Iran

[HeyYou]

I'm guessing because North Korea aren't looming over the Straits of Hormuz?

 

S. Korea isn't as 'good' an ally as Israel?

[Marxist ßastard]

Do we have IAEA inspectors in the US, going thru all of our nuclear facilities

Yes. The IAEA visits all sorts of civilian nuclear sites, reviewing for safety and suggesting security upgrades where there's a proliferation threat. After a nuclear accident, the IAEA also assists in the clean-up. In the past 10 years, the IAEA has made 100 official visits to power plants and enrichment facilities, 120 to border crossings, and 200 to hospitals.

[HeyYou]

Do we have IAEA inspectors in the US, going thru all of our nuclear facilities

Yes. The IAEA visits all sorts of civilian nuclear sites, reviewing for safety and suggesting security upgrades where there's a proliferation threat. After a nuclear accident, the IAEA also assists in the clean-up. In the past 10 years, the IAEA has made 100 official visits to power plants and enrichment facilities, 120 to border crossings, and 200 to hospitals.

 

Note: CIVILIAN nuclear facilities.

 

I am not entirely sure Iran has ANY non-military nuclear facilities..... their government is a tad different than ours..... that, and the IAEA isn't telling Iran squat about what goes on in our facilities.... meanwhile, they release reports about their 'findings' everywhere else they inspect. (and which Israel does NOT appear on the list....)

[brokenergy]

Do we have IAEA inspectors in the US, going thru all of our nuclear facilities

Yes. The IAEA visits all sorts of civilian nuclear sites, reviewing for safety and suggesting security upgrades where there's a proliferation threat. After a nuclear accident, the IAEA also assists in the clean-up. In the past 10 years, the IAEA has made 100 official visits to power plants and enrichment facilities, 120 to border crossings, and 200 to hospitals.

 

Note: CIVILIAN nuclear facilities.

 

I am not entirely sure Iran has ANY non-military nuclear facilities..... their government is a tad different than ours..... that, and the IAEA isn't telling Iran squat about what goes on in our facilities.... meanwhile, they release reports about their 'findings' everywhere else they inspect. (and which Israel does NOT appear on the list....)

 

Iran has several civilian facilities as I recall, the one near the Persian Gulf is one. This whole notion just reeks of hypocrasy. Why isn't US and other western nations hitting hard to India and Pakistan, which didn't signed the treaty, than Iran? Why is Iran singled out? I don't like the government for other reasons but HeyYou has a point. We are being antagonistic for the sake of antagonistic, going to Iran is just going to make things worst for both sides.

[Marxist ßastard]

Note: CIVILIAN nuclear facilities.

 

I am not entirely sure Iran has ANY non-military nuclear facilities..... their government is a tad different than ours..... that, and the IAEA isn't telling Iran squat about what goes on in our facilities.... meanwhile, they release reports about their 'findings' everywhere else they inspect. (and which Israel does NOT appear on the list....)

I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here. Iran has a fully operational nuclear power plant, a dozen other facilities relevant to the IAEA, and some border crossings that really need to be monitored. Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The IAEA has every right to be there, and its presence supports the Iranian nuclear program as it educates nuclear technicians and helps to prevent accidents and theft.

 

The IAEA isn't in North Korea or Israel because neither state has a nuclear reactor, North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Israel never signed the Treaty in the first place. No doubt that in an ideal world the IAEA would be allowed to work in Israel, since there's a proliferation risk there. But that doesn't mean the IAEA shouldn't be in Iran.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Marxist ßastard

[HeyYou]

My point is, it seems we press harder on our 'enemies' than we do on our allies for nuclear inspection. And even then, 'enemies' that are closer to OIL, get pressed all the harder. At this point, we have a selection of countries with nukes, some of which we are pretty certain support terrorism, (yes, pakistan, I am looking at YOU.) yet are we screaming for inspections there? Supposedly, the whole premise here is, we don't want Iran to have nukes, because we are afraid they will use them. Ok, once again, what about N. Korea? They HAVE the bomb. They are testing long range delivery systems. Why isn't ANYONE screaming to high heaven that we go in there and blow up their stuff?? Seems to me, at the moment, N. Korea is the bigger nuclear threat, but, no one seems to care. And why is that? NO OIL.

 

Iran has every right to object, when they are being singled out for attention, when there are other folks that are setting off bombs, that don't get a second glance. Can you blame them for being uncooperative?

 

Not to mention the fact that we are convicting them of a crime with little or no proof, and we are rapidly heading for a military confrontation, based on rumors and innuendo. (and pressure from Israel.....) Iran insists they are not building a bomb. Why should we not take them at their word, right up to the point they set off their first test bomb? At that point, some manner of intervention would be a good idea, but, unless/until they actually use a weapon on someone outside their borders, they are guilty of nothing more than a desire for some self defense.

Edited April 1, 2012 by HeyYou

[sukeban]

I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here. Iran has a fully operational nuclear power plant, a dozen other facilities relevant to the IAEA, and some border crossings that really need to be monitored. Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The IAEA has every right to be there, and its presence supports the Iranian nuclear program as it educates nuclear technicians and helps to prevent accidents and theft.

 

The IAEA isn't in North Korea or Israel because neither state has a nuclear reactor, North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Israel never signed the Treaty in the first place. No doubt that in an ideal world the IAEA would be allowed to work in Israel, since there's a proliferation risk there. But that doesn't mean the IAEA shouldn't be in Iran.

Didn't Israel work with Apartheid South Africa in the 70s on a (very likely) nuclear weapons project? I would say that Israel is as big a proliferation threat as any other nation. I have been curious as to why Iran doesn't just withdraw from the NPT and get it over with. This is, of course, going on the assumption that they have a weapons program that they would like to conceal. I continually wonder about Saddam letting on like he still had WMDs even as we were gearing up to attack. Was he really so opaque in order to bluff against Iran? If so, he gravely miscalculated. I wonder similar things about Iran nowadays. It would be the irony of all ironies if we attacked and they truly had no weapons.

 

My conspiratorial mind concocts the following:

 

Likud Party in Israel is in talks with the RNC (or, to be fair, anticipates what the RNC wants). Agreement is reached to attack Iran during the late summer months or very early autumn. This to force Obama's hand in intervening (Likud gets what it wants) and in so doing demoralizes the Democratic base (yet another useless Mideast war) and gives the RNC an enormous propaganda cudgel to use when we start losing troops. It is timed so that Obama loses his "rally round the flag" popularity boost from the onset of the war, something like a month or two before the election. This is the great wildcard that the RNC uses to tip the scales against Obama. They proceed to increase military aid to Israel in payment for services rendered. Everybody is happy.

 

Addition:

 

IMO, Israel is a snake-in-the-grass ally and has been playing us for fools for decades. They have their eyes on the prize--which is ensuring their own security--and they've demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes, irrespective of public "loyalty" or legality, to get it. If a nuclear exchange ever took place in the Middle East, Israel would be the one to have instigated it; it is, in fact, their stated nuclear doctrine.

 

In the 70s and 80s, Israel had nuclear missiles trained on the Soviet Union. Were they expecting a Soviet invasion, anticipating tanks rolling through the Caucuses into Iran, Iraq, Syria, and finally into Israel? No, they were blackmailing the Soviets so they would restrain their "friends" in the region, threatening to annihilate Moscow, Kiev or Leningrad over the actions of the Egyptian air force. Israel now has the Jericho III ICBM, capable of hitting the entirety of the United States. If the chips were somehow down, and Israel was actually losing a defensive war with its neighbors, would they blackmail us--with Los Angeles? Chicago? New York?--if we didn't step in and intervene?

 

Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is very unique because the country is so small. Israel's military doctrine is to never fight a war on Israeli territory, to bring the fight to the enemy, to conquer and hold territory. But if that is impossible or they begin to lose, their nuclear weapons are their last resort. They will use them first and ask questions later if it is what they believe will save the state of Israel. Sure, that can probably be said for any nuclear-armed country, but most nuclear-armed countries are much larger, giving them more "breathing room" before ever contemplating using a nuclear device.

 

But make no mistake, David Ben-Gurion was in no way any less monomaniacal in his pursuit of nuclear weapons than North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran's leaders have been in theirs. It is a glaring double-standard that we have ignored the former (not invading DPRK anytime soon) and not the later. And that is because Israel owns our foreign policy, playing us for fools. Again.

Edited April 1, 2012 by sukeban

[Marxist ßastard]

My point is, it seems we press harder on our 'enemies' than we do on our allies for nuclear inspection... Iran has every right to object, when they are being singled out for attention, when there are other folks that are setting off bombs, that don't get a second glance. Can you blame them for being uncooperative?

The IAEA's presence in Iran is voluntary. If Iran were to pull out of the NPT, it could just kick the IAEA out – like North Korea did. Israel only has limited IAEA inspections because it allows the IAEA only those powers pursuant to Israel's nuclear agreements with the US and no more. Israel never signed the NPT, so it has no other obligations to the IAEA. This situation means that technically, Israel has violated no agreement with the IAEA. But the UN has repeatedly called upon Israel to sign the NPT, allow more IAEA inspections, and endorse a Middle East nuke-free zone. The US has voted against each of these resolutions.

 

Now what really irks me about your argument is that it's the same as that used by the US, just with the names reversed. Quoth Secretary Clinton: "The United States continues to oppose this resolution, which focuses exclusively on Israel while disregarding noncompliance by Iran... as well as Syria..." And what I'm saying is that IAEA involvement is a positive thing, no matter where it goes. Want more fairness in how the IAEA is applied? The UN agrees with you, and I do too. But don't argue that the IAEA should leave Iran alone until it can work in absolute fairness. Instead, argue that the IAEA should keep up its inspections in Iran and extend those to Israel.

[Nintii]

Didn't Israel work with Apartheid South Africa in the 70s on a (very likely) nuclear weapons project? I would say that Israel is as big a proliferation threat as any other nation.

 

IMO, Israel is a snake-in-the-grass ally and has been playing us for fools for decades. They have their eyes on the prize--which is ensuring their own security--and they've demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes, irrespective of public "loyalty" or legality, to get it. If a nuclear exchange ever took place in the Middle East, Israel would be the one to have instigated it; it is, in fact, their stated nuclear doctrine.

 

Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is very unique because the country is so small. Israel's military doctrine is to never fight a war on Israeli territory, to bring the fight to the enemy, to conquer and hold territory. But if that is impossible or they begin to lose, their nuclear weapons are their last resort. They will use them first and ask questions later if it is what they believe will save the state of Israel. Sure, that can probably be said for any nuclear-armed country, but most nuclear-armed countries are much larger, giving them more "breathing room" before ever contemplating using a nuclear device.

 

But make no mistake, David Ben-Gurion was in no way any less monomaniacal in his pursuit of nuclear weapons than North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran's leaders have been in theirs. It is a glaring double-standard that we have ignored the former (not invading DPRK anytime soon) and not the later. And that is because Israel owns our foreign policy, playing us for fools. Again.

 

1) South Africa, Israel and the Vela Incident.

 

Israel did indeed work on a nuclear project with South Africa ... and they DID create a COUPLE of nuclear weapons, that's as factual as the nose on your face.

However, before the transition of power took place the South African government dismantled them, took them down an old mineshaft - a deep mineshaft - and

filled it with concrete.

They also built a nuclear testing facility out in the Kalahari desert - in South Africa - called "Vastrap" ... but the Russians caught site of it and blew the whistle and under

pressure South Africa refrained from testing nukes there.

However, on the 22nd September 1979 a "double flash" was detected by the American satellite "Vela Hotel" this was believed to have been a nuclear test by South Africa

and Israel but never proven.

A whole host of other reasons were given for the supposed nuke test and so it was never proven as a fact.

But the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and others said that according to the data that it was in actual fact a detonation.

 

2) Israel and Nukes.

 

I completely support Israel and their nuclear capabilities while denouncing the Arab world's attempt to build them ... why ?

Let me start off by saying that Israel is not Cuba who during the Cuban missile crisis actually wanted the Soviet Union to engage the United States in a nuclear war.

Israel will use guns, bombs etc to defend themselves and I'm sure that they only keep their other stuff - nukes - for in case - as insurance.

They are not a bunch of crazed people ready to deal out death and destruction in a nuclear holocaust ... they would far rather use other means ... but, having said

that, they will not sit idly by and be obliterated by anyone.

 

How would you feel if you were surrounded on EVERY SIDE by people who wished nothing more than to kill you ... and the worst thing is that your brothers - fellow Jews,

who are supposed to support you are some of the absolute worst left wing radicals in the world ... what a disgrace.

Btw, David Ben Gurion was a hero, all he wanted was to have a place for his people to live in peace and freedom.

I have met a lot of Jews, Israeli Jews born in Palestine and they have no hatred for the Arabs, they just want peace as do most Jews IN ISRAEL.

 

3) Double Standards ?

 

Israel is not talking about destroying anyone ... Iran is, DPRK is a direct threat to South Korea, a proper Democracy that allows opposition and voting.

Pakistan ... hah, the land that sheltered Ben Laden, sure they didn't know, right ?

[HeyYou]

Might wanna do a bit of Research on Israel's "samson option".......