Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

[donsutherland1]

From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Iran expert Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council said that the uranium enrichment plants are the real backbone of Iranian efforts and expenditures to get a nuclear weapons capability, and he suspected that they, rather than Bushehr, would be Israel’s primary targets in any attack.

“It’s not at all clear that Bushehr would be a high value target because it’s only tangentially related to any conceivable Iranian nuclear weapons program,” he said. “My suspicion is this isn’t a game changer. This isn’t going to give Iran enough fissile material for a bomb overnight.”

 

[Red_Dave]

IMO, the sanctions regime that has been pursued is largely ineffectual. Robust sanctions that would have dealt with Iran's ability to export crude oil/buy refined products on the world market would have a better chance at success. But to achieve such sanctions, the U.S. almost certainly would need to provide some quid pro quo to Russia and China given that there are some divergences between China's, Russia's, and the United States' interests.

In any case, there is nothing magical about the 8/21 date. If Israel believes it is confronted with an existential threat, it will respond appropriately to try to address that threat. Dates will be irrelevant. But, I suspect, neither Israel nor the U.S. believes that the situation has reached that critical point.

What would 'Robust sanctions' constitute?

 

[bub]

IMO, the sanctions regime that has been pursued is largely ineffectual.

Why would there be sanctions? Because international law has to be applied to certain states and not to others?

There were many ways to stop Iran from (legally) enriching its uranium, one way to do it was a swap (they give their 1% uranium and we give them uranium enriched to 20%, so that they don't need the enrichment plants) and I think we have been very close to a deal several time.

But threatening Iran or bombing them will only make things worse, that gives them a huge incentive to actually start trying to get nukes (which are a defensive weapon). Just like the Iraqi nuclear program, it was purely civilian and there was no way Iraq could actually build its own bombs, they only started to think about that after the Israeli raid.

 

[PeteEU]

Dejavu as the say. But unlike Iraq, Iran can bite back and the consequences will be global.

 

[bub]

Dejavu as the say. But unlike Iraq, Iran can bite back and the consequences will be global.

I don't think Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, but that's gonna be a huge chaos, the war would extend from Israel to Afghanistan.

 

[tlmorg02]

I have to agree with Don that the threat is being trumped-up my Mr. Bolten. A question though, why is it that our policy on Iran has not changed in the last 30 years? The US supported the Shah, who's tyranny and cruelty gave rise to the revolution that ended US-Iranian relations, and yet we remain steadfast against having regular diplomacy with them, which may have avoided these developments. We engage China, yet Iran has remained sanctioned and isolated for all of these years of which actual talks may have prevented things going this far. Just a thought.

 

[Zyphlin]

In all seriousness though I must agree with Dan, they probably already have them. Which begs the question why we went into Iraq when they weren't even close to getting them, but we've left North Korea and Iran to their own devices.

I would probably say because our true strategy had little to do with WMD's and they were attempting not to broadcast said strategy everywhere over the airlines.

The strategy seemed to be hoping to set up a democratic center in the middle east for a two fold purpose. First, hoping that an actual muslim majority country embracing Democracy could potentially help cause a spread of western ideology and beliefs regarding government throughout the Middle East fostering over time a different mentality that would move away from the radicalized islamic terrorism present there. Second, by essentially gaining an "Ally" in Iraq the U.S. would have a country that is smack dab in the middle of the ME with borders on the various "more likely" threats to the U.S. and its allies such as Iran and Syria as well as access to Pakistan and Afghanistan. It seemed it was their belief that this was going to be unquestionable a lengthy war with numerous battles and Iraq was to provide the first step and strategic move within it.

With a plethora of U.N. sanctions which were arguably being or had been violated by Iraq that authorized additional force if needed plus a fair bit of intelligence and statements dating back to even the previous administration in regards to the likelihood of Sadam and WMD's, Iraq presented the best possability for actually legally justifying a war. Add in the loose but questionable ties to Al-Qaeda mixed with the obvious state sponsoring of Terror in other places by Sadam and you have your easy tie in with the notion of the "War on Terror" and going after "state sponsors of Terror". The justification was not as clear with Iran, both on a selling it to the public stand point or on the legal/international stand point.

Now, we could argue all day whether or not the "spread democracy" idea is sound or feasable, or whether or not the U.N. resolution were violated. We could argue all day over whether or not the war on Terror was wise or how good the intelligence was. However I think its reasonable to suggest that the very fact there's a debate over the U.N. resolutions at least provides something more of a justification than Iran, where action would've had no real U.N. justification to my knowledge. Ultimately, I think Iraq was done for strategic and logistical reasons more than anything else

 

[tlmorg02]

I would probably say because our true strategy had little to do with WMD's and they were attempting not to broadcast said strategy everywhere over the airlines.

The strategy seemed to be hoping to set up a democratic center in the middle east for a two fold purpose. First, hoping that an actual muslim majority country embracing Democracy could potentially help cause a spread of western ideology and beliefs regarding government throughout the Middle East fostering over time a different mentality that would move away from the radicalized islamic terrorism present there. Second, by essentially gaining an "Ally" in Iraq the U.S. would have a country that is smack dab in the middle of the ME with borders on the various "more likely" threats to the U.S. and its allies such as Iran and Syria as well as access to Pakistan and Afghanistan. It seemed it was their belief that this was going to be unquestionable a lengthy war with numerous battles and Iraq was to provide the first step and strategic move within it.

With a plethora of U.N. sanctions which were arguably being or had been violated by Iraq that authorized additional force if needed plus a fair bit of intelligence and statements dating back to even the previous administration in regards to the likelihood of Sadam and WMD's, Iraq presented the best possability for actually legally justifying a war. Add in the loose but questionable ties to Al-Qaeda mixed with the obvious state sponsoring of Terror in other places by Sadam and you have your easy tie in with the notion of the "War on Terror" and going after "state sponsors of Terror". The justification was not as clear with Iran, both on a selling it to the public stand point or on the legal/international stand point.

Now, we could argue all day whether or not the "spread democracy" idea is sound or feasable, or whether or not the U.N. resolution were violated. We could argue all day over whether or not the war on Terror was wise or how good the intelligence was. However I think its reasonable to suggest that the very fact there's a debate over the U.N. resolutions at least provides something more of a justification than Iran, where action would've had no real U.N. justification to my knowledge. Ultimately, I think Iraq was done for strategic and logistical reasons more than anything else

I strongly agree with this assessment and feel that it is the only logical purpose to invading Iraq. All reports from inspectors prior to the invasion suggested that Iraq's WMD program was in shambles at best, and non-existent in all reality. However, the possibility indeed presented the best route to gaining a ME stronghold and potential ally in the region.

 

[PeteEU]

I don't think Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, but that's gonna be a huge chaos, the war would extend from Israel to Afghanistan.

Much larger country with more people who are very nationalistic unlike Iraqis. After all Iran has existed for 3000+ years and Iranians are very proud of that fact. That is also why no minor start up nation like the US will dictate or interfere with their policies.

 

[PeteEU]

I have to agree with Don that the threat is being trumped-up my Mr. Bolten. A question though, why is it that our policy on Iran has not changed in the last 30 years? The US supported the Shah, who's tyranny and cruelty gave rise to the revolution that ended US-Iranian relations, and yet we remain steadfast against having regular diplomacy with them, which may have avoided these developments. We engage China, yet Iran has remained sanctioned and isolated for all of these years of which actual talks may have prevented things going this far. Just a thought.

I am guessing it will take about 70 years for the US to forget the hostage crisis in Tehran. That after all was how long it took the US public to forget the death of American's during the uprisings in China during the first part of the 20th century.. there too American's were taken hostage (or under siege) and killed as far as I remember.

But saying that, Iranians have far longer memories than a mere 70 years... they can go centuries with a grudge.

 

[apdst]

I have to agree with Don that the threat is being trumped-up my Mr. Bolten. A question though, why is it that our policy on Iran has not changed in the last 30 years? The US supported the Shah, who's tyranny and cruelty gave rise to the revolution that ended US-Iranian relations, and yet we remain steadfast against having regular diplomacy with them, which may have avoided these developments. We engage China, yet Iran has remained sanctioned and isolated for all of these years of which actual talks may have prevented things going this far. Just a thought.

Why, you ask? Ever hear of the American hostages that were held and tortured for over a year? Ever hear of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? That's why.

 

[tlmorg02]

Why, you ask? Ever hear of the American hostages that were held and tortured for over a year? Ever hear of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? That's why.

Of course, but Vietnam was not that long ago and Bush established trade with them. Were Americans not captured and tortured there?

 

[PeteEU]

Why, you ask? Ever hear of the American hostages that were held and tortured for over a year? Ever hear of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? That's why.

And the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who were murdered by the Shah and his secret police. A secret police trained by the CIA and former Nazi officers in various methods of inflicting pain. And a regime put in power by the US and UK to protect the oil interests of private companies in the country, and stealing billions from Iran. Stuff like that come back to haunt you..., so...so what if a few American's were held hostage and maybe tortured (debatable). It after all put your hero Ronald Reagan in the white house.. you should be thanking them!

As for the Khobar Towers bombing.. yea was convenient that the Iranians were blamed by the FBI... Then again you did shoot one of their civilian airlines out of the sky killing 290 people...

 

[Gardener]

I don't know what you have been smoking, but most Jews in the United States, especially in the Northeast, happen to be Liberal.

.

and Israel is a little island of liberalism in a sea of backwardness.

 

[apdst]

Of course, but Vietnam was not that long ago and Bush established trade with them. Were Americans not captured and tortured there?

That's right, they were. They still have the remains of American service members that they refuse to release to us, too. I opposed establishing trade with Vietnam. They should be cut off, just like North Korea.

 

[apdst]

And the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who were murdered by the Shah and his secret police. A secret police trained by the CIA and former Nazi officers in various methods of inflicting pain. And a regime put in power by the US and UK to protect the oil interests of private companies in the country, and stealing billions from Iran. Stuff like that come back to haunt you..., so...so what if a few American's were held hostage and maybe tortured (debatable). It after all put your hero Ronald Reagan in the white house.. you should be thanking them!

As for the Khobar Towers bombing.. yea was convenient that the Iranians were blamed by the FBI... Then again you did shoot one of their civilian airlines out of the sky killing 290 people...

How many people have been murdered by The Revolutionary Gaurd, since 1979?

How much money does Iran funnel to Hamas and Hezbollah, every year? It was hezbollah that bombed the Khobar Towers; so yes, Iran gets the blame for that. I guess you're going to tell us that we had it coming, next?

BTW, let's see a source confirming that former Nazis worked with the CIA in Iran.

 

[PeteEU]

How many people have been murdered by The Revolutionary Gaurd, since 1979?

And so what? the Revolutionary Guard aint trained and backed by the US is it now? The SAVAK was!

How much money does Iran funnel to Hamas and Hezbollah, every year?

Plenty.. and how much does the US funnel to dictators and cutthroats every year? How much money did the US throw at the Shah? How much money did the US throw at the Afghani fighters that are now fighting the US in Afghanistan? How much money did the US throw at the dictators of South Vietnam that executed people on the streets? Want to go on?

It was hezbollah that bombed the Khobar Towers; so yes, Iran gets the blame for that. I guess you're going to tell us that we had it coming, next?

Had it coming? No.. was it expected after US policy? Yep. 290 civilians shot down by the US, many Lebanese killed in US bombing raids, blind support of Israel and so on and so on.

BTW, let's see a source confirming that former Nazis worked with the CIA in Iran.

My bad, that was in Chile. The CIA only taught techniques perfected by the Nazis... not much better.

"Ex-analyst says CIA rejected warning on Shah", Seymour Hersch: NYT 1/7/79

 

[tlmorg02]

Regardless of what events led us to this point, how does the West respond? If Iran does indeed secure a nuclear weapon, though Russia has provided assurance to the contrary, what response is appropiate from the US and its allies?

 

[bub]

Regardless of what events led us to this point, how does the West respond? If Iran does indeed secure a nuclear weapon, though Russia has provided assurance to the contrary, what response is appropiate from the US and its allies?

Doing nothing, according to Russia there is zero chance that this plant can be used for military purposes.

 

[Apocalypse]

Doing nothing, according to Russia there is zero chance that this plant can be used for military purposes.

Ah, Russia's word.
Golden than gold.

 

[tlmorg02]

Doing nothing, according to Russia there is zero chance that this plant can be used for military purposes.

Yes, but I am asking if Russia is wrong.

 

[apdst]

And so what? the Revolutionary Guard aint trained and backed by the US is it now? The SAVAK was!



Plenty.. and how much does the US funnel to dictators and cutthroats every year? How much money did the US throw at the Shah? How much money did the US throw at the Afghani fighters that are now fighting the US in Afghanistan? How much money did the US throw at the dictators of South Vietnam that executed people on the streets? Want to go on?



Had it coming? No.. was it expected after US policy? Yep. 290 civilians shot down by the US, many Lebanese killed in US bombing raids, blind support of Israel and so on and so on.



My bad, that was in Chile. The CIA only taught techniques perfected by the Nazis... not much better.

"Ex-analyst says CIA rejected warning on Shah", Seymour Hersch: NYT 1/7/79

So, since The Revolutionary Gaurd isn't trained by the United States, that makes it ok? That's stupid.

many Lebanese killed in US bombing raids

US aircraft conducted bombing raids in Lebanon? I don't remember that; gotta source to back that up?

How much money did the US throw at the Afghani fighters that are now fighting the US in Afghanistan?

None, the US didn't give money to the Taliban during the Afghan Russo War. We gave money to Shah Massoud's forces, AKA The Northern Alliance, that allied with us to fight the Taliban in 2002.

How much money did the US throw at the dictators of South Vietnam that executed people on the streets?

Got any links that support your contention that South Vietnamese dictators randomly, or otherwise, executed people in the streets? While you're at it, you can also dig the information that proves that the North Vietnamese Communist executed government officials, school teachers, or anyone else they considered a threat. The Communists slaughtered hundreds of thousands. Too bad they weren't destroyed, we sould have save alotta lives.

 

[bub]

Yes, but I am asking if Russia is wrong.

According to them every Western head of state agreed with that

Lalibre.be - La Russie défend la centrale nucléaire iranienne

 

[tlmorg02]

According to them every Western head of state agreed with that

Lalibre.be - La Russie défend la centrale nucléaire iranienne

So it says

 

[PeteEU]

So, since The Revolutionary Gaurd isn't trained by the United States, that makes it ok? That's stupid.

Never said it was okay, said there was a difference. The only reason the SAVAK and Shah was in business was because of the US and UK. Without their backing, both monetary and trainingwise, the Shah would never have been put back in power. Without US training, the SAVAK would never have become so brutal as they became.

US aircraft conducted bombing raids in Lebanon? I don't remember that; gotta source to back that up?

You dont know your own history do you? 2 US aircraft were shot down during bombing raids in Lebanon by US forces against Syrian positions. Also the New Jersey shelled Lebanon during the same period. As for sources.. google it or look it up in this wikipedia article

Multinational Force in Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia