US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program

[agricola]

Ah, yes, an excellent idea.  We'll rely on Iranian honesty and goodwill, and everything will work out swell.  Naivety and appeasement have always served us well in the past, right?

I don't want a war with Iran.  But it's precisely attitudes like yours which make war likely.  Pretending that Iran can be trusted to negotiate honestly, to honor commitments to give up their pursuit of the bomb, this is a fools errand.  It's dangerous.  It only hastens the day war becomes necessary.  

Obama's deal will not prevent a nuclear Iran.  It's an empty excuse to let Iran off the hook.  We'll drop sanctions and they'll quietly continue their nuclear weapons program.  

Utter nonsense.   You claim you dont want a war with Iran and yet set conditions that would demand that a war takes place; a war that would make all other wars seem sensible and rational by comparison.

[TommyGunn]

Utter nonsense.   You claim you dont want a war with Iran and yet set conditions that would demand that a war takes place; a war that would make all other wars seem sensible and rational by comparison.

Perhaps you ought to explain how we should go about convincing   Iran not to develop the Bomb.  It seems to me that India did it and we were quit surprised when the first lit one off.  A Hiroshima type bomb is not that hard to make. 
Iran has stated it wants one and it will destroy Israel with one.  That the result would be an apocalypse is fine since that is preciself what Iran believes is going to happen.
How do YOU propose we stop Iran?  Or, if not "we," then  whom? 
Hey, I am open to suggestions....
Just keep in mind that if it involves actually trusting the Iranian Mullahs, then I'm  going to be somewhat of a "hard sell."

[agricola]

Perhaps you ought to explain how we should go about convincing   Iran not to develop the Bomb.  It seems to me that India did it and we were quit surprised when the first lit one off.  A Hiroshima type bomb is not that hard to make. 
Iran has stated it wants one and it will destroy Israel with one.  That the result would be an apocalypse is fine since that is preciself what Iran believes is going to happen.
How do YOU propose we stop Iran?  Or, if not "we," then  whom? 
Hey, I am open to suggestions....
Just keep in mind that if it involves actually trusting the Iranian Mullahs, then I'm  going to be somewhat of a "hard sell."

Negotiation and verification, which in this case serves the dual role of actually confirming that they arent building one and removes one of the main reasons (ie fear of a US led military intervention) for them wanting one in the first place.  Also Iran has never stated that they would nuke Israel, only the former PM misquoting Khomeini when he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" - which is far away from what you claim.

[dogmush]

Stepping aside from the moral concerns for a second,

Iran has stated it wants one and it will destroy Israel with one. That the result would be an apocalypse

I hear that a lot, and am unconvinced.  Israel doesn't add all that much to world stability that a glassed Tel Aviv* leads uncontrollably to WWIII.

*Not to say we should write the Israeli's off but let's be realistic.  Even a theater exchange of nukes between Iran and Israel doesn't end the world.


You also point out, correctly, that:

 A Hiroshima type bomb is not that hard to make.

In fact it's pretty stupidly simple to make.  So what makes you think that anything at all we could do short of war could stop an Iran determined to make one from getting what, about 15lbs of metal and a lathe?  Hell we made one during a war.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Building a bomb is easy only if you already have sufficiently enriched uranium or plutonium.  That's the challenge, you can't just dig bomb-grade fuel out of the ground. 

If you want bombs, you have to first build an infrastructure for enriching uranium/plutonium.  And that's exactly what Iran is doing now, learning and developing their enrichment capability.  Once they have the process licked, nothing stops them from building bombs.

And, incidentally, the emerging terms of the deal state that Iran can continue its enrichment activities.  Hmm...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Stepping aside from the moral concerns for a second,

I hear that a lot, and am unconvinced.  Israel doesn't add all that much to world stability that a glassed Tel Aviv* leads uncontrollably to WWIII.

*Not to say we should write the Israeli's off but let's be realistic.  Even a theater exchange of nukes between Iran and Israel doesn't end the world.

Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the show?

[dogmush]

Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the show?

Funny but not what I meant.

I often hear, not just from you, versions of "If Iran destroys Israel there will be an Apocalypse".  Which is crap.  If Iran glasses Israel.......There will be one less country in the mid east, the Saudi's (and probably the Egyptians) will act shocked and support whatever we and the EU decide to do in retaliation to avoid endangering their oil profits, and the Muslims will continue to kill each other over land no one else really wants.

What I think folks who say that really think is some version of "We can't let Iran destroy Israel because they are our ally, and millions of innocent people will die."  Which is a valid point, but not one you chose to make (yet).  It also opens the door for various "Not our Problem" isolationist retorts.

That's why I said "Stepping aside from the moral argument".  I'm not convinced we should hang Israel out to dry, but pretending it'll trigger some worldwide cataclysm 'ala WWI sounds like a low rent talk radio sound bite.

Building a bomb is easy only if you already have sufficiently enriched uranium or plutonium.  That's the challenge, you can't just dig bomb-grade fuel out of the ground.

Eh.  State of the art metal centrifuge enrichment is complicated.  (Well not really, but it takes infrastructure)  That's what Iran is trying to build and we are dickering about.

If they had built a gaseous diffusion cascade back in '06 instead of playing with centrifuge's they'd already have a bomb.  My understanding is the nickle diffusion membranes are easier to get and/or make then a centrifuge by a large margin.  The insistence on a centrifuge plant actually lends credence to their claim that they want it to make nuclear fuel (I think there's a strongly implied "too" at the end of that claim).

We've only stopped them building a nuke because they are being picky about how they build it.

Honestly, I don't think we can stop them forever, so trying to exert some control over exactly when it get's built is a good idea. I also don't think a nuclear Iran is a big enough strategic threat to the US to risk a war, and pissing off the rest of OPEC.  They'd have to nuke something to make that feasible.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You think only once less country?
Israelis have mini boomers


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[makattak]

You think only once less country?
Israelis have mini boomers


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

He's right it would be one less country. It's just not Israel that would be the one less country.

I'm betting Iran wiped out, the other nations band together (minus, I think, Jordan) to attack a weakened Israel. Israel would likely respond to that threat just as they did to the Iranian attack.  Apocalypse, indeed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Alright, let's set aside the issue of civilian mass murder.  Genocide of the Israeli people, no big.  Praise Allah and pass the plutonium.  And let's assume that Iran wins its nuclear exchange with Israel...

For one thing alliance with the United States will be shown to be absolutely worthless.  We're ignoring desperate warnings and pleas from our best mid eastern ally.  If they get whacked after we did nothing, then we're worth nothing.

The second problem is the arms race and resulting proliferation.  Western intelligence agencies will have the impossible task of keeping track of all those Arab nukes, and will fail.   It's all too likely that an Arab bomb winds up in New York or Paris.  

Should we ignore the moral implications of our own cities getting nuked, too?

And where does it end?  Are we going to decline to retaliate after getting nuked?  And how many deaths does it take before you consider it apocalyptic enough?

[dogmush]

Alright, let's set aside the issue of civilian mass murder.  Genocide of the Israeli people, no big.  Praise Allah and pass the plutonium.

For one thing alliance with the United States will be shown to be absolutely worthless.  We're ignoring desperate warnings and pleas from our best mid eastern ally.  If they get whacked after we did nothing, then we're worth nothing.

The second problem is the arms race and resulting proliferation.  Western intelligence agencies will have the impossible task of keeping track of all those Arab nukes, and will fail.   It's all too likely that an Arab bomb winds up in New York or Paris. 

Should we ignore the moral implications of our own cities getting nuked, too?

No, And I never said to write off Israel.  I said it wouldn't end the world.

I also didn't say I thought a nuclear Iran was a good idea, or all puppies and sunshine.  I said I didn't think Iran was a strategic threat to the US, and, more importantly, I don't think we can stop them. Points I guess you agree with since you are ignoring them and jumping off about what other Arab countries might do.

You are trying to make a black and white situation where one doesn't exist. 

[Balog]

For all my controversial posts here., I have not once advocated in favor of letting a foreign government get away with directly undermining US diplomacy.  

I'm sure you havent been paid for your treasonous remarks - and I'm not surprised.  Most only need a partisan stamp to go there, not cash.

You don't live in America, so the US is a foreign government to you isn't it?

[Balog]

Some folks drink the Israeli America Kool-Aid.  Because it is Israeli America!  And super tough/cool! 

The Israelis Americans commit more espionage against us than any other "ally."  This should be made apparent and those who support such shamed.  And those who do such tings prosecuted.

It'd be more effective if Micro posted it, but you get the idea.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No, And I never said to write off Israel.  I said it wouldn't end the world.

I also didn't say I thought a nuclear Iran was a good idea, or all puppies and sunshine.  I said I didn't think Iran was a strategic threat to the US, and, more importantly, I don't think we can stop them. Points I guess you agree with since you are ignoring them and jumping off about what other Arab countries might do.

You are trying to make a black and white situation where one doesn't exist.  

Yeah, see, I rejected your premise.  You're framing things all wrong.  "Aside from all of the problems, what's the problem?"  It don't work dat way.

You asked about problems.  So I named some.  If you want to ignore them (why?) so be it.  But that's on you, not me.

[dogmush]

Yeah, see, I rejected your premise.  You're framing things all wrong.  "Aside from all of the problems, what's the problem?"  It don't work dat way.

You asked about problems.  So I named some.  If you want to ignore them (why?) so be it.  But that's on you, not me.

That's not what I said at all.  I just reread to double check.

YOU said:

Iran has stated it wants one and it will destroy Israel with one.  That the result would be an apocalypse

Predicting a physical outcome.  I disagreed with that prediction.  But I knew that if just said "It wouldn't be that bad" I'd be accused of advocating genocide.  So I said:

Stepping aside from the moral concerns for a second,

And then specifically addressed your claims of the end of the world as an outcome of a regional nuclear exchange.  Then, when indeed, your reading comprehension failed you and you were unable to grasp my specific, situational comments. I clarified thusly:

Funny but not what I meant.

That's why I said "Stepping aside from the moral argument".  I'm not convinced we should hang Israel out to dry, but pretending it'll trigger some worldwide cataclysm 'ala WWI sounds like a low rent talk radio sound bite.

No, And I never said to write off Israel.

I also didn't say I thought a nuclear Iran was a good idea, or all puppies and sunshine

And you still haven't grasped it.  So in the interest of the polite side of this site, let me be REALLY clear:  I said "Stepping away from the moral argument" SOLEY as a conversational side to discuss your false statement about the physical result of the war.  I did not, at any point, say that I thought it was moral to nuke Israel (or Iran), nor did I say that the US policy should allow for the nuking of any country without response.  It simple didn't want to have to have this very conversation.

That said, and reiterating that genocide is immoral and should be avoided, I still don't believe that we are actually capable of stopping Iran's nuclear program in perpetuity.  We should understand that and attempt to influence HOW and WHEN that program comes to fruition.  Iran's leadership has spent easily a decade (since the sanctions got the harshest) proving that they will sacrifice their people and economy to keep that program moving forward, and keep it moving forward [slowly] they have.  Iran will one day make it.  They want it too badly, and it's too easy to do.  How they feel about us, and when they get it we can affect a little, and we should think carefully about that.

Now if you wish to keep on pretending I said something I didn't, you are free to do so, but the conversation will become much more one sided.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That's not what I said at all.  I just reread to double check.

YOU said:

Predicting a physical outcome.  I disagreed with that prediction.  But I knew that if just said "It wouldn't be that bad" I'd be accused of advocating genocide.  So I said:
And then specifically addressed your claims of the end of the world as an outcome of a regional nuclear exchange.  Then, when indeed, your reading comprehension failed you and you were unable to grasp my specific, situational comments. I clarified thusly:

And you still haven't grasped it.  So in the interest of the polite side of this site, let me be REALLY clear:  I said "Stepping away from the moral argument" SOLEY as a conversational side to discuss your false statement about the physical result of the war.  I did not, at any point, say that I thought it was moral to nuke Israel (or Iran), nor did I say that the US policy should allow for the nuking of any country without response.  It simple didn't want to have to have this very conversation.

That said, and reiterating that genocide is immoral and should be avoided, I still don't believe that we are actually capable of stopping Iran's nuclear program in perpetuity.  We should understand that and attempt to influence HOW and WHEN that program comes to fruition.  Iran's leadership has spent easily a decade (since the sanctions got the harshest) proving that they will sacrifice their people and economy to keep that program moving forward, and keep it moving forward [slowly] they have.  Iran will one day make it.  They want it too badly, and it's too easy to do.  How they feel about us, and when they get it we can affect a little, and we should think carefully about that.

Now if you wish to keep on pretending I said something I didn't, you are free to do so, but the conversation will become much more one sided.

Ridiculous discussion is ridiculous.

First, I didn't say what you said I said.  

If you really, really, really want me to talk apocalyptic outcomes, fine, let's talk.  Israel getting nuked is itself apocalyptic.  The resulting wider conflagration is also apocalyptic.  The nigh inevitable terrorist nuking of western civilian targets is itself apocalyptic.

Or is the problem that we need to define "apocalyptic"?  It means "of, relating to, or involving terrible violence and destruction; of or relating to the end of the world".

Second, you can't set aside the moral elements of Iran nuking Israel.  You can't have a meaningful discussion like this under those premises.  Hence my quip about Ford's Theater.  

It all makes for an impossible discussion.  Aside from that whole apocalyptic thing, what's apocalyptic about it?  Ignoring what's inescapably wrong about it, what's wrong about it?  

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

FWIW, I agree with you that we can't permanently prevent Iran from getting the bomb.  Do you agree with me that we should make it as hard and slow for them as possible?  And does the current deal do that?

[dogmush]

Do you agree with me that we should make it as hard and slow for them as possible? 

Mostly, but not entirely.  I would want to keep in mind that we will want to deal with them, and hopefully exert influence, after they succeed.  I don't foresee us ever being close allies with the current government of Iran, but we can hope for a revolution, and in Muslim countries that's not always a forlorn hope. So delay without nukeing the bridges? something like that.  I confess I don't know exactly where that line is either.  Certainly I would not go to war to stop their nuke program.  I feel that would lead to multiple generations of hostility, and they'd still make a bomb.  Likewise I wouldn't just tell them "*expletive deleted*it, do what you want."  I think the current scheme of sanctions isn't working, perhaps some other scheme might work better.

And does the current deal do that?

I have no idea, as far as I know there has been no detailed description of said plan.  Given that they may not even write it down (?) no one may ever know.  My default position is that Foggy Bottom screws up everything they touch, so I find it likely that this is not the slowest we could make this issue go, but it might actually be the slowest we're willing to pay for.

[agricola]

Alright, let's set aside the issue of civilian mass murder.  Genocide of the Israeli people, no big.  Praise Allah and pass the plutonium.  And let's assume that Iran wins its nuclear exchange with Israel...

For one thing alliance with the United States will be shown to be absolutely worthless.  We're ignoring desperate warnings and pleas from our best mid eastern ally.  If they get whacked after we did nothing, then we're worth nothing.

The second problem is the arms race and resulting proliferation.  Western intelligence agencies will have the impossible task of keeping track of all those Arab nukes, and will fail.   It's all too likely that an Arab bomb winds up in New York or Paris.  

Should we ignore the moral implications of our own cities getting nuked, too?

And where does it end?  Are we going to decline to retaliate after getting nuked?  And how many deaths does it take before you consider it apocalyptic enough?

For a start, it is a bit of a daft argument to say that "doing nothing" (which of course means "not doing exactly what Netanyahu wants" in this context) means that alliance with the US is "absolutely worthless", as if more than a hundred billion dollars in aid and diplomatic cover to an extent rarely if ever given by any nation to another down the years was a mere gesture.  You claim as if its a proven fact that the Iranians would nuke Israeli cities, even though there is no evidence (and indeed lots of evidence to the contrary) that their regime is so suicidal as that.

Also the argument about proliferation is somewhat arse about face - yes, it is the case that one country having the bomb means that its rival has to have it as well; indeed that is what we are seeing here.  Israel has the bomb.  The Saudis probably have it, or at least have immediate access to it.  Both countries are regional rivals of Iran.  

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

For a start, it is a bit of a daft argument to say that "doing nothing" (which of course means "not doing exactly what Netanyahu wants" in this context) means that alliance with the US is "absolutely worthless", as if more than a hundred billion dollars in aid and diplomatic cover to an extent rarely if ever given by any nation to another down the years was a mere gesture.  You claim as if its a proven fact that the Iranians would nuke Israeli cities, even though there is no evidence (and indeed lots of evidence to the contrary) that their regime is so suicidal as that.

Also the argument about proliferation is somewhat arse about face - yes, it is the case that one country having the bomb means that its rival has to have it as well; indeed that is what we are seeing here.  Israel has the bomb.  The Saudis probably have it, or at least have immediate access to it.  Both countries are regional rivals of Iran.  

I swear, it's like I'm in a parallel universe here.

Ho-kay...

I never claimed it a proven fact that Iran would nuke Israel.  I was answering a hypothetical scenario.  Israel is warning us this deal is no good, warning us we're placing them at risk, begging us not to do it.  If we do it anyway and they (hypothetically) pay the ultimate price, what does that say about our willingness (or ability) to help our allies when it counts?

There's no evidence Saudi Arabia has nukes.  There's evidence they shared in Pakistan's program and could have nukes if they chose to.  But so far appear to have remained unarmed in the interests of preventing an arms race.  

And c'mon, Israel?  They're at peace with their peaceful neighbors.  Egypt and Jordan have nothing to fear from Israel.  Iran need have nothing to fear if only they would accept Israel as a peaceful neighbor.  

And what is it with you Europeans and your kneejerk rejection of Israel?  If I don't like what I see about the deal I'm a patsy for Netanyahu?  If congress invites an ally to speak they're under the thumb of a foreign lobby?  Israel is on the right side of this issue and they deserve support from all civilized nations.  It's as simple as that.

[TommyGunn]

Negotiation and verification, which in this case serves the dual role of actually confirming that they arent building one and removes one of the main reasons (ie fear of a US led military intervention) for them wanting one in the first place.  Also Iran has never stated that they would nuke Israel, only the former PM misquoting Khomeini when he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" - which is far away from what you claim.

Well, according to Obama, we have an agreement ... or atleast an agreement to make an agreement, so I guess your thesis will be tested.  Which I guess means that 15 years from now Iran will then be able to build its Bomb.

I think you're being a tad optimistic .... sorta like Neville Chamberlain was three quarters of a century ago.
I also don't think Iran wants a Bomb because of fear of US military intervention (which I don't even think would be eliminated to the degree it may be a factor) is a driving factor.
I think they want the Bomb because they want to (A.) be the BIG Boy on the block and (B.) Fry Israel (not necessarily presented in order of importance).
And more than one Iranian has stated they want to fry Israel more than one time, so let's not get bogged down with some retired Iranian official misquoting Khomieni.  I've heard various stories alledging that Iran's desire to eradicate Israel aren't real.  The problem isn't that they aren't real, the problem is that Iran isn't the only country with such desires.

[De Selby]

Speaking of consistency, how many countries allow partisan policy arguments to excuse espionage and active measures to undermine the executive?

Can you imagine the Israelis catching an Arab spy who is undermining netanyahus efforts on Iran, then letting it go because the spy is preventing bad policy?

Get real folks.  This is just proof that at least some attacks on Obama's patriotism are partisan dog barking, not sincere beliefs.

No one who thinks foreign spying on America to subvert its efforts to AVOID a war is a good thing can seriously question Obama on grounds of patriotism and loyalty to America.  Maybe on policy grounds - although the policy arguments advanced here in support of ending negotiations with Iran are pretty silly.

[De Selby]

Well, according to Obama, we have an agreement ... or atleast an agreement to make an agreement, so I guess your thesis will be tested.  Which I guess means that 15 years from now Iran will then be able to build its Bomb.

I think you're being a tad optimistic .... sorta like Neville Chamberlain was three quarters of a century ago.
I also don't think Iran wants a Bomb because of fear of US military intervention (which I don't even think would be eliminated to the degree it may be a factor) is a driving factor.
I think they want the Bomb because they want to (A.) be the BIG Boy on the block and (B.) Fry Israel (not necessarily presented in order of importance).
And more than one Iranian has stated they want to fry Israel more than one time, so let's not get bogged down with some retired Iranian official misquoting Khomieni.  I've heard various stories alledging that Iran's desire to eradicate Israel aren't real.  The problem isn't that they aren't real, the problem is that Iran isn't the only country with such desires.

Nev Chamberlin was negotiating with the most fearsome political and war machine the world had ever seen.  I see no parallels to this - maybe in reverse.

[TommyGunn]

Nev Chamberlin was negotiating with the most fearsome political and war machine the world had ever seen.  I see no parallels to this - maybe in reverse.

Actually the French had more war material than the Nazis had, they suffered from remarkably poor military leadership that essentially lined up their tanks to be bombed by German Stuka Bombers, and thus (and for other tactical & strategic reasons) could not outfight the Nazi Blitzkrieg type warfare. 
Hitler's political machine was fearsome in its ruthlessness, but Hitler himself was a borderline dysfunctional personality.
The real problem was Neville Chamberlain's naiveté.  He couldn't see beyond his goodwill toward humanity, which works during Christmas celebrations but not so much against ruthless dictators.

How close a parallel Iran is with Hitler is I don't know, only future developments can tell.  I do, however, see Iranian Mullahs as being somewhat ruthless when it comes to Israel.....

[De Selby]

Actually the French had more war material than the Nazis had, they suffered from remarkably poor military leadership that essentially lined up their tanks to be bombed by German Stuka Bombers, and thus (and for other tactical & strategic reasons) could not outfight the Nazi Blitzkrieg type warfare. 
Hitler's political machine was fearsome in its ruthlessness, but Hitler himself was a borderline dysfunctional personality.
The real problem was Neville Chamberlain's naiveté.  He couldn't see beyond his goodwill toward humanity, which works during Christmas celebrations but not so much against ruthless dictators.

How close a parallel Iran is with Hitler is I don't know, only future developments can tell.  I do, however, see Iranian Mullahs as being somewhat ruthless when it comes to Israel.....

Haha, what do you think would've happened had Britain taken a hard line at that stage?  Suddenly all those guys running for their lives at Dunkirk would've become magically unbeatable?

It's a ridiculous analogy that has zero application to this.