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.

Red_Dave said:

What would 'Robust sanctions' constitute?

Click to expand...

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.

alexa said:

Something which even if she did, it is perfectly obvious she will never use for any reason except deterrence.

Click to expand...

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.

donsutherland1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gardener said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

...and some countries have Iran

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.

PeteEU said:

Russia and China would not approve for one, and probably not most European countries either.

Click to expand...

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.

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

donsutherland1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Brazil, hasn't stated an intent to use them against their enemies. If Iran had a secular government, democratically elected, and free of religious influence, then I have no doubt your analysis would be accurate. Comparing apples to oranges is a weak strawman.


Tim-

Hicup said:

Brazil, hasn't stated an intent to use them against their enemies. If Iran had a secular government, democratically elected, and free of religious influence, then I have no doubt your analysis would be accurate. Comparing apples to oranges is a weak strawman.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Doesn't Pakistan (you know, those who support the Talibans and who probably hide OBL) possess nukes?

Furthermore I'm not sure that Israel (the "Jewish state") is 100% free of any religious influence.

bub said:

Doesn't Pakistan (you know, those who support the Talibans and who probably hide OBL) possess nukes?

Furthermore I'm not sure that Israel (the "Jewish state") is 100% free of any religious influence.

Click to expand...

Yep they do posses them, and they have them because India has them. Next..

100%, probably not, but then, what nation is a 100% free of religious influence? I think you knew what I meant. The Jews are not calling for the total annihilation of an entire people simply because they have a different religion..

Tim-

Hicup said:

Brazil, hasn't stated an intent to use them against their enemies.

Click to expand...

Nor has Iran. And no "wiping Israel off the map" is not the same as threatening them with nukes.

If Iran had a secular government, democratically elected, and free of religious influence, then I have no doubt your analysis would be accurate. Comparing apples to oranges is a weak strawman.

Click to expand...

The US aint secular.. nor is Israel. One could even question the democracies of both to a degree, and there is no doubt that there is massive religious influence in both. So you were saying?

I get that you dont like the Iranian nutters, nor do I. But I also dont like the US nutters, or the Israeli nutters, the German nutters, French, Spanish, Chinese and so on nutters.. I find religious influence on politics dangerous regardless of the religion and country. But as long as we allow it one place with no problems and not another place just because we disagree with their methods then we are freaking hypocrites.

Hicup said:

Yep they do posses them, and they have them because India has them. Next..

Click to expand...

And Iran "has them or wants them" because Israel "has them"... next...

Hicup said:

Yep they do posses them, and they have them because India has them. Next..

Click to expand...

That does not make sense

100%, probably not, but then, what nation is a 100% free of religious influence? I think you knew what I meant. The Jews are not calling for the total annihilation of an entire people simply because they have a different religion..

Tim-

Click to expand...

Iran does not plan to conquer anything, in 300 years I don't think they've ever started a war. They just plan to defend themselves, and nukes are an appropriate way to do so. Just look at a map of the M/E, there are US bases everywhere around them, and both the US and the Israeli presidents talk about bombing them every week.

It's not because they're religious or because they're a dictatorship that they're retards, everyone knows the purpose of a nuke isn't to attack. Both Stalin and Mao had nukes, both looked at least as crazy as Ahmadinejad, yet they never used them.

bub said:

Doesn't Pakistan (you know, those who support the Talibans and who probably hide OBL) possess nukes?

Click to expand...

I would have thought Pakistan is a far greater risk - just as well Iran and those Al Qaeda types don't get on.

PeteEU said:

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

Click to expand...

The objective is to foster agreement under which Iran would not pursue nuclear weapons. An agreement that would allow Iran a civil nuclear program, provide rigorous verification to address international concerns, and possibly ensure no military aid to factions within Iran or military operations for "regime change" is realistic.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this is what Iran is seeking. President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric suggests that the nuclear activities may be more than just about a right to civil energy (easily able to be accommodated) or safeguarding the regime from outside military intervention (again, something that can be accommodated). Hence, certain IAEA requests to address persistent concerns have gone unaddressed. Given those dynamics, a significant degree of pressure will likely be required if Iran is to conclude that a diplomatic agreement along the lines of what I described about is acceptable.

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.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, failure to achieve a diplomatic resolution will open the door to alternative approaches. Nations whose critica or vital interests (i.e., U.S./Western access to oil, Israel's existence, etc.) are threatened will ultimately try to do what it takes to safeguard those interests through a wide variety of possible measures i.e., containment, deterrence, a nuclear weapons program, covert operations, military deployment, even military operations. While a military operation is not assured, it cannot entirely be ruled out either because a country believes that its existence is threatened, Iran makes military moves to try to break out of a containment regime, some miscalculation occurs, or some other scenario precipitates conflict.

Nor has Iran. And no "wiping Israel off the map" is not the same as threatening them with nukes.

Click to expand...

huh?

But as long as we allow it one place with no problems and not another place just because we disagree with their methods then we are freaking hypocrites.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the hypocrisy? Iran is an enemy, Brazil, last time I checked is not. Where is that hypocrisy again?


Tim-

bub said:

That does not make sense



Iran does not plan to conquer anything, in 300 years I don't think they've ever started a war. They just plan to defend themselves, and nukes are an appropriate way to do so. Just look at a map of the M/E, there are US bases everywhere around them, and both the US and the Israeli presidents talk about bombing them every week.

It's not because they're religious or because they're a dictatorship that they're retards, everyone knows the purpose of a nuke isn't to attack. Both Stalin and Mao had nukes, both looked at least as crazy as Ahmadinejad, yet they never used them.

Click to expand...

When someone says that they want to kill me, I tend to take them at their word.


Tim-

alexa said:

I would have thought Pakistan is a far greater risk - just as well Iran and those Al Qaeda types don't get on.

Click to expand...

Tolerance at all costs, eh? My how foolish..


Tim-

Hicup said:

When someone says that they want to kill me, I tend to take them at their word.


Tim-

Click to expand...

The problem is that Ahmadinejad actually never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Of The Map - Does He Deny Te Holocaust?

bub said:

The problem is that Ahmadinejad actually never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Of The Map - Does He Deny Te Holocaust?

Click to expand...

I didn't say he said that. I know about the correction. Informed people generally stay informed, however, the sentiment of the Iranian leader is to remove Israel, and all who support her from the Earth, pages of time, burn in a fire of the Islamist nations fury, etc.. etc.. I get that he doesn't like the Jews, or the USA very much. I don't in any way find those comments to be terms of endearment, do you?


Tim-

Hicup said:

Tolerance at all costs, eh? My how foolish..

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying here? It does not fit in with what I meant when I wrote what you were replying to. Please explain?

alexa said:

I don't understand what you are saying here? It does not fit in with what I meant when I wrote what you were replying to. Please explain?

Click to expand...

Were you not suggesting that Iran should get NUKES because we let other less than stellar nations have them? Meaning we should tolerate Iran simply because we tolerate other nations having NUKES? Is this what you meant?

If not, what did YOU mean?

Tim-