Thread: Israel Still Unsure Iran Even Want Nuclear Weapons

IMHO, the greatest danger in all of this is that there is no longer any margin whatsoever for error/patience.

When Saddam fired Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War, Israel knew that these were crude/rudimentary missiles with conventional warheads. Israel thus honored the request of the United States to not respond/retaliate.

The situation with Iran is quite different. Bellicose Iranian statements. A missile (Shahab-3) that can certainly reach Israel. The refusal of Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and/or accept EU/Russian carrots that would defuse the situation.

Israel can no longer wait to determine if an incoming Iranian Shahab-3 is conventional or nuclear tipped. One single such incoming incident could now have unimaginable horrific consequences for Iran. She is playing an *extremely dangerous* game.

Originally Posted by Tashah

IMHO, the greatest danger in all of this is that there is no longer any margin whatsoever for error/patience.

When Saddam fired Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War, Israel knew that these were crude/rudimentary missiles with conventional warheads. Israel thus honored the request of the United States to not respond/retaliate.

The situation with Iran is quite different. Bellicose Iranian statements. A missile (Shahab-3) that can certainly reach Israel. The refusal of Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and/or accept EU/Russian carrots that would defuse the situation.

Israel can no longer wait to determine if an incoming Iranian Shahab-3 is conventional or nuclear tipped. One single such incoming incident could now have unimaginable horrific consequences for Iran. She is playing an *extremely dangerous* game.

i agree with you
imagine that
if iran fires a shahab or any equivalent into israel, that would be an act of war and israel should respond to devastate iran for committing that aggressive act
similarly, if nuclear equipped israel violates iranian air space or the ground beneath it with any form of unprovoked assault, iran should use every measure in its arsenal to take out israel for such an aggressive act

Originally Posted by Tashah

IMHO, the greatest danger in all of this is that there is no longer any margin whatsoever for error/patience.

[...]

Israel can no longer wait to determine if an incoming Iranian Shahab-3 is conventional or nuclear tipped. One single such incoming incident could now have unimaginable horrific consequences for Iran. She is playing an *extremely dangerous* game.

Originally Posted by justabubba

i agree with you
imagine that if iran fires a shahab or any equivalent into israel, that would be an act of war and israel should respond to devastate iran for committing that aggressive act
similarly, if nuclear equipped israel violates iranian air space or the ground beneath it with any form of unprovoked assault, iran should use every measure in its arsenal to take out israel for such an aggressive act

I think there's zero chance Iran would intentionally fire a conventional Shahab-3 at Israel. That would be suicide. The IAF significantly holds the advantage over the IRIAF in quality and quantity and combat experience. Israel could obliterate the IRIAF within a few days (if not only one day). Iran's SSMs would be destroyed along with it. Iran's anti-aircraft sites would have only a nominal effect. Israel is the best in the world at defeating AAA.

So indeed, it is a dangerous game that Iran is playing. They've placed themselves in a position where they are under a microscope and any false move could have crippling repercussions. Israel hasn't engaged Iran recently because (proxy war aside) there's been no real reason to. Iran has changed all that and given Israel ample reason to feel threatened and therefore hostile. This is a game that Iran cannot possibly win. Even if Iran manages to place a nuclear tip on an SSM and successfully hits Israel with it (although Israel's ABMs make this unlikely), Israel would not be beheaded. Israel's response would be swift and utterly ruthless. Doubtless the US and even other Muslim countries would join in the systematic dismantling of the Islamic Republic. Game over.

It's in Iran's best interests to quit now. And maybe they are realizing that. The IAEA is scheduled to conduct an inspection on Jan 28.
Iran confirms IAEA visit but says it will make no concessions - BostonHerald.com

The high-ranking IAEA delegation, headed by deputy head Herman Nackaerts, will visit Iran on Jan. 28. Also in the team will be assistant director general Rafael Grossi and IAEA legal department head Peri Lynne Johnson.

Iran is still insisting they can do whatever they want, but this may be mere rhetoric to avoid appearing weak

"The IAEA inspectors will come to Iran and the visit will take about one month," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast.

"But Iran is absolutely serious in maintaining its nuclear rights and will not make any concessions in this regard," the spokesman added.

It's hard to say what they are thinking. Iran has come to the negotiating table before and made promises only to reverse them later. They cannot do this indefinitely. The West will not stand for Iran trying delaying tactics to buy time for NWP fruition.

Tashah, et al,

Not to worry.

Originally Posted by Tashah

Israel can no longer wait to determine if an incoming Iranian Shahab-3 is conventional or nuclear tipped. One single such incoming incident could now have unimaginable horrific consequences for Iran. She is playing an *extremely dangerous* game.

(COMMENT)

Based on all the evidence available, I don't think any country believes that Iran has, today, the ability to launch a nuclear strike against anyone. And it is pretty sure, that they will not have such and ability to do so for quite some time. Israel knows these things better than most and has no intention of making a strike against Iran. That decision is well of into the future.

It has plenty of time.

Most Respectfully,
R

I read a rather interesting article today on Iran's nuclear program. Earlier I bought up Panetta's quote (http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...post1060125798 (Israel Still Unsure Iran Even Want Nuclear Weapons))

The article (Stop the Madness - By Yousaf Butt | Foreign Policy) I read states the following about Iran:

In reality, however, Iran is not doing anything that violates its legal right to develop nuclear technology. Under the NPT, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons capability -- or a "nuclear option." If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector -- which the NPT actually encourages -- it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability. For example, like Iran, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan also maintain a "nuclear option" -- they, too, could break out of the NPT and make a nuclear device in a few months, if not less. And like Iran, Argentina and Brazil also do not permit full "Additional Protocol" IAEA inspections.

There are many other explanations for Iran's uranium enrichment program other than that the country is embarking on a mad dash for nuclear weapons. The most objective reading of Iran's intention to stockpile more 20 percent enriched uranium than it needs for running its research reactor is that it may be preserving a "breakout" option to weaponize in the future, should it feel under threat. But the important point is that, under the NPT, there is nothing illegal about stockpiling low-enriched uranium. And whatever options and ambitions that Iranians leaders may hold in their heads, however worrying, cannot be illegal.

Thus, it seems that with all this evidence, we should be quite careful in assuming that Iran is actively building a nuclear weapon. While I personally do not want Iran to have a nuke, it seems that all of this talk from the US and Israel about bombing (and in some cases invading) Iran would put them on edge and may make them want to attain at least nuclear capability as a deterrent effect.

Mr. Invisible, et al,

Yes, this is most important to understand.

Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible

I read a rather interesting article today on Iran's nuclear program. Earlier I bought up Panetta's quote (http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...post1060125798 (Israel Still Unsure Iran Even Want Nuclear Weapons))

Thus, it seems that with all this evidence, we should be quite careful in assuming that Iran is actively building a nuclear weapon. While I personally do not want Iran to have a nuke, it seems that all of this talk from the US and Israel about bombing (and in some cases invading) Iran would put them on edge and may make them want to attain at least nuclear capability as a deterrent effect.

(COMMENT)

Again, I'm not trying to defend Iran or foster support for its current objectives. But as I said earlier, it is in everyone's best interest to the nature of the alligations relative to its legal obligations. Iran is not (as far as we can tell) in a state of "non-compliance." Iran is not (as far as we can tell) in violation of the NPT which applies to them.

I am not an expert (knowledgeable is the term), but I have yet to see a finding against a specific legal agreement which is in-force. No IAEA report on Iran thru 8 November 2011, has identified the diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any weaponization program.

While I understand that a vast majority of people believe that Iran is in some sort of violation, I don't believe that is actually true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Originally Posted by RoccoR

While I understand that a vast majority of people believe that Iran is in some sort of violation, I don't believe that is actually true.

And therein lies the rub. Perhaps a simple/whimsical analogy will be of benefit.

As the drug sniffing dog is pawing at a particular locker, the high school student blocks the way and refuses to open it for the principal to inspect.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the IAEA have the right to inspect under the NPT? Hasn't Iran denied this right on many occasions? And didn't the IAEA determine that not all the nuclear material was accounted for? Isn't this a violation?

Originally Posted by Baltim

Israel: Iran still mulling whether to build nuclear bomb - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News



So in spite of all their calls for war, Israel still aren't convinced that Iran has even made the decision to build a nuclear weapon.

Iran do not need to build a nuclear weapon as they have achieved a conventional deterrent to potential Israeli aggression by upgrading the S-300 and other missiles and fitting them with GPS.

this means that they can be aimed with much more accuracy and their range is easily enough to strike at Israel's nuclear and biological stockpiles, including the Dimona nuclear power station, a situation which would probably cause the Israelis to think twice before launching another Operation Cast Lead or Lebanon war.

I believe this is the real reason for all the Israeli/US sabre rattling because nobody is allowed to threaten Israel's primacy in the region.

Whether Iran wants to eventually build a nuke is pretty irrelevant. Eventually action will be taken to take out their conventional missile sites and return Israel to being the major military power in the Middle East.

That would be good news.

EagleAye, et al,

Valid question and generally very misunderstood.

BLUF: I know it often sounds like this; but it is not true.

This is a subject for which I have written extensively. Most recently - Post #22

Originally Posted by RoccoR

.

It is part of the US Diplomatic Failure and a Weakness that flaws the decision making processes.

Originally Posted by EagleAye

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the IAEA have the right to inspect under the NPT? Hasn't Iran denied this right on many occasions? And didn't the IAEA determine that not all the nuclear material was accounted for? Isn't this a violation?

(COMMENT)

"Inspections" are the tool used to verify the "safeguards" in the base NPT. But it is not a Card Blanche authority to go anywhere and look at anything at the complete discretion of the IAEA.

The thumbnail view is that there are "basic inspections and audits" under the Treaty, but then there are the "additional protocol." See the fact sheet.

FACT SHEETs:
IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols
IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols

As discussed earlier, while Iran is a signatory to both the basic NPT and the Additional Protocols, it's government only ratified the NPT as an agreement. It did not ratify the "Additional Protocols" which give the Inspection Teams much greater authority. So, Iran is NOT legal bound to the "Additional Protocols."

This is why the IAEA, the UNSC, and most recently the DNI and Director, CIA have been very careful in their wording. However, politicians and diplomats are free to engage in disinformation or manipulation.

Most Respectfully,
R