Obama's Iran talks

[Rostere]

According to the reports, Mossad said they're not building a bomb right now.

 

Correct.

 

Netanyahu only said they are close to having enough enriched uranium to build a bomb.

 

Theoretically speaking, they might already have had enough enriched uranium to build a bomb, but not a practical one.

 

But as you understand, if Netanyahu were to state that "Okay. Now they have everything they need for a bomb. I'm expecting them to build a bomb and use it any minute!", and then nothing would happen, it would completely expose his tendency to cry wolf. So it's crucial for his argument that Iran is perpetually always going to get nuclear weapons "soon". If it's "now", then he will be exposed as a liar. If it's "in 10 years", it's not urgent enough to gain attention. He's been saying that Iran is about to get nuclear weapons in the next few years since the early nineties.

 

It may be true they're not actually building a bomb at this point, but in any case I don't consider Al Jazeera and the Guardian as reliable sources. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/23/middleeast/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-reports/ If they don't want a bomb, why are they enriching Uranium to 20%?

 

Then what is a reliable source? Al Jazeera is cautiously anti-Iran.

 

20% uranium-235 is an ingredient for making the fuel for certain reactors (for example the ones typically used in nuclear subs). It does have a legitimate civilian use in the making of certain medical isotopes, but I do remember thinking that the amount they had was a bit much. Not absurdly much, but still. I don't really have the time on my hands to approximate exactly how much use Iran has for it, but anyway.

 

Al Jazeera is a propaganda outfit for terrorist-sponsoring Qatar, saying they're biased the opposite way doesn't make them any more credible, obviously they hate Israel more than anyone.

 

Al Jazeera was actually the first Arab media to invite Israeli representatives to TV debates, and feature IDF commentary on Israeli military operations. Al Jazeera was very keen to always have an IDF spokesman reply to any criticism during Cast Lead. Journalistically speaking, that's far better than most US TV channels - it's impossible to dispute. Wake me up when CNN has a Palestinian to comment on all reporting whenever Gaza is bombed, and Palestinians on all panels on the I/P conflict.

 

Btw, both Mossad and CIA have been wrong before, CIA didn't even know India was developing nuclear weapons! I'm not saying that Iran has necessarily given the final go ahead for the bomb, but they're certainly in position now to do it, and that's a terrible chance to take given their track record.

 

They have been wrong before, but it's the best we've got. Random keyboard warriors on the Internet with zero knowledge of either nuclear physics or Iranian internal politics will not make more accurate assessments .

 

You're treading on very thin ice with that track record argument. IMO the threat in Iran is not from the clerical establishment (who has both dismantled an existing nuclear weapons program inherited from the Shah, and stated that nuclear weapons use by Iran is forbidden by Islam) but the nationalist Basji organization. US efforts should focus on minimizing their influence and standing in Iranian society through cultural means. Ahmadinejad's voters were to a larger degree hardliners compared to Rouhani's. You have got to understand, that for the Iranian hardliners, the fact that the US does not want Iran to enrich uranium is reason to do in itself. If Iran can poke the US in the eye, that is a home-run with parts of Iranian voters.

[Hurlshort]

 

If we are going by track record, there is only one country that has actually gone through with nuclear attacks.  

Even if Iran never uses the nukes it could develop; Iran simply having them would pose a huge problem.

 

 

I'd wager both Pakistan and North Korea are bigger risks, albeit for differing reasons.

[pseudonymous]

If we are going by track record, there is only one country that has actually gone through with nuclear attacks.  

 

Look at it this way, if the Russians hadn't allowed a psychopath to take over after Lenin, Truman would have stopped at just burning Japan to the ground with incendiary bombs.

[Valsuelm]

 

If we are going by track record, there is only one country that has actually gone through with nuclear attacks.  

Even if Iran never uses the nukes it could develop; Iran simply having them would pose a huge problem.

 

 

Only if you're inclined to invade them, which some in the west are keen to do. Otherwise those nukes pose no more of a problem than those of anyone else.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

If we are going by track record, there is only one country that has actually gone through with nuclear attacks.  

Even if Iran never uses the nukes it could develop; Iran simply having them would pose a huge problem.

 

 

Iran possessing nuclear weapons would be the single most powerful force for peace in the middle east. Why is it, that since the advent of hydrogen bombs that no two countries (possessing them) have ever experienced a direct conflict? Why is it, that nuclear nations have only ever conducted proxy wars? Why is it, that any time these nuclear armed nations have come close to open and direct war, they have each collectively stepped back and realized the foolishness of it all?

 

An armed society, is a polite society. The invasion ambitions of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Israel, The USA, The UK, and several other countries, would be dashed in an instant. Israel would now be forced to play nice in the sand box. The USA's hundreds of military bases, armies, navies, and air forces riddling the region would become obsolete. A nuclear armed Iran would bring not only the middle east, but much of the world closer to peace. The only risk of Iran having nukes, would be that the rabid dog that is Israel would play Russian-roulette with humanity and pre-emptively push the red button first.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Zoraptor]

Or alternatively, you'd have Qatar, UAE, and worst of all by far, Saudi Arabia all with nuclear weapons a few years at most later. They'll all want the bomb if Iran has it, nothing surer.

 

 

20% uranium-235 is an ingredient for making the fuel for certain reactors (for example the ones typically used in nuclear subs). It does have a legitimate civilian use in the making of certain medical isotopes, but I do remember thinking that the amount they had was a bit much. 

 

Yeah, other countries without nuclear weapons aspirations make 20% U235 as well. Pretty sure Brazil's annual production of it is a fair bit higher than Iran's entire accumulated stockpile was, too.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You're treading on very thin ice with that track record argument. IMO the threat in Iran is not from the clerical establishment (who has both dismantled an existing nuclear weapons program inherited from the Shah, and stated that nuclear weapons use by Iran is forbidden by Islam) but the nationalist Basji organization. US efforts should focus on minimizing their influence and standing in Iranian society through cultural means. Ahmadinejad's voters were to a larger degree hardliners compared to Rouhani's. You have got to understand, that for the Iranian hardliners, the fact that the US does not want Iran to enrich uranium is reason to do in itself. If Iran can poke the US in the eye, that is a home-run with parts of Iranian voters.

Ahmadinejnut or Rouhani, it's Khamenei who calls the shots. Nukes being against Islam sounds like Taqiyya to me. You'll remember Khomeini said "We're not Iranians, we are Muslims. Let Iran burn so long as Islam wins."

[Namutree]

Or alternatively, you'd have Qatar, UAE, and worst of all by far, Saudi Arabia all with nuclear weapons a few years at most later. They'll all want the bomb if Iran has it, nothing surer.

 

This.

 

If Iran gets a nuke; they'll all want nukes. With all those bombs about, it won't be long until the wrong people get their hands on them.

[Valsuelm]

 

Or alternatively, you'd have Qatar, UAE, and worst of all by far, Saudi Arabia all with nuclear weapons a few years at most later. They'll all want the bomb if Iran has it, nothing surer.

 

This.

 

If Iran gets a nuke; they'll all want nukes. With all those bombs about, it won't be long until the wrong people get their hands on them.

 

 

The wrong people have had their hands on nukes since day 1.

[Hurlshort]

Again, Pakistan is a way bigger risk than Iran when it comes to the wrong people getting hands on it.

[Volourn]

Why are you in love with a country that brags about the mass murder and slavery of its own people? At least  the US pretends not to.

[Namutree]

Again, Pakistan is a way bigger risk than Iran when it comes to the wrong people getting hands on it.

It isn't since Pakistan isn't a foe of Saudi Arabia.

 

I'll repeat myself: Iran having nukes in and of itself isn't a huge problem; it's when everyone else in the region rushes to get nukes as well to match them that things get really dangerous.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Again, Pakistan is a way bigger risk than Iran when it comes to the wrong people getting hands on it.

Iran is the wrong people, it doesn't get more wrong unless you resurrect hitler.

 

Btw, there's no Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons. http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/03/16/there-is-no-fatwa-condemning-nuclear-weapons-by-irans-ayatollah-khamenei/

Edited March 18, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Valsuelm]

 

Again, Pakistan is a way bigger risk than Iran when it comes to the wrong people getting hands on it.

Iran is the wrong people, it doesn't get more wrong unless you resurrect hitler.

 

Btw, there's no Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons. http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/03/16/there-is-no-fatwa-condemning-nuclear-weapons-by-irans-ayatollah-khamenei/

 

 

This Andrew McCarthy > yours.

 

While I do occasionally enjoy Bill Whittle diatribes about the state of things, PJ Media is about as naive and ignorant as any media source comes when it comes to international matters (this sadly includes Bill to a large degree). Especially when talking about Iran or Israel. The pro-Israeli propaganda is heavy on that channel, and the organization that the article is citing (MEMRI) is a pro-Israeli 501c. I trust them about as much as I trust Obama to tell the truth, maybe less.

 

That said. Fatwa or no Fatwa, it doesn't really matter. Iran would be dumb to not get nukes if they can, given the historical hostility from it's some of it's neighbors, the U.S., U.K., and Israel. Nothing could assure it's national defense more than nukes, sadly.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Valsuelm