• 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!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

Iran has been found in violation of an International treaty.

Do you have link when the UN made the decision that Iran was in violation of the treaty?
 
Fig.-3-Iran-US-military-bases1-320x320.jpg
That map's a little outdated. I don't think we have any bases left in Iraq. That only leaves bases in Afghanistan (where we're engaged in a war) and bases in Turkey being adjacent to Iran. Nothing south and/or west of Iraq can get to Iran directly, Iraq cuts off access even from Kuwait.

Do you have link when the UN made the decision that Iran was in violation of the treaty?
Would you agree that sanctions from the Security Council qualify? I can't imagine Russia or China, both of which are friends of Iran, allowing sanctions if there were no violations.

Sanctions Committee - 1737
 
Obama has already been reluctant to engage in another conventional war as conducted by Bush and believes friendship and conciliation is the answer.

He also realizes the immense cost any type of war with Iran would inflict on the Western world----- however-----whether or not Israel is forced to strike against Iran is outside Obama's control because Israel rightly considers that Iran's position of nuclear devises would be an existential threat!

So pressure or not pressure from Obama .... it doesn't count much here.

in other words EagleAye , with America or without America..... Israel will do what it has to do.

There is precedent regarding Israeli action whether prematurely or counter to the wishes of the US. "when Israel carried out Operation Opera, an Israeli airstrike on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Baghdad. Reagan suspended a shipment of military aircraft to Israel, and harshly criticized the action. Relations also soured during the 1982 Lebanon War, when the United States even contemplated sanctions to stop the Israeli Siege of Beirut. The U.S. reminded Israel that weaponry provided by the U.S. was to be used for defensive purposes only, and suspended shipments of cluster munitions to Israel." Ultimately, relation resumed but that is one issue that Israel has to consider.

Moreover, Israel has to consider the possibility of a prolonged regional war. The US will not abandon Israel but there will be a strain both militarily and diplomatically should Israel act without the blessings of the US. However, should Israel do so the US would not abandon their ally and this war to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would been started by proxy as far as the US is concerned thereby allowing the US to save face and condemnation in the international community.
 
Moreover, Israel has to consider the possibility of a prolonged regional war. The US will not abandon Israel but there will be a strain both militarily and diplomatically should Israel act without the blessings of the US. However, should Israel do so the US would not abandon their ally and this war to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would been started by proxy as far as the US is concerned thereby allowing the US to save face and condemnation in the international community.
That's certainly a possibility and it would surprise me if it hasn't already been discussed in hushed tones in some back room. It won't be the first choice or the second but I'd bet it's in the playbook somewhere.
 
Last edited:
in other words EagleAye , with America or without America..... Israel will do what it has to do.

Oh yes, they will. But they should hold back and not jump before it's necessary. If they don't jump the gun, they may easily find the US and also the UK and France at their side as well. Possibly even Germany (who have been threatened). This nuclear problem is not only Israel's problem, it's a concern for many other countries. If all work together, Iran's nuclear program will be set back not just temporarily, but for many years to come.
 
If hes talking NPT... I'd like to see it too.

Here you go, from the ISIS Foundation:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irannptviolations.pdf

Specific NPT Violations
From the mid-1980s to 2003 Iran violated its safeguards agreement with the IAEA by failing to
declare numerous activities required by Iran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA, primarily
involving experiments with nuclear material. Though several IAEA reports describe these
violations, the November 2004 report provides an especially detailed summary of Iran’s overall
nuclear program, including specific NPT violations.2 According to the IAEA, Iran failed to
declare the following major activities:
• Uranium Imports: Iran failed to report that it had purchased natural uranium (1,000 kg of
UF6, 400 kg of UF4, and 400 kg of UO2) from China in 1991, and its subsequent transfer for
further processing. Iran acknowledged the imports in February 2003.
• Uranium conversion: Iran did not inform the IAEA of its use of the imported uranium in
tests of its uranium conversion processes, including “uranium dissolution, purification using
pulse columns, and the production of uranium metal, and the associated production and loss
of nuclear material.” Iran acknowledged this failure in February 2003.
• Uranium enrichment: Iran failed to report that it had used 1.9 kg of the imported UF6 to
test P1 centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company centrifuge workshop in 1999 and 2002.
In its October 2003 declaration to the IAEA, Iran first admitted to introducing UF6 into a
centrifuge in 1999, and into as many as 19 centrifuges in 2002. Iran also failed to declare the
associated production of enriched and depleted uranium.
• Hidden Sites: Iran did not declare to the IAEA the existence of a pilot enrichment facility
at the Kalaye Electric Company Workshop, and laser enrichment plants at the Tehran
Nuclear Research center and at Lashkar Ab’ad. Because experiments at these sites involved
the use of nuclear material in equipment, Iran was obligated to report them to the IAEA.
• Laser Isotope Enrichment Experiments: Iran failed to report that in 1993 it imported 50
kg of natural uranium metal, and that it used 8 kg of this for atomic vapor laser isotope
separation (AVLIS) experiments at Tehran Nuclear Research Center between 1999 to 2000,
and 22 kg of the metal for AVLIS experiments at Lashkar Ab’ad between 2002 to 2003.3
These activities were ultimately acknowledged in an October 2003 declaration.
• Plutonium Experiments: Iran did not report to the IAEA that it had produced uranium
dioxide (UO2) targets, irradiated them in the Tehran Research Reactor, and then separated
the plutonium from the irradiated targets. Iran also failed to report the production and
transfer of waste associated with these activities and that it had stored unprocessed irradiated
targets at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. In later meetings with the IAEA, Iran said
that it conducted the plutonium separation experiments between 1988 and 1993 using
shielded glove boxes at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.

Documents about Work with Uranium Metal: The IAEA first reported the existence of this
document in November 2005, describing it as containing “procedural requirements for the
reduction of UF6 to metal in small quantities, and on the casting and machining of enriched,
natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms….”6 Iran claims that it received
this document, which concerns the process necessary to machine uranium metal into a form
suitable for use in a nuclear weapon, unsolicited from the Khan network, and that it has not
performed any such research. Though the document has been placed under IAEA seal, Iran has
denied IAEA requests for a copy. Most recently IAEA inspectors were told they could not take
notes from the document, and that some notes already taken must be destroyed.7

Experiments with Plutonium:
Like the matter of HEU and LEU contamination, this is a long
outstanding issue with the IAEA, involving multiple iterations of IAEA requests for information,
Iranian explanations and subsequent IAEA requests for clarification. The IAEA’s conclusion,
expressed in its report of April 28, 2006, is that “the Agency cannot exclude the possibility—
notwithstanding the explanations provided by Iran—that plutonium analysed by the Agency was
derived from source(s) other than the ones declared by Iran.”11 Simply stated, this could mean
that Iran either acquired undeclared plutonium from foreign sources, or separated indigenously
more than it has declared to the IAEA.
 
That's certainly a possibility and it would surprise me if it hasn't already been discussed in hushed tones in some back room. It won't be the first choice or the second but I'd bet it's in the playbook somewhere.

I agree. Obama would not give a green light as his efforts have been to curtail Iran's efforts through sanctions and diplomatic means.
 
Oh yes, they will. But they should hold back and not jump before it's necessary. If they don't jump the gun, they may easily find the US and also the UK and France at their side as well. Possibly even Germany (who have been threatened). This nuclear problem is not only Israel's problem, it's a concern for many other countries. If all work together, Iran's nuclear program will be set back not just temporarily, but for many years to come.

I beleive Israel will be "backed" by these countries even if they are the aggressors. The stakes are still the same nothing will change, only the time frame will be expedited. Even Iran's allies, namely Russia, does not want a confrontation nor the risk that Iran will have a nuclear arsenal to unleash. There always seems to be a problem with Iran's nuclear plants which delays progress.

An Iranian lawmaker said the country's first nuclear power plant will not start up by late August as planned and blamed the delay on Russia, which is building the facility. "We believe the Russians are not being honest ... about the plant," Jalalian said. He urged Iranian officials to clarify the terms of the deal through "transparent and firm talks, without any 'buts' or 'ifs'." Jalalian said Iran had already paid at least twice more than the planned construction costs on the project, and additional funds are being demanded.

The contracts with the Russians have no "clear financial ceiling, timetable and end date," he said, also claiming that the Russian partner had reneged on a promise to transfer technology to Iran, as promised in the deal.
Iran Nuclear Plant Launch Reportedly Delayed Again


Then there is the question where do the Israeli's hit first. An attack simply does not make sense at this point.

photo_1330253710929-1-0.jpg

A strike on Iran would pose tough test for Israelis
 
I beleive Israel will be "backed" by these countries even if they are the aggressors. The stakes are still the same nothing will change, only the time frame will be expedited. Even Iran's allies, namely Russia, does not want a confrontation nor the risk that Iran will have a nuclear arsenal to unleash. There always seems to be a problem with Iran's nuclear plants which delays progress.

Iran Nuclear Plant Launch Reportedly Delayed Again

Then there is the question where do the Israeli's hit first. An attack simply does not make sense at this point.

A strike on Iran would pose tough test for Israelis

Russia is a fair-weather friend of Iran at best. Iran has a habit of biting the hand that feeds it, and Russia knows this. Russia would oppose regime change (and thus its business dealings with Iran), but are unlikely to do anything more than complain about strikes on Iran.

Israel can do significant damage all by itself. It doesn't need to completely destroy Iran's nuclear program. It merely needs to set the program back long enough for sanctions to have more effect. The obvious targets are anything related to uranium processing. That's the primary problem. It would be politically clever of Israel to leave the Buseshr reactor and any targets close to Tehran alone. Hit Natanz and Fordo hard. This will not eliminate Iran's uranium processing only delay the chance for refining it to weapons grade, the ultimate goal.

Much ado is made of Iran's sites as though they are ALL buried as deeply as at Qom. They are not. Most of Iran's sites are targetable with standard munitions. Some that are buried are still reachable by penetrators already in Israeli hands.

And Qom isn't as impervious as documented in many press releases.

Consider that when Israel attacks, the IRIAF has no choice but to rise and meet them. Israeli F-15Is will cut them down like wheat. Within a day, Israel will have Air Superiority, Within 2 days, Israel will have Air Dominance (a separate thing, and better). This is a critical detail. With Air Dominance, Israel will have the flexibility to move where they want, when they want, unopposed. They don't have to invade Iran per se, they can simply place troops where they want them and extract them again at leisure. At this point, Israel can load up commandos in C-130s and parachute them at Qom. Security at Qom would probably be strong so this will not be a small group. The commandos can take the facility, or at least tactically important areas, set charges and leave. Doubtless, Iranian troops will move to defend Qom, but since Israeli aircraft operate unopposed they can place Iranian troops under constant fire. They'll be unable to move effectively. The commandos should be done within a few hours. Extraction would occur at nearby Manzariyeh airport.

This is all doable but very risky and very difficult. It must happen fast or it will fail. But then Israel is very good at such things. Still, Israel would be FAR better off if they waited for the US (and allies) to work in a coordinated attack. Some expect Israel may attack between April and June. Israel should wait even longer than that. It may be that sanctions do the job and no attack at all is necessary. Israel must avoid an attack as much as the US does. Israel acting alone would draw international consternation far more than Israel acting in part with a coalition. When rockets fall in Israeli civilian centers it barely makes the news, but if an Israeli soldier spits in the dirt of the West Bank it's an international incident. Knowing this, Israel must restrain itself and avoid inevitable political fallout if at all possible.
 
Excellent map.. and you can see that Iran is the natural transit route to move Caspian crude and gas from the Stans south to the Persian Gulf.


I beleive Israel will be "backed" by these countries even if they are the aggressors. The stakes are still the same nothing will change, only the time frame will be expedited. Even Iran's allies, namely Russia, does not want a confrontation nor the risk that Iran will have a nuclear arsenal to unleash. There always seems to be a problem with Iran's nuclear plants which delays progress.


Iran Nuclear Plant Launch Reportedly Delayed Again


Then there is the question where do the Israeli's hit first. An attack simply does not make sense at this point.

photo_1330253710929-1-0.jpg

A strike on Iran would pose tough test for Israelis
 
Well, I seriously doubt we would do that to one of our longest and staunchest allies. But it's clear to me that Obama has put significant pressure on Israel to cool off.

Sometimes tough love is necessary.
 
That map's a little outdated. I don't think we have any bases left in Iraq. That only leaves bases in Afghanistan (where we're engaged in a war) and bases in Turkey being adjacent to Iran. Nothing south and/or west of Iraq can get to Iran directly, Iraq cuts off access even from Kuwait.

We can still easily bring more force to bear from Israel and our current bases on Iran than they could defend against.

Would you agree that sanctions from the Security Council qualify? I can't imagine Russia or China, both of which are friends of Iran, allowing sanctions if there were no violations.

Sanctions Committee - 1737

I could not find any NPT violations referenced.
 
An Israeli attack on Iran with out US back up after the fact would be suicidal. I don't believe Israel is suicidal. The USSR had nukes on the verge of their collapse.

I meant to comment on this when I first saw it. The USSR collapsed, but afaik, most nukes were stationed in Russia. Even if that wasn't the case, Russia had control over those sites. If Russia had a chance of collapsing during the break up of soviet bloc your analogy would be better.
 
As far as other countries/governments in the region seeking nukes if Iran has them why hasn't any of the countries sought nukes after Israel got them?
 
Thanks but these are not determinations made by the UN.

The ISIS report is based upon an IAEA report (from the link - my bold):
Though several IAEA reports describe these
violations, the November 2004 report provides an especially detailed summary of Iran’s overall
nuclear program, including specific NPT violations.2 According to the IAEA, Iran failed to
declare the following major activities:
 
Russia is a fair-weather friend of Iran at best. Iran has a habit of biting the hand that feeds it, and Russia knows this. Russia would oppose regime change (and thus its business dealings with Iran), but are unlikely to do anything more than complain about strikes on Iran.

Iran is a cash cow. Some suspect the Stuxnet computer worm viruses that were unleashed in Iran which caused a nuclear plant shutdown were released by the Russians. The shut down and problems thereafter keep the money flowing. I do not beleive that Iran has many friends, but, as long as they have the cash or oil they will have allies.

Israel can do significant damage all by itself. It doesn't need to completely destroy Iran's nuclear program. It merely needs to set the program back long enough for sanctions to have more effect. The obvious targets are anything related to uranium processing. That's the primary problem. It would be politically clever of Israel to leave the Buseshr reactor and any targets close to Tehran alone. Hit Natanz and Fordo hard. This will not eliminate Iran's uranium processing only delay the chance for refining it to weapons grade, the ultimate goal.

Much ado is made of Iran's sites as though they are ALL buried as deeply as at Qom. They are not. Most of Iran's sites are targetable with standard munitions. Some that are buried are still reachable by penetrators already in Israeli hands.

And Qom isn't as impervious as documented in many press releases.

Consider that when Israel attacks, the IRIAF has no choice but to rise and meet them. Israeli F-15Is will cut them down like wheat. Within a day, Israel will have Air Superiority, Within 2 days, Israel will have Air Dominance (a separate thing, and better). This is a critical detail. With Air Dominance, Israel will have the flexibility to move where they want, when they want, unopposed. They don't have to invade Iran per se, they can simply place troops where they want them and extract them again at leisure. At this point, Israel can load up commandos in C-130s and parachute them at Qom. Security at Qom would probably be strong so this will not be a small group. The commandos can take the facility, or at least tactically important areas, set charges and leave. Doubtless, Iranian troops will move to defend Qom, but since Israeli aircraft operate unopposed they can place Iranian troops under constant fire. They'll be unable to move effectively. The commandos should be done within a few hours. Extraction would occur at nearby Manzariyeh airport.

This is all doable but very risky and very difficult. It must happen fast or it will fail. But then Israel is very good at such things. Still, Israel would be FAR better off if they waited for the US (and allies) to work in a coordinated attack. Some expect Israel may attack between April and June. Israel should wait even longer than that. It may be that sanctions do the job and no attack at all is necessary. Israel must avoid an attack as much as the US does. Israel acting alone would draw international consternation far more than Israel acting in part with a coalition. When rockets fall in Israeli civilian centers it barely makes the news, but if an Israeli soldier spits in the dirt of the West Bank it's an international incident. Knowing this, Israel must restrain itself and avoid inevitable political fallout if at all possible.

It is thought that an effective attack will delay Iran's nuclear program by a year or two "indicating that viable military options are far more limited than Israeli leaders have suggested." Moreover, James R. Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said the "U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran's leaders have not decided to build nuclear weapons but are pursuing technology that might allow them to do so."

Any attack at this juncture is premature and with very little gain. Former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told a group of foreign policy experts last month that Israel is not capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran's nuclear sites. Some are situated at the outer range of Israeli bombers, and others are underground, he said. "The Israelis aren't going to [attack Iran] … they can't do it, it's beyond their capacity," Hayden said. "They only have the ability to make this worse."

A monthlong U.S. bombing campaign would inflict far more damage, Hayden said, but it wouldn't be worth it. The George W. Bush administration studied the issue, he said."

It would seem that Israel would need the US and is determined to draw the US into a conflict with Iran.
 
The ISIS report is based upon an IAEA report (from the link - my bold):

The Rand Corp. makes reports commissioned by the Pentagon, but the Pentagon is the one that makes the decisions.
 
The Rand Corp. makes reports commissioned by the Pentagon, but the Pentagon is the one that makes the decisions.

Hmm. I'm not sure how the Pentagon relates to the UN in this instance. You said, you were looking for something from the UN. The UN makes it's decisions from the IAEA findings and the report I linked is sourced from IAEA findings. Sorry if I miss the association to the Pentagon.
 
Hmm. I'm not sure how the Pentagon relates to the UN in this instance. You said, you were looking for something from the UN. The UN makes it's decisions from the IAEA findings and the report I linked is sourced from IAEA findings. Sorry if I miss the association to the Pentagon.


The UN uses reports by IAEA and others to make their decision, as the Pentagon uses reports by the Rand Corp. and others to make their decisions.

My point is that the UN has not made official a declaration of Iran being in violation of the NPT, nor have they decided NATO should take any actions in response.
 
Iran is a cash cow. Some suspect the Stuxnet computer worm viruses that were unleashed in Iran which caused a nuclear plant shutdown were released by the Russians. The shut down and problems thereafter keep the money flowing. I do not beleive that Iran has many friends, but, as long as they have the cash or oil they will have allies.

It is thought that an effective attack will delay Iran's nuclear program by a year or two "indicating that viable military options are far more limited than Israeli leaders have suggested." Moreover, James R. Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said the "U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran's leaders have not decided to build nuclear weapons but are pursuing technology that might allow them to do so."

Any attack at this juncture is premature and with very little gain. Former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told a group of foreign policy experts last month that Israel is not capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran's nuclear sites. Some are situated at the outer range of Israeli bombers, and others are underground, he said. "The Israelis aren't going to [attack Iran] … they can't do it, it's beyond their capacity," Hayden said. "They only have the ability to make this worse."

A monthlong U.S. bombing campaign would inflict far more damage, Hayden said, but it wouldn't be worth it. The George W. Bush administration studied the issue, he said."

It would seem that Israel would need the US and is determined to draw the US into a conflict with Iran.

Well, to suggest that a unilateral effort by Israel will accomplish nothing, or that strikes on Iran is beyond their capacity is, just, wrong. They could hit Iran and knockout quite a few nuclear facilities. BUT I would agree that Israel should wait for the US and allies to attack before doing anything. And, if the US decides against an attack, then Israel should just suck it up and deal with it. Israel would achieve much less without the US, so it's only practical to follow the US lead on this one.
 
The UN uses reports by IAEA and others to make their decision, as the Pentagon uses reports by the Rand Corp. and others to make their decisions.

My point is that the UN has not made official a declaration of Iran being in violation of the NPT, nor have they decided NATO should take any actions in response.

and worse yet is the likely unilateral action to be taken by israel - a non-signatory to the NPT - to take our iranian facilities without legitimate basis
If Israel attacks Iran, it won't tell U.S. first, officials say - San Jose Mercury News
 
Strange that there were no complaints, only compliments, after the Israeli Air Force raid in 1981 that completely destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak!


To a certain extent it looks like Obama wants it both ways, if Israel strikes Iran and is successful then he will be happy, but if not he'll say:"See? I warned you!"
 
Back
Top Bottom