in 'black and white' - not pragmatically.

Foolish is to call Hezbullah an evil entity. They are just another group in a world where no 'good and evil' exists. Religion is a major reason for many 'good and bad' suppositions. Conclusions based only is childish emotions; by ignoring facts. Reason for so much death and destruction is also why so many see the world in soundbytes or in biblical style parables. And not pragmatically.

Attempting to kill the other guy's people is done by everyone - including the US. Death to all in a world dominated by religion is only a game. As long as religion is major reason for decisions, then everyone in the world remains a target no different from people murdered in Grand Theft Auto. In VietNam or Mission Accomplished, American soldiers would kill many for no reason other than emotion. Need we repeatedly play Bradley Manning leaks demonstrating the attitude of so many Americans and the routine coverups by their commanders? What makes those soldiers any different from Nazi Gestapo?

Attempts to assassinate the Saudi ambassador? Normal in a world (in a cold war) when the US already said it would Pearl Harbor Iran.

Unfortunately extremists also saw deceit and deception when Gorbachev was ending the cold war. Extremists also called that a trick. Then cited so much previous violence as proof that Gorbachev was not ending the cold war.

Iran and the US share many common interests in the region. And many potential conflicts. Time has come to explore possibilities that change has created. They tried ten years ago when the US was lead by people incapable of thinking pragmatically like a moderate. They tried when the US government threatened to unilaterally attack three nations for no good reason.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

We don't expedite convicted prisoners to other countries without an extradition treaty. Why should Iran turn their enemies over to the US? Iran was being cooperative - listing some 200 Al Qaeda prisoners they had captured even with photocopies of their passports. Because Iran also hated and distrusted Al Qaeda.

Countries do a lot of things without a treaty between them stating it's OK to do it.

Sending us those prisoners, or at least allowing them to be interrogated/interviewed by our authorities, would go a long way toward cementing that common enemy status between Iran and the US.

Iran demonstrated repeatedly that both nations shared common enemies in the Middle East. But Iran had to deal with people who were wacko extremist. They could talk to Dobbins and Crocker. But biased extremists in the George Jr administration, driven by rhetoric, destroyed possible reconciliation. Names particularly responsible for this include Feith, Bolton, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Extremists see in 'black and white' - not pragmatically.

Foolish is to call Hezbullah an evil entity. They are just another group in a world where no 'good and evil' exists. Religion is a major reason for many 'good and bad' suppositions. Conclusions based only is childish emotions; by ignoring facts. Reason for so much death and destruction is also why so many see the world in soundbytes or in biblical style parables. And not pragmatically.

I'm not in the "call good and or evil" business, but groups like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabab, are initiating a lot of violence. If violence was going to solve the problems of the Middle East, then the entire area would be a paradise by now, don't you think?

Really, we need to work out solutions to the problems, not shoot our neighbors, whether they be Muslim or Christian, or Jew, or whatever. If we keep poking out each others eyes, and pretty soon, we're nearly all blind.

Attempting to kill the other guy's people is done by everyone - including the US. Death to all in a world dominated by religion is only a game. As long as religion is major reason for decisions, then everyone in the world remains a target no different from people murdered in Grand Theft Auto. In VietNam or Mission Accomplished, American soldiers would kill many for no reason other than emotion. Need we repeatedly play Bradley Manning leaks demonstrating the attitude of so many Americans and the routine coverups by their commanders? What makes those soldiers any different from Nazi Gestapo?

Soldiers are typically young men who are overwhelmed by being thrust into a war, in a foreign land, far from home. You may think there's no difference between the US and Nazi's, but you weren't around when the Nazi's were here.

Trust me, there is a HUGE difference.

1) We aren't making the population our slaves, as the Nazi's did.
2) We aren't taking over the country. South Korea, Bosnia, Philippines, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, are all countries we have had extensive military fighting in.

None of them has been annexed into U.S. territory, have they?

3) In France, and in Poland, and in Russia, when the locals had resistance fighters attacking the Nazi's, the Nazi rule was that 500 locals would be killed for every German killed by the resistance.

In France, there is an entire town where the men were separated from the women and children. The men went outside, and the women and children were sent inside the church. Then the men were all machine gunned, so the women and children could hear it.

Then the church was set afire, and the doors locked. Anyone trying to escape was shot. Ashes were all that was left.

Then the entire town was burned down. Two of them are monuments today, (there was no one left to rebuild it, after the war).

While relatively rare in the Western Front, it was common in the Eastern Front. Babies being thrown up and caught on fixed bayonets was not just a nightmare scene from a novelist.

If you can't see any difference between the US and the Nazi armies, you really have a problem.

Attempts to assassinate the Saudi ambassador? Normal in a world (in a cold war) when the US already said it would Pearl Harbor Iran.

It's rough language, but any attack large enough to destroy the several parts of the Iran nuclear program, would have to be quite large. You have the uranium mines - at least two of those. Then there are several processing facilities, at discrete locations, then there are the facilities inside bunkers or mountains, that would require a huge effort to destroy, all by themselves.

Frankly, the attack would have to be hundreds of planes (maybe not the 400 used to attack Pearl Harbor though), but including the cruise missiles, etc., the explosives would need to be greater than was dropped on Pearl.

I don't see how that could happen without a large loss of life, do you? That's why we need to sit down and make these negotiations work out. Failure should not be an option!

Killing a diplomat from another country just makes it worse, not better. How can you sit down and negotiate with the people who just killed your countryman? Not easy to do.

I don't believe the problems in the Middle East relate directly to the problems with Gorbachev. He had a separate destiny.

Iran and the US share many common interests in the region. And many potential conflicts. Time has come to explore possibilities that change has created. They tried ten years ago when the US was lead by people incapable of thinking pragmatically like a moderate. They tried when the US government threatened to unilaterally attack three nations for no good reason.

What common interests we share with Iran will be over-ridden by the fear of Iran with nuclear weapons. The Iranians have screamed "Death to America", and "Death to Israel" about a thousand times too many, to believe they are now going to follow a peaceful path, because they have nuclear weapons.

You can't convince anyone of that. Either Iran's leaders will comply with full inspections, etc., and stop all work toward nuclear weapons, or there will be a large scale attack, and possibly war.

No one wants it, but no one will tolerate Iran with nuclear weapons. They have made themselves out to be war mongers (against America, against Israel), and they have succeeded, all too well.