• 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!

G8 warning on Iran crackdown

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
BBC NEWS | Europe | G8 warning on Iran crackdown

Speaking on Thursday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned that a unilateral Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be an "absolute catastrophe".

But he reassured Israel that it was "not alone".

Mr Sarkozy threatened further sanctions against Iran if it failed to respond to US overtures for talks on its nuclear activities.

Mr Obama said the international community would not wait "indefinitely" for Iran to comply with its demands.

The joint declaration said the leaders would "take stock" of whether Iran had complied with demands for a freeze on its nuclear activities at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in the US in September.

"Between August and September it's for them to decide how they want things to evolve. Pittsburgh is the date," said Mr Sarkozy.

Once again we have rhetoric instead of action against Iran. Tell me, do you think the G20 meeting will take any real action if Iran has still not put a halt to their nuclear proliferation?
 
Once again we have rhetoric instead of action against Iran. Tell me, do you think the G20 meeting will take any real action if Iran has still not put a halt to their nuclear proliferation?

Europe has little choice but to threaten empty sanctions.

So long as Russia supplies Western Europe with natural gas and Iran with nuclear technology, Iran is more or less at liberty to ignore sanctions, while the blowback from a military strike hits them close to home.

Interestingly enough, the more nations assert that Israel should not strike Iran, the more plausible the case for Israel striking Iran becomes.
 
Europe has little choice but to threaten empty sanctions.

So long as Russia supplies Western Europe with natural gas and Iran with nuclear technology, Iran is more or less at liberty to ignore sanctions, while the blowback from a military strike hits them close to home.

Interestingly enough, the more nations assert that Israel should not strike Iran, the more plausible the case for Israel striking Iran becomes.

Why is it that you feel it becomes more plausible for Israel to strike?
 
Yes, Celticlord, could you help me with the logic flow in your argument. Thanks.
 
Why is it that you feel it becomes more plausible for Israel to strike?
Because there is little other reason for Europe, the US, and the Arab nations to be putting additional distance between themselves and Israel.

Israel's security situation remains unchanged, and a big part of that security situation is Iran. Europe knows this. Washington knows this.

Israel has had a doctrine of pre-emption for decades. Europe knows this. Washington knows this.

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. This is not a US failure, but a European failure as well. (Interestingly enough, in the recent riots over the contested election, the Islamic Republic reverted to demonizing Iran's traditional adversary the UK moreso than the US.)

A nuclear Iran is the start of a regional arms race in an already unstable part of the globe. Syria and Egypt especially would pursue nuclear weapons--and Libya likely still has the infrastructure of their nuclear program that presumably they shelved some years back. A nuclear Iran very likely is the catalyst that leads to at least a very violent regional conflict in the Middle East.

A quick strike on Bushehr would set the nuclear program back several years at a minimum. One Tomahawk cruise missile would do it, but that would leave US fingerprints all over the attack and could itself be destabilizing.

Europe has scolded Israel over the Palestinian issue--and now they are telling Israel to stand down over Iran. That's either some major chutzpah on Europe's part, or they are getting their plausible deniabilities in ahead of time. An isolated Israel has more reason to strike now rather than wait on problematic diplomacy.

Essentially its a case of the lady protesting too much. The more the world frets about Israel attacking, the more I tend to suspect that is exactly what the world wants.
 
Makes sense. I wonder though, will the world be willing to defend Israel when all hell breaks loose. If such an occurence happens, then Hamas, Hezzbolah, Iran, Syria, and the rest will take aim at Israel.
 
Makes sense. I wonder though, will the world be willing to defend Israel when all hell breaks loose. If such an occurence happens, then Hamas, Hezzbolah, Iran, Syria, and the rest will take aim at Israel.
Hamas and Hezzbolah will undertake a fresh round of rocket attacks, and Netanyahu will send troops back into Gaza and southern Lebanon to take out the rocket sites. Syria will protest, Egypt will ponderously pontificate about Israel being hostile to Muslim nations, Saudi Arabia will proclaim ignorance of Israeli overflight of their territory--and with Iran a pariah nation whose economy is hurting because of a lack of oil revenue (damn that falling spot price! ;) ), coupled with a growing internal civil conflict, their capacity to fund and support Hamas and Hezbollah will be limited.

Also, a strike at Bushehr by Israel would be a black eye for Ahmadenijad, because it will have been his over the top rhetoric that set the stage. It would be another reason for the clerical leadership in Iran to flex their guardianship muscles and move against Ahamedenijad and Khamenei.
 
I agree with CL, and would take it one step further: I think the western powers are all but counting on Israel making such strikes as either the fallback plan/expected outcome, or are twiddling their thumbs and hoping they will just do it to get the headache off of their agenda.

Everyone wants to make nice with oil rich nations (or take them over, *cough*Iraq*cough*) but its not like Israel's relations with Iran/any muslim country could get any worse so they have nothing to lose...

and Israeli strick would mean a whole lot of wringing of hands and admonitions from Europe, a hollow pulbic statement and a lot of "Go-GO GODS CHOSEN" by Jews and Fundie wanna-be-jewish Evangelicals, and a whole lot of nothing else...
 
Both of you guys make great arguments. My only point is that regardless if Israel carries out such a strike, rather than the U.S., hatred for the U.S. will still flare and U.S. support for Israel will be viewed as the same as if the U.S. actually performed the strike themselves.

If Israel is attacked with more fevor than Celti predicts, then the U.S. will have to step in anyway. I can see the logic, but I think it is still a very big gamble.
 
Both of you guys make great arguments. My only point is that regardless if Israel carries out such a strike, rather than the U.S., hatred for the U.S. will still flare and U.S. support for Israel will be viewed as the same as if the U.S. actually performed the strike themselves.

If Israel is attacked with more fevor than Celti predicts, then the U.S. will have to step in anyway. I can see the logic, but I think it is still a very big gamble.

Meh, but whachugonnado?

They are right, without the teat of the US jewish and Xian communites buying into the whole holy land [even though people were already living there when the Hebrews showed up]/"God's Chosen People get to live by another standard" then Israel would not exist...

So they have a point.
 
Why is it that you feel it becomes more plausible for Israel to strike?
Because the Saudis are getting ready to put on the blinders.
 
this iran issue must be quite a headache for obama the idealist. to me, the guy still believes he can rehabilitate the rogues in tehran!
 
Both of you guys make great arguments. My only point is that regardless if Israel carries out such a strike, rather than the U.S., hatred for the U.S. will still flare and U.S. support for Israel will be viewed as the same as if the U.S. actually performed the strike themselves.

If Israel is attacked with more fevor than Celti predicts, then the U.S. will have to step in anyway. I can see the logic, but I think it is still a very big gamble.
"gamble" is a relative term.

How much of a gamble is it to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? How much of a gamble is it to allow an arms race to start in the Middle East? Is that more or less of a gamble than turning a blind eye towards the IAF doing their thing?

Choosing the safe option is not a gamble.

Of course, figuring out which is the safe option is a huge gamble....but that gamble the world takes regardless.
 
Meh, but whachugonnado?

They are right, without the teat of the US jewish and Xian communites buying into the whole holy land [even though people were already living there when the Hebrews showed up]/"God's Chosen People get to live by another standard" then Israel would not exist...

So they have a point.
Israel wouldn't exist without any of the group of Jews, not only American Jews.

Also, while there were people living in that area when some of the Jews immigrated there and bought lands, so there were other Jews who've been there for quite a long time.
 
I'll go one more on CL not only will Israel attack but I can see a very massive all out attack, not only would they go and hit the Nuke Site but I can see them sending there Subs into the Indian Ocean via the Canal then come into the Gulf and attacking the following Military Base's.

Attacks by Sub Launch Cruise Missiles

Bandar Abbas Naval Base
Bushehr Naval Base
Khark Naval Base

This would take out the Iranian Navies Kilo-Class Subs based at both Nushehr and Bandar Abbas along with it's Alvand Class Frigate's.

I can also see Sub based attack's on the following Air Base's Bandar Abbas,Shiraz,Tabriz,Mashhad and Doshah Tappeh. All of these base have both Tactical Air Units and Fighter Units with Bander having the bulk of the Iranian Naval Air Units.

This would be followed by a Air Attack at low level by F-15I from the 69th FSq, 107th FSq with Tactical Air Support from 201st and 253rd FSq with there F-16I and tanker support from 120th Sq. and 103rd Sq. this attack package would take out SAM site's and any Iranian Aircraft that would try to intercept the attack package.

This would be an all out once for all attack to put the Iranian Military out of commission for a very long time. And it would also be seen to the rest of the Arab World as a message don't mess with us because we will destroy you.

As for the Arab Worlds reaction well Syria will keeps it's mouth shut since they(Israel) has already level there Nuke Site, Saudi Arabia will say nothing, Egypt will make a small noise publicly but in private will thank Israel as will most of the Gulf Arab Nations. Europe will turn a blind eye and Russia will not say anything do to the many Trade Deals they have with Israel.

The Countries that will demand UN Actions will be Cuba,Venezuela,Bolivia. China will make some noise but not much do tot he fact the United States will tell them in private shut the hell up.
 
I'll go one more on CL not only will Israel attack but I can see a very massive all out attack, not only would they go and hit the Nuke Site but I can see them sending there Subs into the Indian Ocean via the Canal then come into the Gulf and attacking the following Military Base's.
That's not a military strike, but an all out war. Worse, it creates an entire new cult of martyrs to motivate Iran--a country that places great reverence on martyrs. That's not problem resolution, but problem escalation.

Iran's military and navy is not a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. The world will breathe easier when the reactor is no more, but reaching beyond that would push the Arab nations over to Iran's defense.
 
That's not a military strike, but an all out war. Worse, it creates an entire new cult of martyrs to motivate Iran--a country that places great reverence on martyrs. That's not problem resolution, but problem escalation.

Iran's military and navy is not a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. The world will breathe easier when the reactor is no more, but reaching beyond that would push the Arab nations over to Iran's defense.

I disagree Israel has been for a very long time want to strike Iran with a large Air Package and take out there Military base. I can also see them going after the Mullahs and some of the Political Buildings don't forget forget most of the Arab World would like to see Iran knock down a few notch's but will not do it themself. During the Iran-Iraq War most of the Arab Nation backed Iraq.

In order for Israel to strike Bushehr they will need to take out both the Airbase and Naval Base, Sub Based Cruise Missile could take out the Airpower and SAM sites that ring Bushehr. With that said I don't think Israel would stop at Bushehr, I could see them taking out the enrichment plant in Natanz, the Heavy Water facility in Arak, the Uranium Conversion Facility at Esfahan.

Also hitting and taking out Doshah Tappeh Air Base which both the CIA and IAEA suspected to have at least three Yellowcake Facilitys would send a message to Iran and Syria we know what you have and we know were you have them.
 
I disagree Israel has been for a very long time want to strike Iran with a large Air Package and take out there Military base.
No kidding. Of course that's what they want. Pre-emption has long been part of Israel's military doctrine.

However, wanting does not alter the political calculus here. If Israel strikes too much, too hard, and does too much damage to assets not directly tied to the nuclear weapons program, they expose themselves to not just retaliation vis a vis Hamas and Hezbollah, but quite possibly a renewed war with the Arab nations.

What Israel does not want is to put Egypt and Jordan in the position of deciding which nation they hate less, Iran or Israel.

A possible international justification for a limited Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear program may be what we are seeing develop with all these warnings. It would be reckless to attempt stretching that justification to a larger strike on Iran's military. Right now, the nuclear program is the only facility by which Iran might plausibly project military power into Israel--land troops would have to march across Iraq and Jordan to reach Israel, and Iran does not have the naval forces to support an invasion via the Gulf of Aqaba.
 
"gamble" is a relative term.

How much of a gamble is it to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? How much of a gamble is it to allow an arms race to start in the Middle East? Is that more or less of a gamble than turning a blind eye towards the IAF doing their thing?

Choosing the safe option is not a gamble.

Of course, figuring out which is the safe option is a huge gamble....but that gamble the world takes regardless.

I think it is safer for us to do it ourselves. Then we bypass the whole ME war with Israel. We carryout the strikes and face it ourselves. That way we setback the nuclear development, and leave Israel out to seek their own peace.

On the otherhand, we could pay some Iraqi militia to carryout attacks for us.:cool:
 
I'll go one more on CL not only will Israel attack but I can see a very massive all out attack, not only would they go and hit the Nuke Site but I can see them sending there Subs into the Indian Ocean via the Canal then come into the Gulf and attacking the following Military Base's.

Attacks by Sub Launch Cruise Missiles

Bandar Abbas Naval Base
Bushehr Naval Base
Khark Naval Base

This would take out the Iranian Navies Kilo-Class Subs based at both Nushehr and Bandar Abbas along with it's Alvand Class Frigate's.

I can also see Sub based attack's on the following Air Base's Bandar Abbas,Shiraz,Tabriz,Mashhad and Doshah Tappeh. All of these base have both Tactical Air Units and Fighter Units with Bander having the bulk of the Iranian Naval Air Units.

This would be followed by a Air Attack at low level by F-15I from the 69th FSq, 107th FSq with Tactical Air Support from 201st and 253rd FSq with there F-16I and tanker support from 120th Sq. and 103rd Sq. this attack package would take out SAM site's and any Iranian Aircraft that would try to intercept the attack package.

This would be an all out once for all attack to put the Iranian Military out of commission for a very long time. And it would also be seen to the rest of the Arab World as a message don't mess with us because we will destroy you.

As for the Arab Worlds reaction well Syria will keeps it's mouth shut since they(Israel) has already level there Nuke Site, Saudi Arabia will say nothing, Egypt will make a small noise publicly but in private will thank Israel as will most of the Gulf Arab Nations. Europe will turn a blind eye and Russia will not say anything do to the many Trade Deals they have with Israel.

The Countries that will demand UN Actions will be Cuba,Venezuela,Bolivia. China will make some noise but not much do tot he fact the United States will tell them in private shut the hell up.


I think that is more of your personal military fantasy. Israel will never conduct a fullout war against Iran, without U.S. in the action.
 
No kidding. Of course that's what they want. Pre-emption has long been part of Israel's military doctrine.

However, wanting does not alter the political calculus here. If Israel strikes too much, too hard, and does too much damage to assets not directly tied to the nuclear weapons program, they expose themselves to not just retaliation vis a vis Hamas and Hezbollah, but quite possibly a renewed war with the Arab nations.

What Israel does not want is to put Egypt and Jordan in the position of deciding which nation they hate less, Iran or Israel.

A possible international justification for a limited Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear program may be what we are seeing develop with all these warnings. It would be reckless to attempt stretching that justification to a larger strike on Iran's military. Right now, the nuclear program is the only facility by which Iran might plausibly project military power into Israel--land troops would have to march across Iraq and Jordan to reach Israel, and Iran does not have the naval forces to support an invasion via the Gulf of Aqaba.

CL did you see the site I listed all of them are Nuke related sites and in order for Israel to pull off such an attack they would need to destroy certain Iranian military base's. You do understand that Natanz is located 130 Miles South of Tehran and Arak which is were IR-40 is being Build is also located in Southern Iran and Esfahan is located 50 Miles north of Natanz all of these are in the opposited direction of Bushehr and Israel would need to use a Multi Attack package. I really can't see Israel just going after Bushehr considering the IR-40 Plant would be producing Plutonium that the spent fuel can be turned into Weapons Grade with-in a Year or Less. Their is no way that Israel is going to let that Plant go online all we have to do is look what they did in Iraq and Syria.
 
CL did you see the site I listed all of them are Nuke related sites and in order for Israel to pull off such an attack they would need to destroy certain Iranian military base's. You do understand that Natanz is located 130 Miles South of Tehran and Arak which is were IR-40 is being Build is also located in Southern Iran and Esfahan is located 50 Miles north of Natanz all of these are in the opposited direction of Bushehr and Israel would need to use a Multi Attack package. I really can't see Israel just going after Bushehr considering the IR-40 Plant would be producing Plutonium that the spent fuel can be turned into Weapons Grade with-in a Year or Less. Their is no way that Israel is going to let that Plant go online all we have to do is look what they did in Iraq and Syria.
IR-40 is not likely to be in production before 2011 at the very earliest, with 2014 apparently the more likely time frame.

Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the progress made in the construction of the heavy water research reactor at Arak in Iran; and if he will make a statement. [42508]

Dr. Howells: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Dr. Mohammed El Baradei confirmed in his November 2005 report that the Agency had carried out a design information verification visit to Arak and noted that the civil engineering construction of the reactor building was continuing. In declarations to the IAEA, the Iranian government has stated that the facility should be ready for commissioning in 2014. We are not aware of any change to this timescale.
The reactors at Bushehr are likely to be operational this year, and could produce as much as a quarter ton of plutonium every year--enough to produce as many 30 nuclear weapons.
According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal said was enough for at least 30 atomic bombs. Harmon W. Hubbard raised similar concerns in an April 2003 article titled "Plutonium from Light Water Reactors as Nuclear Weapon Material" published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC). Another report published by the NPEC in 2004 reiterated the concerns about light water reactors and plutonium production.
IR-40 is a small reactor which would produce at most enough plutonium for approximately two to three nuclear weapons per year:
The amount of plutonium a 40MW(th) reactor could produce each year would depend on the reactor's "capacity factor," the percentage of time that they are actually operating. This could range from 60 percent to up to 85 percent. A capacity factor of 60 percent would yield about 9 kilograms each year, while a 90 percent capacity factor would yield 12.5 kilograms of plutonium each year. A single nuclear weapon might require 4 or 5 kilograms of plutonium, so the reactor could produce two or three atomic bombs each year.
IR-40 is a definite concern, but as its operational start date is farther in the future than Bushehr, and is smaller than Bushehr, it is for now a less valuable target than Bushehr.

Israel will likely find itself with the diplomatic capital to make one limited strike on Iran's facilities. While there are legitimate targets besides Bushehr, it is the most valuable target, and, being near the Persian Gulf, is the most easily reached.

Bushehr is what Israel can take out without starting a war. Any more than that and Iran is at war with somebody.
 
Last edited:
Israel wouldn't exist without any of the group of Jews, not only American Jews.

Also, while there were people living in that area when some of the Jews immigrated there and bought lands, so there were other Jews who've been there for quite a long time.
What I meant was even in there own scripture where god tells them they have a "Promised Land" there were already people there they had to kill to get it...

Don't you think if their god was the only real god, and he was really that powerful, he mighta, y'know, set that area aside for them without having to tell them to slaughter every man woman and child without mercy to get it?

That is of course playing devil's advocate that the Torah is even partially true.

Granted some events of their history were indeed chronicled in it, but whenever you have a class of people and they only are allowed into the "Holy of Holies" and their god tells them to tell the people to X,Y,Z...

Well yeah, I don't really think "religous" claims count in matters of territorial dispute...

Or according to Mormons the Native Americans were a tribe of hebrews and we should start building more illegal settlements in Florida...
 
Back
Top Bottom