US may cede to Iran’s nuclear ambition

[Azure]

US officials are considering whether to accept Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.


As part of a policy review commissioned by President Barack Obama, diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran’s insistence on carrying out the process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons- grade material.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87571cc6-2...nclick_check=1

Basically gives Israel no choice but to deal with them.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87571cc6-2...nclick_check=1

Basically gives Israel no choice but to deal with them.

Why does one nation who refuses to abide by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty have the right to attack another nation for violation of the same treaty?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Why does one nation who refuses to abide by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty have the right to attack another nation for violation of the same treaty?

Does it really matter?

Iran has used Hezbollah/Hamas to orchestrate strikes against Israel before. I think they're more scared of a dirty bomb finding its way into the hands of terrorists than they are of Iran actually launching a nuclear attack against Israel.

Whats the point of having a treaty if there are no consequences for the nations that don't abide by it? North Korea supposedly tested a nuclear weapon in 2006, and launched what many think is a test of a long-range missile that passed over Japan....Iran is obviously going ahead with their nuclear problem and all those countries that are abiding by the treaty are sitting and watching everything unfold.

Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea are all countries not recognized as Nuclear Weapons States.....so, what exactly the point of the treaty again?

I don't know about those other 3 countries, but I know Israel believes that second strike deterrence is a important factor in preventing conventional and unconventional attacks by foreign armies.

Nuclear weapons are viewed as the ultimate guarantor for the safety of Israel, and are employed strictly as a deterrent, as their military is not structured around the existence of those weapons.

Supposedly their official policy to use nuclear weapons revolves around these 4 things....

1. A successful Arab military penetration into populated areas within Israel's post-1949 (pre-1967) borders.
2. The destruction of the Israeli Air Force.
3. The exposure of Israeli cities to massive and devastating air attacks or to possible chemical or biological attacks.
4. The use of nuclear weapons against Israeli territory.

Nothing offensive about it.

Even the Samson Option was seen a deterrance.

EDIT:

Israel has said that it "would not be the first country in the Middle East to formally introduce nuclear weapons into the region." This maintains sufficient ambiguity to satisfy its neighbors, as well as the United States. It also implies that Israel would not strike first with nuclear weapons during a war, only using them for a retaliatory strike.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9822/...ast_peace.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Well they can cede the production of nuclear materials. However the U.S. will need to make it clear that if there is ever a nuclear attack on Israel or any of their neighbors, by Iran or any of their funded terrorist groups that Iran and its people will become the world supplier of glass works for the next thousand years.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nuclear weapons are viewed as the ultimate guarantor for the safety of Israel, and are employed strictly as a deterrent, as their military is not structured around the existence of those weapons.

Do you honestly see Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons being driven by offensive goals?

Yeah, we've heard Ahmadinejad's statement about driving Israel into the sea and they've funded insurgents/terrorists, but do you really see them starting a nuclear war with Israel or anyone else? It would be suicide.

I have to believe that Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons is driven by (1) national pride and (2) protecting their ability to exercise influence in the region by providing security against military action by the US and its allies.

[flylock shox]

It's been a long while since I looked at it, but my understanding of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is that it is designed to limit nuclear armaments among signatory states, but encourage the development of nuclear technology for power purposes. In fact, I think it's a right for signatory states to develop nuclear power.

If that's still the case, and Iran's a signatory, then they're very much entitled to nuclear power (allowing, of course, for other restrictions they may be subject to).

If I had more time and inclination, I'd look this up again myself. But it might be an interesting thing for someone with more motivation to take a gander at.

It will be interesting to see how Israel responds. Particularly if the US is not inclined to act and, implicitly anyway, withholds Israel's carte blanche. This is a very concerning development for them, regardless of what Iran's rights might be.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Do you honestly see Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons being driven by offensive goals?

Yeah, we've heard Ahmadinejad's statement about driving Israel into the sea and they've funded insurgents/terrorists, but do you really see them starting a nuclear war with Israel or anyone else? It would be suicide.

I have to believe that Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons is driven by (1) national pride and (2) protecting their ability to exercise influence in the region by providing security against military action by the US and its allies.

I do, when you have a bunch of Mullahs and a president who believe in paradise, holy wars and martyrdom, I'd rather not trust them with custodianship of doomsday weapons.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

It's been a long while since I looked at it, but my understanding of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is that it is designed to limit nuclear armaments among signatory states, but encourage the development of nuclear technology for power purposes. In fact, I think it's a right for signatory states to develop nuclear power.

If that's still the case, and Iran's a signatory, then they're very much entitled to nuclear power (allowing, of course, for other restrictions they may be subject to).

If I had more time and inclination, I'd look this up again myself. But it might be an interesting thing for someone with more motivation to take a gander at.

It will be interesting to see how Israel responds. Particularly if the US is not inclined to act and, implicitly anyway, withholds Israel's carte blanche. This is a very concerning development for them, regardless of what Iran's rights might be.

I studied this treaty last year.

The goal of it is to encourage safe nuclear technology while discouraging the development of weapons.

So basically there are 2 types of signatories to it. Those with nuclear weapons techonology and those without. Those without vow never to have weapons, and those with encourage the have nots to develop safe nuclear power.

To deal with the Israel question first. Israel was never a signatory to it, so it simply doesn't apply to Israel. The reason for that, Israel did not require any help from anyone in developing their technology. In fact, a large reason why they have so many nukes is they traded their technology to France in exchange for nuclear material. Israel had nuclear technology before the NPT came into existence. As the NPT works to limit new nations from acquiring weapons, as opposed to taking weapons from those that already possess them, Israel wouldn't be affected by the provisions had they become signatories anyway. All it would have done is forced disclosure of their weapons. Something they along with India and Pakistan have refused to do.

The problem with Iran, however, is two fold.
1) they have been a signatory to the treaty and have as such made a vow never to have nuclear weapons in exchange for the technology and goodwill they have been receiving; and

2) Some countries just don't believe that Iran's program is entirely peaceful.

So Iran has had the advantages of being a signatory, as they have been getting technology both nuclear and not from other signatory states. If they were ever to possess a nuclear weapon this would then be a huge slap in the face to the other signatories.

IF they had never signed the NPT, an instead developed the technology 100% on their own, there would be nothing that the other NPT member states could say about Iran's program.

The problem here is once Iran has a weapon, what can you really do about it. It makes dealing with them in any kind of a military way almost impossible.

For the record, it is not just the Israel/US alliance that is worried about these weapons, it is the Arab states as well. More specifically, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Iraq has already lost several million lives in wars with Iran and would prefer not to have a Persian nuclear power in the region.

[transplant99]

Yeah, we've heard Ahmadinejad's statement about driving Israel into the sea and they've funded insurgents/terrorists, but do you really see them starting a nuclear war with Israel or anyone else? It would be suicide.

Yes...because that is EXACTLY what they preach fer chrissakes. That's the terrorist mantra over there. Not sure why anyone would doubt they would use nukes if they felt it was time...what on earth points to any other outcome?

[peter12]

Israel has openly said that if Obama does not proceed with preventing the Iranians from developing an atomic weapon, the IDF will engage in preliminary strikes against Iran, just like they did with Iraq in the 1980s. Obama has a lot to lose by not acting.

It's hilarious that for all the religious bashing that goes on around here that there isn't more distrust for a country run exclusively by wide-eyed fanatical ayatollahs. Meanwhile both Israel and the United States are governed by diverse democratic institutions. I know who I would trust more.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

It's been a long while since I looked at it, but my understanding of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is that it is designed to limit nuclear armaments among signatory states, but encourage the development of nuclear technology for power purposes. In fact, I think it's a right for signatory states to develop nuclear power.

If that's still the case, and Iran's a signatory, then they're very much entitled to nuclear power (allowing, of course, for other restrictions they may be subject to).

If I had more time and inclination, I'd look this up again myself. But it might be an interesting thing for someone with more motivation to take a gander at.

It will be interesting to see how Israel responds. Particularly if the US is not inclined to act and, implicitly anyway, withholds Israel's carte blanche. This is a very concerning development for them, regardless of what Iran's rights might be.

Yes, that's pretty much correct. The one caveat I'd add is that Iran has been in violation of the NPT in that they did not fully disclose their enrichment efforts, even though those efforts were not illegal in and of themselves. Since that happened in 2006, the IAEA has found them to be complete in disclosing their enrichment efforts.

As well, I think the more significant is that Khamenei has issued a fatwa against even developing nuclear weapons as a deterrant tactic. There are those within Iran who disagree with him, but unless Khamenei dies and is replaced by an even more conservative supreme leader (very unlikely given the relatively moderate leanings of the assembly of experts), it's unlikely that nuclear weapon development would be a real part of Iran's defense strategy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Do you honestly see Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons being driven by offensive goals?

Yeah, we've heard Ahmadinejad's statement about driving Israel into the sea and they've funded insurgents/terrorists, but do you really see them starting a nuclear war with Israel or anyone else? It would be suicide.

I have to believe that Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons is driven by (1) national pride and (2) protecting their ability to exercise influence in the region by providing security against military action by the US and its allies.

Which I would imagine is a problem within itself.

I don't think Iran would ever use nuclear weapons themselves, but there is the chance they give a dirty bomb of some kind to terrorist organizations.

Israel has had nuclear weapons for 40-60 years now, and they're strictly used a deterrence.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by blankall

The problem with Iran, however, is two fold.
1) they have been a signatory to the treaty and have as such made a vow never to have nuclear weapons in exchange for the technology and goodwill they have been receiving; and

2) Some countries just don't believe that Iran's program is entirely peaceful.

So Iran has had the advantages of being a signatory, as they have been getting technology both nuclear and not from other signatory states. If they were ever to possess a nuclear weapon this would then be a huge slap in the face to the other signatories.

...

The problem here is once Iran has a weapon, what can you really do about it. It makes dealing with them in any kind of a military way almost impossible.

For the record, it is not just the Israel/US alliance that is worried about these weapons, it is the Arab states as well. More specifically, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Iraq has already lost several million lives in wars with Iran and would prefer not to have a Persian nuclear power in the region.

This sounds right to me. I wrote a rather lengthy paper in my last term of law school on nuclear proliferation, but it's amazing what a few years of being a lawyer does to your memory for all kinds of law other than what you're practicing.

And you've hit the nub of the problem too, I think. Iran is entitled to develop peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT, but prohibited from developing weapons technology. Unfortunately, the technologies are so closely related that it's not a big leap once you've got the one to acquire the other. So the problem the US faces (and other interested countries, of course) is that it doesn't have any justification under international law to prevent Iran's development of nuclear power, unless it has evidence that Iran's projects are not peaceful in nature. And it doesn't have that evidence as far as I'm aware.

And, of course, the US has also lost all credibility when it comes to bare assertions without physical proof (see: Iraq has WMDs). If I'm not mistaken, weren't Iran's facilities inspected by the IAEA or similar body several months ago?

And you're right - the balance of power throughout the region would shift with another nuclear state, particularly one that is more likely to trumpet their status than whisper it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by peter12

Israel has openly said that if Obama does not proceed with preventing the Iranians from developing an atomic weapon, the IDF will engage in preliminary strikes against Iran, just like they did with Iraq in the 1980s.

Supposedly they did the same thing against Syria a few years ago. Nobody is really sure what it was all about, but rumors are Syria and North Korea were working on nuclear technology and Israel instigated an airstrike.

Either way, I have no doubt Israel will strike. Its just a matter of when.

Obama has a lot to lose by not acting.

And a lot to gain if he does act.

Least of all the resolve that will show the world that his administration can't be toyed with.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

This sounds right to me. I wrote a rather lengthy paper in my last term of law school on nuclear proliferation, but it's amazing what a few years of being a lawyer does to your memory for all kinds of law other than what you're practicing.

And you've hit the nub of the problem too, I think. Iran is entitled to develop peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT, but prohibited from developing weapons technology. Unfortunately, the technologies are so closely related that it's not a big leap once you've got the one to acquire the other. So the problem the US faces (and other interested countries, of course) is that it doesn't have any justification under international law to prevent Iran's development of nuclear power, unless it has evidence that Iran's projects are not peaceful in nature. And it doesn't have that evidence as far as I'm aware.

And, of course, the US has also lost all credibility when it comes to bare assertions without physical proof (see: Iraq has WMDs). If I'm not mistaken, weren't Iran's facilities inspected by the IAEA or similar body several months ago?

And you're right - the balance of power throughout the region would shift with another nuclear state, particularly one that is more likely to trumpet their status than whisper it.

To give the US some credit, they were quite successful in coming to a diplomatic solution with Libya.

Lybia (at one point a very unfavorable country with the US and its allies) was busted with a large amount of equipment with no use other than weapons. They chose a diplomatic solution. Libya dismantled their weapons production facilities and allowed IAEA and US inpectors to have full access to their facilities and things worked out quite amicably. In fact, the whole thing turned into a much wider peace initiative between Libya and it's neighbours and a lot of long term disagreements were put to rest.

The problem with Iran is that in 2003 they were busted not having complied with full inspection and disclosure under the NPT. At the threat of UN action, they made much greater efforts to disclose what they had, but there is still debate about whether this disclosure is complete.

Another problem is that the type of nuclear energy Iran is choosing to pursue is closely related to weapons technology. There are other alternatives out there, but Iran is choosing the heavy water, fission (not really sure how this works, I'm not a physicist in by any means) route.

[octothorp]

I do think the US has also exacerbated the problem by using a loophole in the NPT to put nuclear weapons in Turkey. Between Isreal, Russia, Pakistan, and now with US-controlled weapons in Turkey, and add the history of the Iran/Iraq war where a US-backed Iraq attacked and used WMDs including mustard gas and nerve gas, there is a lot of material there for the fundamentalist faction in Iran to whip up fears of other foreign powers in the region.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

To give the US some credit, they were quite successful in coming to a diplomatic solution with Libya.

Lybia (at one point a very unfavorable country with the US and its allies) was busted with a large amount of equipment with no use other than weapons. They chose a diplomatic solution. Libya dismantled their weapons production facilities and allowed IAEA and US inpectors to have full access to their facilities and things worked out quite amicably. In fact, the whole thing turned into a much wider peace initiative between Libya and it's neighbours and a lot of long term disagreements were put to rest.

The problem with Iran is that in 2003 they were busted not having complied with full inspection and disclosure under the NPT. At the threat of UN action, they made much greater efforts to disclose what they had, but there is still debate about whether this disclosure is complete.

Another problem is that the type of nuclear energy Iran is choosing to pursue is closely related to weapons technology. There are other alternatives out there, but Iran is choosing the heavy water, fission (not really sure how this works, I'm not a physicist in by any means) route.

I think you forgot that the American's also dropped a couple of smart bombs Through Gaddafi's window killing his step daughter and injuring two of his sons. After that crazy pants knew that the American's were taking the gloves all the way off and he folded his tent and started to play nice.

So yes, it was diplomacy written on 1000 pound smart bombs and dropped on his house.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think you forgot that the American's also dropped a couple of smart bombs Through Gaddafi's window killing his step daughter and injuring two of his sons. After that crazy pants knew that the American's were taking the gloves all the way off and he folded his tent and started to play nice.

So yes, it was diplomacy written on 1000 pound smart bombs and dropped on his house.

To be fair that event happened in 1986. The diplomatic events I was referring to happened over 20 years later.

Just because the Reagan administration at one time dropped bombs on Libya does not mean that any action in the future cannot be seen as diplomatic. In fact, that was kind of my point. The US managed to take a military situation and use diplomacy to defuse it.

Gaddafi didn't really back down from his stance immediately after the bombing anyway. He didn't really start to back down until he admitted to the Lockerbie bombing in 2003. So if by "folding up his tent and playing nice" you mean that he downed a passenger plane (UTA Flight 772) a couple years later, then i guess I would agree with you.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I say, let Iran and everyone else have nukes over there. Then they can blow the hell out of eachother and we won't have to hear about it anymore.
And hey, maybe gas prices will be cheap for awhile.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I say, let Iran and everyone else have nukes over there. Then they can blow the hell out of eachother and we won't have to hear about it anymore.
And hey, maybe gas prices will be cheap for awhile.