Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 148

Thread: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

  1. #51
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Oh I think Iran will fight back and will have made plenty of preparations so that there are plenty of surprises.

    I also don't know if she is building nuclear weapons but if she is I am sure she will manage it and to be frank I can remember reading that she was supposed to be ready for them within a year or so about six years ago.

    I will be furious if the peace of the world and the future hope for the world further deteriorates for my grandchildren because some people are scared Iran might get a bomb. Something which even if she did, it is perfectly obvious she will never use for any reason except deterrence.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  2. #52
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Dave View Post
    What would 'Robust sanctions' constitute?
    I specified what I meant in writing, "Robust sanctions that would have dealt with Iran's ability to export crude oil/buy refined products on the world market would have a better chance at success." Basically, such sanctions would have the ability to cripple Iran's economy:

    1. Barring it from exporting crude oil
    2. Barring the sale of refined products to Iran

    The assumption would be that the risk of such sanctions would dramatically alter Iran's risk perceptions and perhaps provide the best chance for a diplomatic breakthrough that would confine Iran's nuclear activities to acceptable civil energy use and allow for a rigorous verification regime.

  3. #53
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    Something which even if she did, it is perfectly obvious she will never use for any reason except deterrence.
    Patently obvious only to those in the west who act as useful idiots for the Mullahs. The Mullahs, themselves, have speculating openly on how they could take out Israel but the ummah would not be deterred by the Israeli response, and have been doing so for years.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  4. #54
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I specified what I meant in writing, "Robust sanctions that would have dealt with Iran's ability to export crude oil/buy refined products on the world market would have a better chance at success." Basically, such sanctions would have the ability to cripple Iran's economy:

    1. Barring it from exporting crude oil
    2. Barring the sale of refined products to Iran

    The assumption would be that the risk of such sanctions would dramatically alter Iran's risk perceptions and perhaps provide the best chance for a diplomatic breakthrough that would confine Iran's nuclear activities to acceptable civil energy use and allow for a rigorous verification regime.
    Yes it is always good to corner an animal ...

    Not that you would get all nations to agree to such sanctions. Russia and China would not approve for one, and probably not most European countries either.
    PeteEU

  5. #55
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Patently obvious only to those in the west who act as useful idiots for the Mullahs. The Mullahs, themselves, have speculating openly on how they could take out Israel but the ummah would not be deterred by the Israeli response, and have been doing so for years.
    The Mullahs need an enemy to stay in power. If the people start to actually think about the domestic policies and question their leaders, then the Mullahs would be in trouble. The best way to avoid this, is to find an enemy.. in this case Israel. Countries and people have been doing it forever.. Hitler had the Jews and Slavs, the US had the native American's and the Soviets, the UK had the French and German's and so on and so on.
    PeteEU

  6. #56
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    The Mullahs need an enemy to stay in power. If the people start to actually think about the domestic policies and question their leaders, then the Mullahs would be in trouble. The best way to avoid this, is to find an enemy.. in this case Israel. Countries and people have been doing it forever.. Hitler had the Jews and Slavs, the US had the native American's and the Soviets, the UK had the French and German's and so on and so on.
    ...and some countries have Iran

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    IMO, people should step back from Mr. Bolton's scenario. There is absolutely nothing about the August 21 date that makes it the point on which a military operation--if such an operation would need to be pursued--would need to be launched.

    1. Israel, like any other sovereign state, would act to safeguard its vital interests and it would not be bound by any artificial dates. An imminent existential threat would constitute such a vital interest. I have little doubt that Mr. Bolton understands this.

    2. There is no evidence that Israel views August 21 as a turning point.

    3. Russia's plan comes with precautions. All nuclear fuel rods would be returned to Russia (the model that will likely be adapted under an international agreement, should such an agreement be reached; as such the plant's operation could provide a good laboratory for testing the design of the international approach). Russia and the IAEA would be in a position to determine whether Iran had tampered with the rods in a bid to extract plutonium and could cut off future fuel deliveries. Western experts were satisfied with the safeguards.

    4. The biggest risk associated with Iran's nuclear activities comes from its uranium enrichment facilities (declared and secret), not the Bushehr plant. Greater scrutiny will need to be focused there.

    5. Based on reported assessments of experts who have weighed in, Iran is probably 1-3 years from becoming a nuclear weapons-capable state. If one adopts the short end of the timeframe, that would leave open the option of waiting until late this year/early next year to determine whether an alternative to diplomacy (military or otherwise) would need to be considered. The relative risks-costs-benefits of the alternatives would all need to be weighed in making the selection and the differing interests of the various states could well lead to differences in strategy. Given how Israel views the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran, my guess is that Israel would probably be thinking along the lines of the shortest timeframe so as to reduce the risks associated with delay.

    6. If August 21 were to be the date for military operations, it is highly questionable whether the military assets could be assembled sufficiently quickly, much less executed effectively to have maximum impact. A very thorough planning process that takes into consideration the high risk of significant retaliation by Iran and its proxies would need to be developed.

    What is clear from all of the above is that:

    1. The Bushehr plant is not critical to any Iranian nuclear weapons program. Indeed, if it were to make a critical contribution to Iran's illicit nuclear activities, it would be from Iran's using it to divert attention and avoid scrutiny of its still ongoing uranium enrichment activities.

    2. There is no reasonable basis that August 21 is the latest date on which any military operation could be launched.

    Why then is Mr. Bolton pushing the August 21 date? Perhaps misunderstanding about the Bushehr plant (though I doubt it given his experience). Perhaps he really fears that a combination of difficulties in Afghanistan (including increasingly pessimistic public opinion) and electoral dynamics in the U.S., (assuming significant Democratic Party losses in November) will greatly reduce the President's and Congressional Democrats' appetite for a military option effectively removing it from the table. Perhaps he seeks immediate resolution of a highly complex, still evolving, and quite uncertain situation. Perhaps there is some combination of those factors or additional factors at play. But all that is speculation.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-18-10 at 12:56 PM.

  8. #58
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Russia and China would not approve for one, and probably not most European countries either.
    That's exactly why a significant quid pro quo would be required. Unlike some who might assume that all the countries should be working toward the same end with the same commitment and same level of urgency--a naive assumption based on their having identical interests--and therefore not require any quid pro quo, I disagree. Moreover, when a country is pursuing its interests, I don't believe there is anything ethically wrong with providing a quid pro quo to bring about accommodation of the parties' core needs. IMO, agreement on such sanctions to be imposed by a given date or under given circumstances would alter Iran's current risk assessment perceptions. Hence, Iran would have a "way out" before such sanctions actually take force. While there is no guarantee that Iran would reach agreement with the international community, the probability of its doing so would almost certainly be higher than it is now when Iran perceives that the current approach is largely ineffectual.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-18-10 at 12:57 PM.

  9. #59
    wʜɪтe яussɪaи Tashah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ישראל • אמריקה
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,379

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Bolton should brush up on the start-up of a nuclear reactor and peruse the physics of a nuclear reactor's fuel cycle.

    אשכנזי היהודי • Белый Россию

  10. #60
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    That's exactly why a significant quid pro quo would be required. Unlike some who might assume that all the countries should be working toward the same end with the same commitment and same level of urgency--a naive assumption based on their having identical interests--and therefore not require any quid pro quo, I disagree. Moreover, when a country is pursuing its interests, I don't believe there is anything ethically wrong with providing a quid pro quo to bring about accommodation of the parties' core needs. IMO, agreement on such sanctions to be imposed by a given date or under given circumstances would alter Iran's current risk assessment perceptions. Hence, Iran would have a "way out" before such sanctions actually take force. While there is no guarantee that Iran would reach agreement with the international committee, the probability of its doing so would almost certainly be higher than it is when Iran perceives that the current approach is largely ineffectual.
    Well there are several problems with this idea. Yes quid pro quo with doubter nations would be needed to secure sanctions, but getting those quid pro quo agreements with the 5 veto carrying nations will be hard. China needs Iran's oil, and Russia are big business partners of Iran, along with some European countries including France (somewhat). This is historical, like it was in Iraq. Getting them to stop trading with Iran during these times will not be easy and it is not like the US is able to provide any alternatives.

    But would it not be better if Iran had no reason to build nukes?

    The main arguments so far by Iran has been, that Iran has a right to nuclear power. This is true, you cant deny a country nuclear power and why are the west (especially the US and Israel) so after them? Brazil has a new nuclear program and can easily make nukes if they wanted, but you dont see the US go after them. And Brazil would not allow international investigators to look at their nuke program.. they have denied it so far as far as I know. Hell the US would deny international inspectors to their nuclear sites too..

    Another argument has been also that even though Iran says they dont want nukes, in principle it is no ones business if they did want them since it is not a crime to have nukes and hide it... look at Israel. Domestically this fly's big time among the masses and frankly as an outsider, it is a very valid argument. There is a huge double standard going on here.

    If the world wants to have a check on nuclear weapons then all countries must be treated in the same way and submit to the same conditions and scrutiny... problem is they are not. And because of this double standard, the Iranian regime has the high ground domestically, and in many ways also internationally when it comes to the 2 or 3 key veto carrying UNSC members.

    And for the record, I wish the death of the Iranian regime and I fear them and always have, and in no way do I want them to have nukes. Religious extremists of any religion are bad. But we cant treat countries differently just because we disagree with the way they run their own affairs.. or we should not at least... as it causes too many problems.
    PeteEU

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •