Iran irregular war

China’s quiet sale to Tehran of sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles

If you view American policy toward Afghanistan, whatever that policy may be, as the product of a conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer and “protect” Israel, I agree with you. The snouts are in the trough, and this is a scam to rank with the greatest in American history.

PBS should give much more attention to the Iranian foreign minister and his many sensible comments about regional political and economic issues.

What utter rubbish emitting from the mouths of the US senators regarding the so-called Lockerbie bomber, and BP! Complete cr*p!

First, a minor complaint:

I have not been “on the fence” on this issue, and so it’s inappropriate to insist that I must climb down and “take a side.”

We’ve previously discussed this “Japan option” issue at great length, most recently in a late-May thread. Indeed, it’s best that I start with a comment I posted then – for several reasons: (1) it will save me time here; (2) it will establish my point that we’ve walked this ground before; (3) I know the author of that comment well, and someone assured me (I think it was my bathroom mirror) that you may safely accept what he writes as being entirely correct; (4) if there are any gaps in what I wrote back then, my addition of quotation marks below should add just the extra patina of authority needed to cover them up.

YOU WROTE IN THAT EARLIER THREAD:

“You say Iran should give up any efforts to attain a Japan option. Why?”

I REPLIED:

“For several reasons. First, because it’s very dangerous for the Iranian people since the US is hell-bent on preventing this, and devoting gobs of money and personnel to detect it. Nor do I consider it necessary if Iran’s only objective really is to develop peaceful nuclear energy (and if that’s not Iran’s only objective, I feel strongly that it ought to be).”

“The only reason I can see for Iran to press its luck would be to attain not what Japan has, but rather what North Korea has. I don’t think that’s feasible, since the US (and the IAEA) now have a very watchful eye on Iran. I think it would be not worth the considerable risk to the Iranian people to make the effort.”

“Finally, I think that some or many countries and people who now support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy would withdraw support if they were to conclude that Iran also wants to develop nuclear-weapon capability as a useful tool for keeping the US at bay. That may be desirable for Iran, and the urge is entirely understandable given the shabby treatment Iran receives at the hands of the US, but for the rest of the world the bottom-line result would be yet another nuclear-armed state. One can probably justify India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea having taken the very same strategic approach in the past, after all, and look what that has left the world with today: four more nuclear-armed states. In addition, some states that back Iran in its defiance of the US might not feel quite so sympathetic once the dust clears and Iran has nuclear weapons but they don’t.”

[END OF MY EARLIER REPLY].

YOU THEN WROTE IN THAT EARLIER THREAD:

“Are you claiming such an option is illegal?”

I REPLIED:

“Possibly it’s illegal, under the argument I made in my [earlier] post that a “nuclear explosive device” without fuel is still a “nuclear explosive device,” but I acknowledge that that argument may not be a winner … Far more important to me, whether it is “legal” or “illegal,” I think it’s very ill-advised for the reasons stated in the preceding long [passage quoted above].”

[END OF MY EARLIER REPLY].

The phrase “an option” in your question above highlights another point I’ve made several times before: I’m not always sure what “Japan option” means to you, though I’ll concede you’ve defined it clearly enough in this current thread.

If you look back at our previous thread, you’ll recall that you’ve argued, at your most extreme, that Iran (or Japan), without violating the NPT or its Safeguards Agreement, could develop and build a deliverable nuclear bomb so long as it didn’t put any nuclear material in it. That argument prompted my observation that “a gun without bullets is still a gun,” which led to a brief “dual-use” skirmish since guns can also be used to shoot robbers and squirrels. As I recall, we got past that once I’d refined my metaphor to “a nuclear explosive device without fuel is still a nuclear explosive device,” and you conceded (I think) that a nuclear explosive device probably isn’t useful for shooting robbers and squirrels.

As my last-quoted reply mentioned in passing, my having established this point did not, despite what one might think, necessarily mean I’d also established that Iran (or Japan) would violate the NPT or its Safeguards Agreement by building such a fuel-free nuclear bomb. I don’t concede that, but I do recognize that your argument on that point is strong.

But far more important is the fact that we draw opposite conclusions from the strength of your argument on this point, as I explained in my long previous post on the current thread (July 19 at 4:19 PM). Your conclusion (paraphrased here) is:

“Iran is within its legal rights. Back off, US.”

My conclusion, by contrast (also paraphrased):

“The very fact that the NPT and Iran’s Safeguards Agreement (arguably) would allow Iran to get this far without the US, the IAEA, or anyone else having a right to complain only highlights the insufficiency of the assurances provided by the NPT and Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. Treaty or not, “legally” or not, the US is going to find some way or other to assure itself that Iran is not building nuclear weapons – even ones that, as yet, have no nuclear material in them. Either Iran can cooperate by disclosing more of what it’s doing so that the US does not get trigger-happy, or Iran can insist on its legal rights until hell freezes over – or until a mushroom cloud rises over Tehran because the US gets tired of guessing about what Iran is up to.”

Next, the question of whether the US is discriminating against Iran because the US doesn’t complain when Japan does the same things as Iran is doing – or worse: maintains vast stockpiles of plutonium that can have no useful purpose other than to build bombs.

I believe I’ve answered this adequately before, but just in case:

First, the US indeed does discriminate between Japan and Iran, for reasons the US deems valid (regardless of whether you and I would) in light of the US’ overriding objective: to ensure that countries the US considers to be dangerous don’t get nuclear weapons.”

I don’t claim to know all of the US’ reasons, nor to agree with all of those I can think of, but I’ll mention a few possible reasons. First, Japan is not located in the Middle East or another “hot spot” part of the world. Second, Japan has been very peaceful, in both actions and words, ever since the end of World War II. Third, the US knows it probably can count on China to squelch any military ambitions that may creep back into the Japanese mind-set. Fourth, some US officials might not consider it such a bad thing that Japan point a few nukes in the direction of the Chinese mainland, and are confident the US wouldn’t get blamed for that if it had done nothing more than to loosen the Japanese leash. There probably are numerous other reasons – I haven’t given this narrow question a lot of thought – but at least none of those I’ve mentioned so far would apply to Iran. This may explain why the US treats Japan differently from Iran.

Finally, however you might define “nuclear option,” having a “nuclear option” strikes me as pointless, and extremely dangerous for one’s own country to pursue, unless it enables the country to create the real or enemy-imagined ability to drop a nuclear bomb on one’s enemy before the enemy can prevent that. In an earlier thread, you frankly acknowledged that Japan would need to leave the NPT in order to put the finishing touches on any nuclear weapon. You’ve made the very same observation regarding Iran, and you’ve provided various estimates as to how long this would take once Iran had left the NPT. Your estimates have generally been stated in “months,” and I remember even “a year” in one post.

Estimates with such time frames presume a US reaction so slow as to be entirely unrealistic – a phrase I choose only because I hesitate to upset you by using “absurd.” Bear in mind that the US’ number-one stated goal here is not to let Iran acquire deliverable nuclear weapons. Achieving that goal requires not allowing matters to drift so long that the US no longer is confident that it can prevent Iran from producing a deliverable bomb. Depending on how much the US is confident it knows about Iran’s nuclear program when Iran leaves the NPT, the US might estimate that Iran can produce a deliverable bomb in, say, a year, or three months, or perhaps three weeks.

The length of that estimate will be significant principally for bomber-scheduling purposes. If Iran were to leave the NPT, thus thumbing its nose at the IAEA, the US and everyone else – or, it is important to note, even if Iran does not leave the NPT but continues to resist demands for much greater disclosure – US bomber pilots probably would be strapping on their helmets no later than about one week before the end date of that estimate, possibly much earlier if the US’ carefully laid attack plans call for more lead time.

The notion, implicit in your “nuclear option” scenario, that the US would wait any longer than this is unrealistic. That is why I believe that Iran’s pursuit of a “nuclear option” – if that term has any practical meaning – would be both pointless and very dangerous.

James, those circumstances “may be” changing even as we speak!!!! seems like, seems like, an entity is twisting the arm of BP, british pretty hard, re the pan am air liner! Is someone trying to make sure ALL brits are toeing the friends of israel line??

on another note, a bit odd to see pbs news hour showing and making mention of the IRI FM in the afghan conference! peculiar.

That doesn’t mean Obama knows or the Congress knows – or cares, and the neocons OBVIOUSLY don’t know OR care, and Israel doesn’t give a damn at all.

Like I said, escalation dominance is not an overwhelming force against a war with Iran. Neither are Pentagon generals who will do what they’re told or be forced out like Admiral Fallon.

These idiots think they can win in Afghanistan. What part of “these idiots” don’t you get? In fact, it’s not a question even of them being idiots. It’s a question of THEY DON’T CARE as long as the taxpayer money goes to the right people – and the AIPAC crowd continues to contribute millions to their campaign funds.

Their only concern is that this be done in such a way as to not be TOO blatantly obvious to the morons in the US electorate or criminally prosecutable by their rivals for power in the state apparatus. That’s the extent of their rational calculation.

“That does not mean I favor non-proliferation because I want the US/western powers to keep Iran down”
-and-“denying Iran the bomb will help them accomplish that. “
“It means simply that”
” my desire to prevent nuclear proliferation “
“outweighs my desire to see Iran take its much-deserved higher place in the world order”

Eric with all due respect I broke down your sentences so none continues tune will make it easier to digest each of your sentences. In this context what you mean and what you don’t mean are essentially the same thing, what I originally understood and expected.

Again I emphases I don’t believe Iran should pursue or have a military nuclear program since it is not necessary, but I do strongly believe
Iran should have an ingenious domestic full nuclear fuel cycle in line with its NPT sovereign rights at any cost, to maintain its hard earned independence.

If you are saying that Iran can continue to enrich LEU, as provided by the NPT, and continue to allow IAEA supervision, and not be attacked by the US, I agree with you.
The risk, of course, is that the warmongers and fellow-travelers will develop such a thorough false narrative, that they may succeed in “boxing Obama in” so that he feels obliged to raise the ante. Even if that course of action would be foolish, stupid, etc.

Iran has a number of problems to deal with, and obviously getting attacked by Israel or the US would be a setback. I continue to think the US could achieve normal relations with Iran, but it seems to be the case that Obama cannot resist the demands of Democrats in the Senate and the House, that he be hostile toward Iran because Iran is unfriendly toward Israel.