World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

EagleAye · Mar 6, 2012

Khayembii Communique said:
I didn't deny your former statement, I just find it to be a laughable reason for "going to war" considering the fact that the United States has supported and continues to support terrorist groups. US government officials have even openly stated their support for terrorist groups in Iran in the recent past months. Your latter statement first off is false as there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program as well as hypocritical considering the fact that American allies such as Israel, India and Pakistan have proliferated without much whining from American government officials.

But you already knew all this when you wrote your post.

Regarding the bolded part above, not everyone (including the IAEA) agree with this

An International Atomic Energy Agency report last year said that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, to conduct explosives tests that are "strong indicators" of efforts to develop an atom bomb.
[...]
Agency chief Yukiya Amano said on Monday Iran has tripled its monthly production of higher-grade enriched uranium and the U.N. nuclear watchdog had "serious concerns" about possible military dimensions to Tehran's atomic activities.

Iran to allow IAEA visit Parchin military site: ISNA - Yahoo! News

A report by a UN watchdog into Iran’s nuclear ambitions ‘completely discredits’ the Islamic nation’s protestations of innocence, according to Foreign Secretary William Hague.

The International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran is developing a nuclear test facility, nuclear detonators and computer modelling for a nuclear warhead that would fit on an existing missile.
[...]
KEY FINDINGS IN UN REPORT ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

In its latest report on Iran, the UN International Atomic Energy Agency outlines the sum of its knowledge on the Islamic Republic's alleged secret nuclear weapons work, including:

- Clandestine procurement of equipment and design information needed to make such arms;
- High explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge;
- Computer modelling of a core of a nuclear warhead;
- Preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, and
- Developing and mounting a nuclear payload onto its Shahab 3 intermediate range missile - a weapon that can reach Israel, Iran's arch foe.
[...]
Ahmadinejad's regime is already thought to have built a top-secret explosives test facility at a site in Parchin, just outside Tehran, where it is conducting experiments to develop a weapon.

Scientists are building hi-tech precision detonators which would be essential for a nuclear device, and developing a uranium core for a nuclear warhead, the UN said.

UN report: Iran IS trying to build nuclear bomb warns William Hague | Mail Online

Khayembii Communique · Mar 6, 2012

Regarding the bolded part above, not everyone (including the IAEA) agree with this

Unfortunately we already went over these sources that you have repeated here.

EagleAye · Mar 6, 2012

Khayembii Communique said:
Unfortunately we already went over these sources that you have repeated here.

So then you would agree there is evidence? I acknowledge the US intelligence thinks no nukes are under development, but Britain, Israel, and the IAEA thinks there IS evidence of a weapons program. Certainly there is enough to justify pressuring Iran to show the evidence is wrong, yes?

MarineTpartier · Mar 6, 2012

EagleAye said:
So then you would agree there is evidence? I acknowledge the US intelligence thinks no nukes are under development, but Britain, Israel, and the IAEA thinks there IS evidence of a weapons program. Certainly there is enough to justify pressuring Iran to show the evidence is wrong, yes?

Here's the thing though. Who are we to tell them they can't have the friggin thing? If Iran wants a nuke, let em have it. As soon as we get intel that they are planning to strike us or an ally, we destroy the nuke. Simple as that. This isn't the Cold War where two super powers have massive amounts of nukes aimed at each other. Its a garbage little Persian country that will have one or two ICBM's that we can shoot down with a quickness. In addition, if Iran launches, its not like its going to start a chain reaction of other countries shooting theirs. The only country that could possibly shoot back is the one they launch on. The rest of the nuclear countries around the world will sit back and watch.

Mr. Invisible · Mar 6, 2012

EagleAye said:
So then you would agree there is evidence? I acknowledge the US intelligence thinks no nukes are under development, but Britain, Israel, and the IAEA thinks there IS evidence of a weapons program. Certainly there is enough to justify pressuring Iran to show the evidence is wrong, yes?

Actually, the IAEA is potentially biased as

On March 5, 2012, the IAEA chief, Yukiya Amano, said he had “serious concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program and its ambitions.[14] It’s interesting to note, however, that in a ‘Confidential’ diplomatic cable from the U.S. State Department in 2009, American diplomats discussed Amano’s appointment to head the IAEA, and stated that he “displayed remarkable congruence of views with us on conducting the Agency’s missions,” and speaking to an American Ambassador, Amano “thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency.” Though, Amano informed the Ambassador, “that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”[15]

Sources are this (Iran: watchdog says suspicious activities continue at blocked sites - Telegraph) and this (US embassy cables: New UN chief is 'director general of all states, but in agreement with us' | World news | guardian.co.uk).

This as well is relevant

In 2010, the Pentagon’s report to Congress stressed that Iran’s strategy in the region was not one of aggression, as our media and politicians would have us believe, but in fact, was a “deterrent strategy.” The report stated, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” The U.S. approach to Iran, then, “remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons and on countering Iran’s influence in the Middle East.”[24] Iran itself has claimed that it “pursues a defensive and deterrent strategy.”[25]

The sources are this (Defense.gov News Article: Report to Congress Outlines Iranian Threats) and this (PressTV - 'Iran pursues deterrent defense strategy')

The above excerpts were from this article.

In addition to that, it has been stated that some people are quite skeptical of the IAEA's report as

some, like former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, have grave doubts about the value of the IAEA report.

“I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out from the International Atomic Energy Agency, because the IAEA doesn’t really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel,” says Giraldi.

The source is this (IAEA study as pretext for war on Iran — RT).

Thus, the objectivity of the IAEA is in question due to the current director's potential bias.

AdamT · Mar 6, 2012

Mya said:
I am not disagreeing with you in that.

What I am saying is that I am very pessimist about these "new" round of talks because almost certainly Iran will use them to gain further time to obtain full military nuclear capability.

A war would be a disaster for the whole world but regrettably sometimes wars are forced upon us whether we like it or not.

And I don't disagree with your pessimistic view of the talks, either. But there's a slim chance something could come of it, and in the meantime ... there really aren't any good options. If we can keep delaying there's a chance that the Iranian people will toss out the ayatollahs. Again, slim, but a chance. And if they do get a bomb, that's probably not the end of the world, either. I don't think they're any nuttier than the Soviets, the Pakistanis, or the North Koreans.

AdamT · Mar 6, 2012

Mr. Invisible said:
Actually, the IAEA is potentially biased as

On March 5, 2012, the IAEA chief, Yukiya Amano, said he had “serious concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program and its ambitions.[14] It’s interesting to note, however, that in a ‘Confidential’ diplomatic cable from the U.S. State Department in 2009, American diplomats discussed Amano’s appointment to head the IAEA, and stated that he “displayed remarkable congruence of views with us on conducting the Agency’s missions,” and speaking to an American Ambassador, Amano “thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency.” Though, Amano informed the Ambassador, “that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”[15]

Sources are this (Iran: watchdog says suspicious activities continue at blocked sites - Telegraph) and this (US embassy cables: New UN chief is 'director general of all states, but in agreement with us' | World news | guardian.co.uk).

This as well is relevant

In 2010, the Pentagon’s report to Congress stressed that Iran’s strategy in the region was not one of aggression, as our media and politicians would have us believe, but in fact, was a “deterrent strategy.” The report stated, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” The U.S. approach to Iran, then, “remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons and on countering Iran’s influence in the Middle East.”[24] Iran itself has claimed that it “pursues a defensive and deterrent strategy.”[25]

The sources are this (Defense.gov News Article: Report to Congress Outlines Iranian Threats) and this (PressTV - 'Iran pursues deterrent defense strategy')

The above excerpts were from this article.

In addition to that, it has been stated that some people are quite skeptical of the IAEA's report as

some, like former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, have grave doubts about the value of the IAEA report.

“I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out from the International Atomic Energy Agency, because the IAEA doesn’t really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel,” says Giraldi.

The source is this (IAEA study as pretext for war on Iran — RT).

Thus, the objectivity of the IAEA is in question due to the current director's potential bias.

In a lot of ways it's like Groundhog Day. Inspectors and folks in the US and Israel were going nuts because Iraq was dragging its feet on inspections, of course assuming that Saddam was hiding something. When, as it turns out, what he was really hiding was the fact that he didn't have jack ****. He didn't want the Iranians to know how weak he was. I'm quite sure that a lot of Iran's actions are animated by a similar motive. If they can build a bomb or two, or at least create the impression that the MIGHT have a bomb or two, it would significantly enhance their national security.

EagleAye · Mar 6, 2012

Mr. Invisible said:
Actually, the IAEA is potentially biased as

On March 5, 2012, the IAEA chief, Yukiya Amano, said he had “serious concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program and its ambitions.[14] It’s interesting to note, however, that in a ‘Confidential’ diplomatic cable from the U.S. State Department in 2009, American diplomats discussed Amano’s appointment to head the IAEA, and stated that he “displayed remarkable congruence of views with us on conducting the Agency’s missions,” and speaking to an American Ambassador, Amano “thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency.” Though, Amano informed the Ambassador, “that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”[15]

From this, we can see that Amano intends "to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent". So although he is firmly on the side of the US in desiring to be sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons, he also intends to be fair in his assessment of Iran. This tells us we're getting his most accurate report.

Mr. Invisible said:
In 2010, the Pentagon’s report to Congress stressed that Iran’s strategy in the region was not one of aggression, as our media and politicians would have us believe, but in fact, was a “deterrent strategy.” The report stated, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” The U.S. approach to Iran, then, “remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons and on countering Iran’s influence in the Middle East.”[24] Iran itself has claimed that it “pursues a defensive and deterrent strategy.”[25]

This tells us that the path we're already on, "The U.S. approach to Iran, then, 'remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons' ," should be continued. This doesn't tell us to stop what we're doing. It specifically says to continue exactly as we are. We continue the sanctions and continue pressing Iran to reveal details about their nuclear program.

Mr. Invisible said:
In addition to that, it has been stated that some people are quite skeptical of the IAEA's report as

some, like former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, have grave doubts about the value of the IAEA report.

“I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out from the International Atomic Energy Agency, because the IAEA doesn’t really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel,” says Giraldi.

Thus, the objectivity of the IAEA is in question due to the current director's potential bias.

Well, MarineTpartier suggested the following...

MarineTpartier said:
Here's the thing though. Who are we to tell them they can't have the friggin thing? If Iran wants a nuke, let em have it. As soon as we get intel that they are planning to strike us or an ally, we destroy the nuke. Simple as that.

This suggestion is compelling, because this whole morass over Iran is causing a lot of trouble and tension for everybody. Maybe it would be easiest to take this suggestion and rely on MarineTpartier's backup plan of using intel for forewarning?

BUT then this leaves us in an uncomfortable conundrum. Your source, Philip Giraldi, says we shouldn't trust the IAEA report because they get their intel from other people. He doesn't specifically know who, but guesses it comes from the CIA and Israel. This doesn't say much about bias from the IAEA, but does suggest bias from the CIA and Israel. Which means we shouldn't trust our own intel, which means we also can't trust our own intel about an impending launch from Iran. This compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke.

If we look at it the opposite way, we could trust our intel to give us accurate warning about a potential attack. But then if we trust the CIA about that, shouldn't we trust the CIA when we they provide intel about Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA?

We can't say, "let 'em have the nuke," and trust in our intelligence services when, we want to believe in Philip Giraldi who essentially says don't trust in intelligence services! And if we do that, how can we trust a Pentagon report that get's its information from, Philip Giraldi's other people?

the_recruit · Mar 6, 2012

Paschendale said:
Iran wants us alive, prosperous, and buying their oil.

Then how do you explain Iran's willingness to pursue activities that result in total boycotts of their oil from the West?

the_recruit · Mar 6, 2012

AdamT said:
In a lot of ways it's like Groundhog Day. Inspectors and folks in the US and Israel were going nuts because Iraq was dragging its feet on inspections, of course assuming that Saddam was hiding something. When, as it turns out, what he was really hiding was the fact that he didn't have jack ****. He didn't want the Iranians to know how weak he was. I'm quite sure that a lot of Iran's actions are animated by a similar motive. If they can build a bomb or two, or at least create the impression that the MIGHT have a bomb or two, it would significantly enhance their national security.

But that's not what they're doing. No one believes Iran has nukes yet. No one will believe that until there is seismographic evidence of a nuclear detonation.

Iran isn't creating the impression that they have nukes; Iran is creating the impression that they are in the process of developing nukes. And giving your enemies that perception CERTAINLY does not afford you national security, as evidenced by recent events. On the contrary, it makes Iran's chances of being attacked by foreign entities incredibly higher.

What you're suggesting is a massive strategic blunder. You try to keep your development of nukes as secret as possible. Which is exactly what Iran has been doing, by failing to disclose locations of its centrifuges, etc.

edit: I mean, look your example of Saddam. Yeah, that strategy worked out well for him, didn't it?

AdamT · Mar 6, 2012

the_recruit said:
But that's not what they're doing. No one believes Iran has nukes yet. No one will believe that until there is seismographic evidence of a nuclear detonation.

Iran isn't creating the impression that they have nukes; Iran is creating the impression that they are in the process of developing nukes. And giving your enemies that perception CERTAINLY does not afford you national security, as evidenced by recent events. On the contrary, it makes Iran's chances of being attacked by foreign entities incredibly higher.

What you're suggesting is a massive strategic blunder. You try to keep your development of nukes as secret as possible. Which is exactly what Iran has been doing, by failing to disclose locations of its centrifuges, etc.

edit: I mean, look your example of Saddam. Yeah, that strategy worked out well for him, didn't it?

Yes, that's right. What I meant to say is that's what they're aiming for -- as opposed to aiming to develop nukes so they can run right out and drop one on Israel.

Paschendale · Mar 7, 2012

the_recruit said:
Then how do you explain Iran's willingness to pursue activities that result in total boycotts of their oil from the West?

Because they know we won't follow through with it. They know that we need them. But one of the most important things to remember is this: Most of the actions taken by these regimes aren't about us. They really aren't. One of the big reasons to maintain some hostility towards the US is to look strong for their neighbors. That's why Saddam couldn't submit meekly to the UN like we wanted him to. He needed to look strong in front of Iran. And he probably wanted them to think he had dangerous weapons. It wasn't even really about keeping secrets from us. It was about keeping secrets from his enemies that were close to home.

Come on, the world does not revolve around the United States.

Mr. Invisible · Mar 7, 2012

EagleAye said:
From this, we can see that Amano intends "to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent". So although he is firmly on the side of the US in desiring to be sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons, he also intends to be fair in his assessment of Iran. This tells us we're getting his most accurate report.

This tells us that the path we're already on, "The U.S. approach to Iran, then, 'remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons' ," should be continued. This doesn't tell us to stop what we're doing. It specifically says to continue exactly as we are. We continue the sanctions and continue pressing Iran to reveal details about their nuclear program.

Click to expand...

Actually no. Since it tell us that Iran's reasoning for wanting a nuclear weapon is defensive it then raises the question as to why were are so busy threatening and pounding the drums of war.

Well, MarineTpartier suggested the following...

This suggestion is compelling, because this whole morass over Iran is causing a lot of trouble and tension for everybody. Maybe it would be easiest to take this suggestion and rely on MarineTpartier's backup plan of using intel for forewarning?

BUT then this leaves us in an uncomfortable conundrum. Your source, Philip Giraldi, says we shouldn't trust the IAEA report because they get their intel from other people. He doesn't specifically know who, but guesses it comes from the CIA and Israel. This doesn't say much about bias from the IAEA, but does suggest bias from the CIA and Israel. Which means we shouldn't trust our own intel, which means we also can't trust our own intel about an impending launch from Iran. This compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke.

Click to expand...

Actually, what you are saying is a problem. You suggest that we may not be able to trust our own intel, then say that this "compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke." However, if we can't trust our own intel, then how would we be able to trust our own intel regarding Iran having a nuclear weapon. The fact of the matter is that a lot of former intelligence information is being ignored by the Obama administration in order to keep pushing for war against Iran. Such as the fact that National Intelligence Estimate released a report saying "that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003." (The Bush Administration’s operations in Iran : The New Yorker) In addition to this, Leon Panetta admitted that the US didn't think that Iran was making a nuclear weapon. In March of last year, intelligence officials stated that they "did not know if Iran eventually would decide to build nuclear weapons." (U.S. Updates Iran Assessment | Arms Control Association) And finally, it was reported that intelligence officials have said that "[Iran's] leaders have not decided about going ahead with an atomic weapon." (U.S. intelligence: Iran leaders reopened nuke debate | Reuters)

However, the push to war is still going on and thus we must ask the question: If we don't think that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, then why are we still threatening them?

If we look at it the opposite way, we could trust our intel to give us accurate warning about a potential attack. But then if we trust the CIA about that, shouldn't we trust the CIA when we they provide intel about Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA?

We can't say, "let 'em have the nuke," and trust in our intelligence services when, we want to believe in Philip Giraldi who essentially says don't trust in intelligence services! And if we do that, how can we trust a Pentagon report that get's its information from, Philip Giraldi's other people?

Click to expand...

Yes, Giraldi is saying not to trust the intelligence services as the information they are giving out may very well be politically motivated. For example, during the lead-up to the Iraq war, everything one was saying that Iraq had WMDs when this turned out not to be true.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 7, 2012

Paschendale said:
Because they know we won't follow through with it. They know that we need them. But one of the most important things to remember is this: Most of the actions taken by these regimes aren't about us. They really aren't.

As of January 2012, Iran exports 22% of its oil to China, 14% to Japan, 13% to India, 10% to South Korea, 7% to Italy, 7% to Turkey, 6% to Spain and the remainder to France, Greece (& other European countries), Taiwan, Sri Lanka, South Africa.

One of the big reasons to maintain some hostility towards the US is to look strong for their neighbors. That's why Saddam couldn't submit meekly to the UN like we wanted him to.

God this is just a terrible post. Saddam did "submit meekly" to IAEA inspectors (and sanctions and giving up national economic sovereignty, etc.) for a very long time and stopped when the searches became intrusive to matters of national security and it was found that some inspectors were spying on sensitive Iraqi sites. It was blatantly obvious that Iraq had absolutely zero weapons of mass destruction for quite some time prior to the invasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

And he probably wanted them to think he had dangerous weapons.

No. He didn't. He wanted everyone to know that he didn't. The Ba'ath administration pretty much gave free reign to weapons inspectors for years.

This entire thread is just pitiful.

the_recruit · Mar 7, 2012

Paschendale said:
Because they know we won't follow through with it. They know that we need them.

Um, what? The US has had a total trade embargo on Iran since 1995...

AdamT · Mar 7, 2012

Khayembii Communique said:
As of January 2012, Iran exports 22% of its oil to China, 14% to Japan, 13% to India, 10% to South Korea, 7% to Italy, 7% to Turkey, 6% to Spain and the remainder to France, Greece (& other European countries), Taiwan, Sri Lanka, South Africa.

God this is just a terrible post. Saddam did "submit meekly" to IAEA inspectors (and sanctions and giving up national economic sovereignty, etc.) for a very long time and stopped when the searches became intrusive to matters of national security and it was found that some inspectors were spying on sensitive Iraqi sites. It was blatantly obvious that Iraq had absolutely zero weapons of mass destruction for quite some time prior to the invasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

No. He didn't. He wanted everyone to know that he didn't. The Ba'ath administration pretty much gave free reign to weapons inspectors for years.

This entire thread is just pitiful.

I think you've overstated the case a little ... but just a little. The Iraqis biggest problem was that they destroyed a lot of their WMD on their own following the first Gulf War, but they didn't document it. So you had this ridiculous situation where the inspectors were saying, "show us this stuff -- we know you've got it." And the Iraqis would say, "we can't show it to you -- we destroyed it." And the inspectors would say, "prove it." And the Iraqis would say, "we can't ... we destroyed it." And round and round it went.

Grant · Mar 7, 2012

Khayembii Communique said:
As of January 2012, Iran exports 22% of its oil to China, 14% to Japan, 13% to India, 10% to South Korea, 7% to Italy, 7% to Turkey, 6% to Spain and the remainder to France, Greece (& other European countries), Taiwan, Sri Lanka, South Africa.

God this is just a terrible post. Saddam did "submit meekly" to IAEA inspectors (and sanctions and giving up national economic sovereignty, etc.) for a very long time and stopped when the searches became intrusive to matters of national security and it was found that some inspectors were spying on sensitive Iraqi sites. It was blatantly obvious that Iraq had absolutely zero weapons of mass destruction for quite some time prior to the invasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

No. He didn't. He wanted everyone to know that he didn't. The Ba'ath administration pretty much gave free reign to weapons inspectors for years.

This entire thread is just pitiful.

No. your lack of knowledge about what was going on in Iraq is what's pitiful.

Christopher Hitchens - Best of the Iraq War Hitchslaps - YouTube

The contemporary Left will ignore the most heinous dictatorships known to mankind in order to blame America first.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 7, 2012

I like how your post addresses absolutely nothing, typical Grant rant.

EagleAye · Mar 7, 2012

Mr. Invisible said:
Actually, what you are saying is a problem. You suggest that we may not be able to trust our own intel, then say that this "compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke." However, if we can't trust our own intel, then how would we be able to trust our own intel regarding Iran having a nuclear weapon. The fact of the matter is that a lot of former intelligence information is being ignored by the Obama administration in order to keep pushing for war against Iran. Such as the fact that National Intelligence Estimate released a report saying "that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003." (The Bush Administration’s operations in Iran : The New Yorker) In addition to this, Leon Panetta admitted that the US didn't think that Iran was making a nuclear weapon. In March of last year, intelligence officials stated that they "did not know if Iran eventually would decide to build nuclear weapons." (U.S. Updates Iran Assessment | Arms Control Association) And finally, it was reported that intelligence officials have said that "[Iran's] leaders have not decided about going ahead with an atomic weapon." (U.S. intelligence: Iran leaders reopened nuke debate | Reuters)

However, the push to war is still going on and thus we must ask the question: If we don't think that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, then why are we still threatening them?

Yes, Giraldi is saying not to trust the intelligence services as the information they are giving out may very well be politically motivated. For example, during the lead-up to the Iraq war, everything one was saying that Iraq had WMDs when this turned out not to be true.

The read I'm seeing from our intelligence services - and what I think you're seeing too - is that Iran does NOT currently have a nuclear weapon. That Iran is only considering their options. But now we have your source, Giraldi, telling us not to trust intelligence services. THAT is where the problem lay. His disbelief in intel from the CIA pushes us closer to an attack on Iran. For me, I think our intel has got it right and we should trust the CIA. They are saying Iran doesn't have a nuke and hasn't made a solid push to build one, but has also explored the possibility of assembling them and what it would take to do so. What the IAEA is getting and what the reports you are finding is consistent with this. The different views are not necessarily contradictory; they are two different assessments (from different agencies) looking at only specific parts of the same intel.

If Iran does build a nuke and mounts it on a missile, they are unlikely to actually use that missile. That would be like signing their own death warrant. In this case, it would be a strictly defensive weapon. But while people like to claim that Iran is completely harmless because they haven't invaded anyone, I refuse to believe they are harmless. Iran doesn't attack anyone directly, they always get someone else (Hamas,Hezbollah) to do their dirty work. Iran does encourage conflict, they just don't do it themselves. This makes them far from harmless. So It's not the nuclear-tipped missiles that concern me, it's the thought of Iran handing a nuclear warhead to someone else and getting them to detonate it. And that is why we should be concerned about Iran weaponizing their nuclear program.

And if anything, Obama is dialing back the "war drums," and pushing for more negotiations. We easily could have attacked by now, but Obama is saying no. Let's be clear on that.

AdamT · Mar 7, 2012

EagleAye said:
The read I'm seeing from our intelligence services - and what I think you're seeing too - is that Iran does NOT currently have a nuclear weapon. That Iran is only considering their options. But now we have your source, Giraldi, telling us not to trust intelligence services. THAT is where the problem lay. His disbelief in intel from the CIA pushes us closer to an attack on Iran. For me, I think our intel has got it right and we should trust the CIA. They are saying Iran doesn't have a nuke and hasn't made a solid push to build one, but has also explored the possibility of assembling them and what it would take to do so. What the IAEA is getting and what the reports you are finding is consistent with this. The different views are not necessarily contradictory; they are two different assessments (from different agencies) looking at only specific parts of the same intel.

If Iran does build a nuke and mounts it on a missile, they are unlikely to actually use that missile. That would be like signing their own death warrant. In this case, it would be a strictly defensive weapon. But while people like to claim that Iran is completely harmless because they haven't invaded anyone, I refuse to believe they are harmless. Iran doesn't attack anyone directly, they always get someone else (Hamas,Hezbollah) to do their dirty work. Iran does encourage conflict, they just don't do it themselves. This makes them far from harmless. So It's not the nuclear-tipped missiles that concern me, it's the thought of Iran handing a nuclear warhead to someone else and getting them to detonate it. And that is why we should be concerned about Iran weaponizing their nuclear program.

And if anything, Obama is dialing back the "war drums," and pushing for more negotiations. We easily could have attacked by now, but Obama is saying no. Let's be clear on that.

If, e.g. Hezbollah, set off a nuke, don't you think we'd be smart enough to know where it came from? And don't you think the Iranians are smart enough to know we'd know?

EagleAye · Mar 7, 2012

AdamT said:
If, e.g. Hezbollah, set off a nuke, don't you think we'd be smart enough to know where it came from? And don't you think the Iranians are smart enough to know we'd know?

Even on this site, we have many people who think Iran is utterly harmless, and therefor blameless. They claim that Iran has done nothing wrong to anyone. When others offer that Iran has supplied arms to Hamas and Hezbollah, supplied fighters and IEDs into Iraq, supplied weapons to the Taliban, and supplied tanks and arms for the civilian massacre in Syria, these smart enough to know facts are tossed aside as preposterous. The counter is it's only the US doing bad things in the world so we should stop falsely accusing Iran.

And who would it be that tells us Iran passed a nuke to Hezbollah? The CIA. Well nobody wants to believe anything the CIA says. I always hear, "oh yeah and they CIA got it right about WMDs in Iraq, right?" So our primary source of information wouldn't be accepted anyway.

This would show that we are NOT smart enough to know where Hezbollah would get a hypothetical nuke. It tells Iran that a good chunk of American society is fooled into believing Iran would never do a bad thing or even a dumb thing. So this tells Iran they could quite likely get away with claiming innocence of delivering a nuke to Hezbollah.

Gardener · Mar 7, 2012

EagleAye said:
Even on this site, we have many people who think Iran is utterly harmless, and therefor blameless. They claim that Iran has done nothing wrong to anyone.

That's because this site has so many kids stuck in that "acting out" phase of their lives.

Mr. Invisible · Mar 7, 2012

EagleAye said:
The read I'm seeing from our intelligence services - and what I think you're seeing too - is that Iran does NOT currently have a nuclear weapon. That Iran is only considering their options. But now we have your source, Giraldi, telling us not to trust intelligence services. THAT is where the problem lay. His disbelief in intel from the CIA pushes us closer to an attack on Iran. For me, I think our intel has got it right and we should trust the CIA. They are saying Iran doesn't have a nuke and hasn't made a solid push to build one, but has also explored the possibility of assembling them and what it would take to do so. What the IAEA is getting and what the reports you are finding is consistent with this. The different views are not necessarily contradictory; they are two different assessments (from different agencies) looking at only specific parts of the same intel.

This I entirely agree on. According to current intel, Iran is currently not attempting to build a nuclear weapon.

If Iran does build a nuke and mounts it on a missile, they are unlikely to actually use that missile. That would be like signing their own death warrant. In this case, it would be a strictly defensive weapon. But while people like to claim that Iran is completely harmless because they haven't invaded anyone, I refuse to believe they are harmless. Iran doesn't attack anyone directly, they always get someone else (Hamas,Hezbollah) to do their dirty work. Iran does encourage conflict, they just don't do it themselves. This makes them far from harmless. So It's not the nuclear-tipped missiles that concern me, it's the thought of Iran handing a nuclear warhead to someone else and getting them to detonate it. And that is why we should be concerned about Iran weaponizing their nuclear program.

I would not say that Iran is "harmless," but I think that they are not the threat that the media and so many pundits are trying to make them out to be. While they may be able to launch some rockets and do a lot of saber-rattling, they are not, in any way, an existential threat to either the United States or Israel.

I don't think that Iran would be so stupid as to hand off a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas because it is already common knowledge that Iran funds both organizations and that if either group were to get a nuke, we'd already have a good idea of who gave it to them using the process of elimination.

And if anything, Obama is dialing back the "war drums," and pushing for more negotiations. We easily could have attacked by now, but Obama is saying no. Let's be clear on that.

Actually, I'd have to disagree as in his recent speech to AIPAC, Obama stated

I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.

(Transcript of Obama?s AIPAC speech - POLITICO.com)

In addition to this, Obama stated in a recent interview with The Atlantic that "both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities" and "that Tehran's nuclear program would represent a 'profound' national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran's violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran." (Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff' - Jeffrey Goldberg - International - The Atlantic)

So not only do you have Obama saying that we'll still use military force, but in addition to this, that he has completely and totally given up on even attempting to contain Iran of they do get a nuclear weapon. I don't know about you, but that is pretty pro-war rhetoric.

Maxientius · Mar 7, 2012

Paschendale said:
Even if Iran does build nukes, why would we think that they'd use them on us? What possible benefit is there in fighting the United States and almost certainly being destroyed? No, the real targets of Iranian nukes would be their neighbors. Probably their Sunni neighbors first, even before Israel. Even Israel is probably protected under our shadow. Countries like Bangladesh, Jordan, Egypt, or Pakistan are the ones who really need to worry about Iranian nukes, not us.

Are you out of your mind?

Israel, first of all, does not need to be protected by America. Israel is more than capable of protecting itself from damn near anyone, including the United States.

Second of all, if you think that Iran will drop nuclear weapons on its neighbors, the people Iran hopes to ally with against the oppressive and greedy Western World, you should go read up on your international relations. Iranian nukes could cause MASSIVE losses in any Western target and could effectively crush American resolve to fight back. Remember the Cold War? If Iran dropped a nuke, do you honestly believe any country in the world is going to risk nuclear armageddon to respond? Remember 9/11? A nuclear warhead on New York City will make the Twin Towers look like a pebble being thrown at us.

Open your eyes to the threat, or I promise you, you'll die with your eyes closed.

Maxientius · Mar 7, 2012

Mr. Invisible said:
I would not say that Iran is "harmless," but I think that they are not the threat that the media and so many pundits are trying to make them out to be. While they may be able to launch some rockets and do a lot of saber-rattling, they are not, in any way, an existential threat to either the United States or Israel.

I don't think that Iran would be so stupid as to hand off a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas because it is already common knowledge that Iran funds both organizations and that if either group were to get a nuke, we'd already have a good idea of who gave it to them using the process of elimination.

Iran's main desire for Nukes is most likely to be the threat to everyone they desire to be. The power of having nukes is nearly as impressive as the ball size required to actually use them. And even if they did launch Rocket Mounted nukes, measures are in place to (hopefully) help protect America against such an attack.

But, that being said, make no mistake - Israel will not allow Iran to develop a true nuclear weapon that could be used against them and to think they will is utter folly. May I remind you of the Munich terrorists that the Israelis illegally hunted down and assassinated? Israel has the determination to do what is necessary to protect its national security. A plane has to fly into our buildings before we'll step up and fight back.

World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

EagleAye

Khayembii Communique

EagleAye

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country

AdamT

AdamT

EagleAye

the_recruit

the_recruit

AdamT

Paschendale

Uncanny

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country

Khayembii Communique

the_recruit

AdamT

Grant

Khayembii Communique

EagleAye

AdamT

EagleAye

Gardener

free market communist

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country

Maxientius

Member

Maxientius

Member