Quote: Original post by Diodor
That certainly seems true, but it doesn't mean things cannot improve, that is, we can get to worry a lot less about them and they can get to worry a lot more about us.

wow.

That is the most stupid thing I've read in quite some time; thanks you've just reset my benchmark for 'dumb'.

You do realise that the best way to have less fear of 'them' is for 'them' to have less fear of 'you' thus giving them no reason to do anything to 'you'..?

Quote: Original post by phantom

Quote: Original post by Diodor
That certainly seems true, but it doesn't mean things cannot improve, that is, we can get to worry a lot less about them and they can get to worry a lot more about us.

wow.

That is the most stupid thing I've read in quite some time; thanks you've just reset my benchmark for 'dumb'.

You do realise that the best way to have less fear of 'them' is for 'them' to have less fear of 'you' thus giving them no reason to do anything to 'you'..?

Or education them. The unknown (or just plain ignorance) produces fear far more than muscle-flexing.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Here's how the narrative is shaping up. Just as with Iraq, the New York Times is leading the way.

....

And that sentence, in a nutshell, is why I feel so uneasy about this whole Iran thing. I feel like I have warped back in time 7 years ago, to when we were talking about invading Iraq. The same people are making the same talking points with the same doom-and-gloom predictions. An invasion of Iran would likely end the same, or worse, but I feel that we're running headlong into the same situation. Our leadership seems to have serious problems with learning from history.

But assuming Iran does develop nukes, what can we do about it? What should we do about it? Is staging an invasion really going to make things better? I know the right likes to portray Iran's leadership as genuinely crazy and fundamentalist, but a sober look at their history would suggest that they aren't about to use nukes even if they did have them.

There are a few important differences today. For example, in 2002 the National Security Adviser set about increasing fear levels with warnings about mushroom clouds and the like. Today the National Security Adviser is downplaying the fears (even as the media tries to play them up): Does Iran have data to build a nuclear bomb? No, says US.

Quote:
...
According to the Sunday New York Times, a secret International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report says that Iran has "sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable" atom bomb.

US National Security Adviser James Jones, however, disputed the IAEA's findings. Asked on CNN's "State of the Union" if Iran has the data to make a nuclear bomb, he said: "No, we stand by the reports that we've put out."

Two years ago, the US released a report suggesting that Iran has stopped work on its nuclear-weapons program in 2003. The Times emphasizes that other countries, including Britain and France, have begun to have doubts about this conclusion.

The authors of the so-called "secret annex" of the IAEA report acknowledge that their findings are not definitive and that further investigation is necessary.
...

On the other hand, even as that article appears to debunk misinformation it propels the mistaken notion that the IAEA is leading the charge against Iran.

Hi all from Israel,

I think its exceptionally naive to think Iran is building nuclear technology but not planning on making nukes of it. I imagine sanctions/national bribe would be the end of it if that was the case.

Its also unfair to portray Iran as a peaceful country. Iran has proven itself very anti-Israel not only in harsh rhetorics but in action; Iran has been financing, weaponizing, training and what not, violent Islamists radical groups. That is mainly but not only Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza/WB, but also other countries (I think I read Iran mentioned backing of groups in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen). Israel never took any action against Iran as far as I know, so I think it can be safely labeled as aggressive actions. I'm sure Iran's destabilizing actions are the main barrier to long lasting peace (or cease fire) between Israelies, Palestinians and Lebanese.

I believe this war mongering is a tool for them, civilian deaths channeled to gain popularity to Islamic radical movements in a twisted way, advancing their goals.


Unlike Iraq, who's leadership was corrupt and evil but self contained, Iran appears to be fueled by religious motivation to bring their Islamic revolution to the Middle East. You may argue its only an Israeli problem, but I have a feeling you guys prefer the middle east will go in a different direction than Iran's goals.

I don't want to believe Israel's destruction is actually a top target for Iran.
I imagine nuke wielding Iran will likely "just" have bigger balls and cook its Islamic revolution on higher fire. That is a bad situation and sadly most likely to happen.
However, there is also an above zero chance that Iran will actually use such weapons. While I think its below the worrying threshold, many many people honestly worry about it here in Israel. It will be a huge political bonus to Bibi if he can launch a successful bombing of Iran's facilities. Bombing Iran will probably end up in Iran's revolution goals advancing via the surge in anti-Israel energies it will create, maybe even better than if Iran were backed up by nukes, so its a loose-loose situation for Israel.


What would be done in my humble opinion?
I hope sanctions and negotiations will have success but I doubt it.
If comes a point that sanctions failed and Iran's program reaching near completion, I suppose Israel will attack, if only for the short term political advantage it will give to the politicians in charge, and for removing the chance of Iran's nuking Israel.

What should be done IMHO ?
Except sanction some more and hope for the best, I don't know!
On the loose-loose I mentioned above, I guess the bigger "loose" is facing nuke wielding Iran, so if those are my two options I'll gravely take the bombing of Iran and face the consequences but I wish it won't come to that.

Quote: Original post by Iftah
Hi all from Israel,

Wassup? How are you? How's life?

Quote: Original post by Iftah
I think its exceptionally naive to think Iran is building nuclear technology but not planning on making nukes of it. I imagine sanctions/national bribe would be the end of it if that was the case.

I think it would be exceptionally naive to accept claims about Iran made by people who were completely wrong about Iraq. That doesn't necessarily include you. I don't remember what claims you made about Iraq, but I do know that a lot of media charlatans that thumped for the invasion of Iraq are sticking to the hard line when it comes to Iran.

Quote: Original post by Iftah
Israel never took any action against Iran as far as I know, so I think it can be safely labeled as aggressive actions. I'm sure Iran's destabilizing actions are the main barrier to long lasting peace (or cease fire) between Israelies, Palestinians and Lebanese.

I don't recall any overt actions, but covert actions are another matter [1], [2], [3]. Allegations from credible sources that the US has funded the MEK are easy to find [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] ...

I'm sure that Iran's destabilizing actions are a minor barrier in real terms even as they serve as a major excuse for business as usual in the slow annexation of the West Bank.

Quote: Original post by Iftah
I believe this war mongering is a tool for them, civilian deaths channeled to gain popularity to Islamic radical movements in a twisted way, advancing their goals.

War mongers everywhere channel civilian deaths in order to advance their goals.

Quote: Original post by Iftah
Unlike Iraq, who's leadership was corrupt and evil but self contained, Iran appears to be fueled by religious motivation to bring their Islamic revolution to the Middle East. You may argue its only an Israeli problem, but I have a feeling you guys prefer the middle east will go in a different direction than Iran's goals.

Iran is too divided to spread revolution. In response to the recent election protests Ayatollah Ali Montazeri wrote this about Iran's ruling groups: "At least have the courage to admit this is neither an Islamic state nor a republic." [10]. The Islamic Revolution is dead. That said, Shia militancy is not just an Israeli problem. It's an issue for the entire region.

Quote: Original post by Iftah
I don't want to believe Israel's destruction is actually a top target for Iran.

That's a very ugly thought. The use of nuclear weapons on anyone is a very ugly thought.

Quote: Original post by Iftah
I imagine nuke wielding Iran will likely "just" have bigger balls and cook its Islamic revolution on higher fire. That is a bad situation and sadly most likely to happen.

Wouldn't a fired up Shia militancy want to conquer Mecca more than anything else? A nuclear device might enable Iran to feel more secure and thus less restricted in the postures it takes and what it might say - but what could it say that would be worse than the Holocaust denials it already promotes?

Quote: Original post by Iftah
However, there is also an above zero chance that Iran will actually use such weapons. While I think its below the worrying threshold, many many people honestly worry about it here in Israel. It will be a huge political bonus to Bibi if he can launch a successful bombing of Iran's facilities. Bombing Iran will probably end up in Iran's revolution goals advancing via the surge in anti-Israel energies it will create, maybe even better than if Iran were backed up by nukes, so its a loose-loose situation for Israel.

I agree. If bombing Iran starts a war, moderation flies out the window and there would be little reason for anyone to hold back. That would be lose-lose.

Quote: Original post by Iftah
What would be done in my humble opinion? I hope sanctions and negotiations will have success but I doubt it. If comes a point that sanctions failed and Iran's program reaching near completion, I suppose Israel will attack, if only for the short term political advantage it will give to the politicians in charge, and for removing the chance of Iran's nuking Israel.

What should be done IMHO ? Except sanction some more and hope for the best, I don't know! On the loose-loose I mentioned above, I guess the bigger "loose" is facing nuke wielding Iran, so if those are my two options I'll gravely take the bombing of Iran and face the consequences but I wish it won't come to that.

I think the gamble is too risky.

Iran says it will send it's uranium to Russia for refinement. We'll see if they follow through on that promise.

Quote: Original post by phantom
wow ... stupid ... dumb ... 'them' ... no reason to do anything to 'you'..?

Besides the oil, at any rate.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Or education them. The unknown (or just plain ignorance) produces fear far more than muscle-flexing.

Ignorance is bliss and hypocrisy is at the foundation of civilised behaviour. If the ruling clergy of Iran could be persuaded of the truth that would certainly be bad news, for the truth is they are to become irrelevant and vanish from the pages of time one way or the other, and in the end it will have been Modernity that did them in.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Iran says it will send it's uranium to Russia for refinement. We'll see if they follow through on that promise.

There is one very important circumstance here.If you mean the refinement of used fluel in Russia-in order to prevent plutonium extraction-you must take into account that fluel must "get cold".I.e fluel can't be transported immediately ,decay of short-term nuclides will take at least mounth.
Another words,they need a constant international control during this time,not only in the moment of fluel extraction from reactor.
It will be the time of uncertainty-actually plutonium will be on Iranian territory ,and I'm afraid that it will get on somebodys nerves...Bombing in this moment simply will cause another one Chernobyl.

Iran agrees to ship enriched uranium to Russia for refinement

Quote:
GENEVA — Iran agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program.
...
Under the tentative uranium deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be further refined, to 19.75 percent purity. That is much less than the purity needed to fuel a nuclear bomb.

French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran to power a nuclear research reactor that's used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine. Iran says the old reactor, which dates from the Shah's era, is running out of nuclear fuel.

A second senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity, said that Iran doesn't have the technology to convert the fuel rods back into bomb-making material.

U.S. officials, who requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly, said the arrangement could set back the date by which Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon, because it had been feared Tehran would attempt to transform the same low-enriched uranium into the highly-enriched substance needed for a bomb. They said that Israel had been kept apprised of the deal.
...