• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From today's edition of The Washington Post:

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran has failed to provide the information or access needed to allay the agency’s concerns about the weapons potential of the country’s nuclear program.

With the deadline nearing for international talks on constraining Iran’s nuclear program, Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, said in an interview that Iran has replied to just one of a dozen queries about “possible military dimensions” of past nuclear activities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.
 
"while the rest have not been addressed at all."
--This is not true at all. There were a total of 7 areas the IAEA has requested investigation into with the PMD's in Iran. Iran has provided 5 of these 7 areas. There now remain two areas.
 
Here is the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities: destroy all Iran's nuclear weapons facilities from the air. Not that this president will ever do that, but the next one might--if it's not too late by then.
 
"while the rest have not been addressed at all."
--This is not true at all. There were a total of 7 areas the IAEA has requested investigation into with the PMD's in Iran. Iran has provided 5 of these 7 areas. There now remain two areas.

There are two outstanding practical matters (https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2015-15.pdf). However, I believe that the Director General was referring to queries/details related to those matters, not indicating that there are more than two such matters. For example, the report states:

The Board of Governors, in its resolution of November 2011 (GOV/2011/69), stressed that it was essential for Iran and the Agency to intensify their dialogue aimed at the urgent resolution of all outstanding substantive issues for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding those issues, including access to all relevant information, documentation, sites, material and personnel in Iran.

Each of those items e.g., relevant information, might constitute one of the multiple areas to which the Director General is referring, even as the items pertain to the two practical issues that remain unresolved.
 
"while the rest have not been addressed at all."
--This is not true at all. There were a total of 7 areas the IAEA has requested investigation into with the PMD's in Iran. Iran has provided 5 of these 7 areas. There now remain two areas.

Oh. So the director of the IAEA has listed out his issues, but DemSocialist knows better, based on..... his.... vast personal experience? History on the ground in Iran studying their nuclear infrastructure?
 
Here is the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities: destroy all Iran's nuclear weapons facilities from the air. Not that this president will ever do that, but the next one might--if it's not too late by then.

So, the real question is - what happens if Israel decides to go solo, with a passive enablement from Saudi Arabia?
 
Here is the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities: destroy all Iran's nuclear weapons facilities from the air. Not that this president will ever do that, but the next one might--if it's not too late by then.

Some of the facilities are deep underground and might require special forces to destroy them, if a military operation becomes necessary. I don't think we're at that stage yet. My guess is that Israel will put together an operation to destroy them if Israel believes Iran is on the brink of a nuclear breakout.
 
Some of the facilities are deep underground and might require special forces to destroy them, if a military operation becomes necessary. I don't think we're at that stage yet. My guess is that Israel will put together an operation to destroy them if Israel believes Iran is on the brink of a nuclear breakout.

:mrgreen: Meet the Mother Of all Penetrators (MOP) :mrgreen:






:single tear trickles down cheek: It's just..... it's just..... it's just so beautiful.... :)
 
So, the real question is - what happens if Israel decides to go solo, with a passive enablement from Saudi Arabia?

Im gonna guess that is never going to happen. I seriously doubt that Israel will launch a intervention on all of Iran's nuclear sites.
 
Im gonna guess that is never going to happen. I seriously doubt that Israel will launch a intervention on all of Iran's nuclear sites.

:shrug: Israel is A) convinced that an Iranian nuclear program is an existential threat and B) convinced that our government isn't going to do squat about it, and can't be trusted to defend them. They may not, but it is hardly implausible or even at this point perhaps unlikely. They have already launched several lower level attacks against the Iranian nuclear program, some with us, and some on their own.
 
:shrug: Israel is A) convinced that an Iranian nuclear program is an existential threat
No they dont. Contradictory statements from Israel and the Israeli Mossad support this.

and B) convinced that our government isn't going to do squat about it, and can't be trusted to defend them. They may not, but it is hardly implausible or even at this point perhaps unlikely. They have already launched several lower level attacks against the Iranian nuclear program, some with us, and some on their own.
Israel would never go right ahead on their own without 1.)getting the green light from us or 2.)having us somehow directly support them in someway. And I also seriously suspect that we would never allow Iran to get a bomb if they actually are going towards that end goal.
 
Oh. So the director of the IAEA has listed out his issues, but DemSocialist knows better, based on..... his.... vast personal experience? History on the ground in Iran studying their nuclear infrastructure?

Let's be fair. As the Dem knows Iranians would never lie to us. Only those tyrants the Israelis with their newly elected dictator would do something so ghastly.

Besides if you are going to allow a Jewish Israeli to buy an apartment in East Jerusalem why should you not also allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon that they could transfer to Hamas or Hezballoh?
 
So, the real question is - what happens if Israel decides to go solo, with a passive enablement from Saudi Arabia?

That IS a question. I am sure Israel will do just that, if Mr. Obama's appeasement forces it to. And I think you're right that any attack would use Saudi airspace, because the Saudi government would be all for it. Israel's 25 F-15 I's can carry the 5,000 lb. bombs it got from us, at that extreme range only one per plane because of the weight in fuel needed. That would probably be enough to destroy both galleries at Natanz. But those bombs are almost certainly not big enough to destroy the centrifuge gallery at Fordow, even if there were enough F-15's left over to strike it. It's buried too deep.

I see someone has mentioned a commando operation, but I think that's a longshot--at least if done by Israeli forces. Fordow is near Qom, about 300 miles inside Iran, and it's sure to be strongly defended. I've heard Michael Ledeen, who watches Iran very closely, say he thinks Israel has used Iranian rebel groups for some attacks--with impressive results. It would be nice if some of them were secretly working at Fordow and could set the place on fire, but I doubt there is much to burn. The centrifuges would have to be physically wrecked, and short of fire, it would take a large blast to do that. No one could sneak that much explosive into the gallery.

I suppose it's possible to attack the electrical supply and the machinery that regulates it with the precision the centrifuges require. I understand variations in the power supply can set off imbalance and vibration that can ruin them. I think that was the purpose of introducing the computer virus at Natanz that was talked about several years ago. If worst comes to worst, a nuclear weapon would destroy the centrifuges at Fordow, but no one wants to see that. It would have to be set off at or below ground level to do the job, and even a bomb of a couple kilotons would send a huge amount of radioactive dirt into the air. But Israel rightly sees this as a threat to its existence, and if no other way could be found, I am very sure it would use a nuclear weapon. And it would not let concern for what any other country thought of it get in the way.
 
No they dont. Contradictory statements from Israel and the Israeli Mossad support this.

Actually, yes, they do.


Israel would never go right ahead on their own without 1.)getting the green light from us or 2.)having us somehow directly support them in someway. And I also seriously suspect that we would never allow Iran to get a bomb if they actually are going towards that end goal.

1.) Israel doesn't need a green light from us. In fact, if Israel decides to do something without us, it's just as likely they wouldn't notify us, particularly given that the current administration has publicly and secretly released information provided by Israel to us previously with the intention of undermining their efforts. 2.) Iran has already stated that a nuclear device is their intention. Do you think they're lying? They've vowed to wipe Israel from the map. Do you think they are lying about that, too? At what point do you establish trust in the statements from the Iranian leaders? How do you differentiate between those statements you believe are bluster and those which are substantive in both nature and content?
 
No they dont. Contradictory statements from Israel and the Israeli Mossad support this.

You were already corrected on this once and I assume that you're not intending to let the facts get in your way because you appear to keep the assertion of yours that the Mossad and the Israeli government are contradicting each other. They have not, and are not, contradicting each other on the Iranian issue. That was a misleading by the guardian and al Jazeera.
 
That IS a question. I am sure Israel will do just that, if Mr. Obama's appeasement forces it to. And I think you're right that any attack would use Saudi airspace, because the Saudi government would be all for it. Israel's 25 F-15 I's can carry the 5,000 lb. bombs it got from us, at that extreme range only one per plane because of the weight in fuel needed. That would probably be enough to destroy both galleries at Natanz. But those bombs are almost certainly not big enough to destroy the centrifuge gallery at Fordow, even if there were enough F-15's left over to strike it. It's buried too deep.

I see someone has mentioned a commando operation, but I think that's a longshot--at least if done by Israeli forces. Fordow is near Qom, about 300 miles inside Iran, and it's sure to be strongly defended. I've heard Michael Ledeen, who watches Iran very closely, say he thinks Israel has used Iranian rebel groups for some attacks--with impressive results. It would be nice if some of them were secretly working at Fordow and could set the place on fire, but I doubt there is much to burn. The centrifuges would have to be physically wrecked, and short of fire, it would take a large blast to do that. No one could sneak that much explosive into the gallery.

I suppose it's possible to attack the electrical supply and the machinery that regulates it with the precision the centrifuges require. I understand variations in the power supply can set off imbalance and vibration that can ruin them. I think that was the purpose of introducing the computer virus at Natanz that was talked about several years ago. If worst comes to worst, a nuclear weapon would destroy the centrifuges at Fordow, but no one wants to see that. It would have to be set off at or below ground level to do the job, and even a bomb of a couple kilotons would send a huge amount of radioactive dirt into the air. But Israel rightly sees this as a threat to its existence, and if no other way could be found, I am very sure it would use a nuclear weapon. And it would not let concern for what any other country thought of it get in the way.

Submarine-launched cruise missiles are also a potential option if your goal is to create enough damage to significantly delay - the question is, can they get them through the Strait undetected.
 
No they dont. Contradictory statements from Israel and the Israeli Mossad support this.

1. Israeli leadership is who makes these decisions, not Israeli intelligence. Example: US Intelligence thought that this organization called "ISIL" was a serious and growing problem all throughout early 2014, but the President of the US didn't want them to be a threat, and so he dismissed them as "JV". Result: US Policy Assumed ISIL Was JV.

2. The documents that you are referencing (and we do not know what is briefed or what the consolidated assessment of the Israeli IC is) do not disagree with Israeli leadership as to the nature of the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, but rather diverge somewhat from his assessment of their position in the process of development.

Israel would never go right ahead on their own without 1.)getting the green light from us or 2.)having us somehow directly support them in someway.

Hm. And what makes you so very confident in that assumption? If Israel decides they want to destroy or significantly degrade the Iranian nuclear program, and they know that we will object strenuously and possibly even move to hinder them doing so, it makes more sense for them to simply go ahead and do it without mentioning it to us ahead of time, or to give us such a short window of warning (say, 30 minutes) that we are unable to react.

The Israelis have already taken actions we disapprove of without getting the green light or support from us. They've already been launching attacks in Iran a'la solo. The Saudi's have also already taken major military actions we disapprove of without getting the green light or support from us. This is what happens when you convince your allies in the region that you are ineffectual and untrustworthy - you become less of a factor in their considerations.

And I also seriously suspect that we would never allow Iran to get a bomb if they actually are going towards that end goal.

:shrug: I wish you were correct, but the evidence that is available suggests fairly strongly that the administration has decided to side with the portion of the foreign policy establishment that claims a nuclear Iran can be contained, and at this point is merely paying lip service to the notion that such would be unacceptable.
 
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.
If this news shocks anyone, well... they just haven't been paying attention
 
If this news shocks anyone, well... they just haven't been paying attention

It doesn't shock me. Moreover, I fully expect that any "agreement" if it is reached at the end of March will lack specifics and concrete details, including the vital measures related to verification. IMO, any such agreement that lacks concreteness should result in Congress's putting all the sanctions back in place, as it would be abundantly clear that Iran is merely drawing along the process, yielding little, while buying time for itself.
 
If this news shocks anyone, well... they just haven't been paying attention

We had a discussion to this point the other here at DP. There are a lot of people that think we can trust the Persians.
 
Submarine-launched cruise missiles are also a potential option if your goal is to create enough damage to significantly delay - the question is, can they get them through the Strait undetected.

I'm sure they could get one of those three Dolphin-type subs into the Gulf undetected if necessary, but it's a good guess the missiles on them have large nuclear warheads--maybe a hundred kilotons or more. Easier just to launch a ballistic missile from Israel. Even there, I suspect all the warheads for them are pretty powerful--at least ten kilotons, and probably more. Since an airburst would not be effective against a deeply buried target, would mean a huge amount of radioactive fallout. Israel just doesn't have any good choices when it comes to Fordow--and yet one or two B-2's carrying the 30,000 lb. bomb could surely destroy it.

No doubt it sounds crazy to a lot of people to talk about using nuclear weapons, but Israel will not let Iran threaten its existence. Unlike a lot of willfully ignorant people here, Israel's leaders are not taken in by the fact the Islamic jihadists in Tehran wear suits and know how to seem reasonable. When these theocrats talk about destroying Israel, they take them at their word. They know that these fanatics hate and want to exterminate Jews because in their bizarre, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, that is what they are called on to do.
 
It doesn't shock me. Moreover, I fully expect that any "agreement" if it is reached at the end of March will lack specifics and concrete details, including the vital measures related to verification. IMO, any such agreement that lacks concreteness should result in Congress's putting all the sanctions back in place, as it would be abundantly clear that Iran is merely drawing along the process, yielding little, while buying time for itself.

I think using economic sanctions is an unreliable strategy. When a totalitarian government is determined to do something, it may just pay the price and do it. The League of Nations placed all sorts of economic sanctions on Italy in 1935, but Mussolini was hell-bent on invading Abyssinia and did it anyway. The regime in Tehran is trying to buy time with a lot of chicanery, just as it has been doing for years.
 
I think using economic sanctions is an unreliable strategy. When a totalitarian government is determined to do something, it may just pay the price and do it. The League of Nations placed all sorts of economic sanctions on Italy in 1935, but Mussolini was hell-bent on invading Abyssinia and did it anyway. The regime in Tehran is trying to buy time with a lot of chicanery, just as it has been doing for years.

I'm only referring to what Congress should do once the March deadline passes. This is a starting point, only. The easing was premised on the assumption (a flawed one, IMO) that Iran would become more flexible during negotiations. The lack of a credible agreement, especially after the deadline had already been extended, would signal that there's no purpose in sustaining the eased sanctions, as Iran had remained intransigent. Nothing would be gained from continuing the relaxation of sanctions. Iran would be the sole beneficiary of a continuation of that policy.

Afterward, the U.S. and other major powers would need to seriously and objectively assess the risks pertaining to Iran's ongoing nuclear activities, identify contingent scenarios by which Iran could try to "break out" in developing a nuclear weapons capability, and develop robust options for minimizing the risk of such an outcome. Such an exercise would likely entail additional measures.
 
I'm only referring to what Congress should do once the March deadline passes. This is a starting point, only. The easing was premised on the assumption (a flawed one, IMO) that Iran would become more flexible during negotiations. The lack of a credible agreement, especially after the deadline had already been extended, would signal that there's no purpose in sustaining the eased sanctions, as Iran had remained intransigent. Nothing would be gained from continuing the relaxation of sanctions. Iran would be the sole beneficiary of a continuation of that policy.

Afterward, the U.S. and other major powers would need to seriously and objectively assess the risks pertaining to Iran's ongoing nuclear activities, identify contingent scenarios by which Iran could try to "break out" in developing a nuclear weapons capability, and develop robust options for minimizing the risk of such an outcome. Such an exercise would likely entail additional measures.

Limpwrist probably knows what a contingent scenario is, but his idea of a robust option is flapping his gums about some imaginary red line. When "additional measures" mean the serious use of military force, this sad excuse for a president is not about to take them. And the whole world knows it.
 
Back
Top Bottom