FOREIGNID: 85523
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 9770
AUTHOR: Hopeful
DATE: 01/20/2006 10:25:52 PM

3 questions.

 1.  Is it practical to believe that Iran's nuclear program could be destroyed or at least severely slowed down via air attacks if it became necessary?  Lots of reports have Iran placing their nuclear program in heavily fortified, underground locations, and we still don't seem to know any specific location which has highly enriched uranium within that country.  Could we stop it with military force if we wanted to?

 2.  If either the U.S. or Israel were to launch airstrikes against the Iranians, what would their governments response likely be?  Do they have the capability to send troops into Iraq to fight ours?  How does their air force compare to Saddam's in '91?  Do they still have useable chemical or bio weapons they could deploy against us or Israel?

3.  Iran clearly seems to have the expertise and equipment to create a bomb.  Given those facts...how long do you think, absolute minimum time, it could be before Iran could get its hand on the bomb?  If they put their entire economy towards building a bomb within a year or two, given that they do seem to have some uranium sources, could they do it?  Do they have the uranium sources to sustain such an operation? 

After living most of my life with a bullseye on my back for tens of thousands of Soviet warheads, why should I worry about Iran getting a bomb - assuming that is what they intend (everything they've done is legal) and especially when there is nothing anyone can do to eliminate whatever threat there may eventually be?

Was it your opinion of the CIA operation reported in James Risen's book which indicates that the CIA gave the Iranian envoy to the IAEA detailed plans for a nuclear weapon trigger? 

The Soviet defector, a nuclear scientist,  employed to deliver the plans was not told that there was a flaw in the plans which the CIA reportedly hoped would slow down the Iranian bomb program (at least that was the story told to Risen.). However, the Soviet scientist detected the flaw himself and in fact noted it to the Iranians because he believed the Iranian scientists were more than capable of detecting the flaw themselves anyway.

The end result is that classified information concerning nuclear weapons construction was handed to the Iranians by the CIA.

In your opinion, could this action have contributed to the Iranian bomb program (if such actually exists) or would it have been irrelevant to the eventual outcome of such a program? And if it would have been irrelevant, why then do you think the CIA bothered to engage in this operation?

Just how large is the research facility at Natanz and what is the minimum size for a nuclear facility with the capability of producing the highly enriched fuel required for nuclear weapons? If part of the Natanz facility is underground how can we know how large the facility actually is?

From what I have been reading Iran has research facilities broken up and placed in different locations ranging from dozens to possibly hundreds of facilities. How accurate can any intelligence we have be if we don’t even know the number or location of all the nuclear research facilities in Iran?

It would seem impossible today to judge the veracity of intelligence or expert opinion regarding clandestine nuclear weapons programs. On the one hand, we know the US government is in the habit of lying (Iraq.) On the other hand, the intel task involved seems beyond the capabilities of our intel and of any outside experts: the development timeline and black-market export of nuclear weapons technology in Pakistan being a case in point. So to assume that an Iranian bomb is "obviously" 10 years away or "probably" a few months away based on what any of these people say is, empirically, about as reliable as a random guess.

Iran has said publicly, and reiterated even under public pressure, that Israel should be wiped off the map and that they doubt the Holocaust ever happened. They have also publicly called for violence against Americans. They are known to provide weapons and support to armed groups who habitually and deliberately target civilians and who have declared they will never make peace. Given these facts, why should we care about the technical details of international law, IAEA regulations, and the NPT as it relates to them? All of these "agreements," including most particularly the UN SC veto, came about under threat of force from the great powers, so that conclusions based on them are always already the result of might-makes-right, not of rule-of-law, and it is senseless to follow them if they lead to absurd and dangerous conclusions. China and Russia have both been heavily involved in supplying dual-use nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, so that if rule-of-law were even remotely involved, one should expect them to recuse themselves from any related votes. These international systems do not provide justice, sanity, or even stability, they merely provide a slightly smoother practical means for the veto powers to enforce their national interests on everyone else.

The only relevant question is: can Iran be stopped from getting nuclear weapons, and if so, how, and would the risks be greater than the risks of nuclear aggression or blackmail by an Iranian regime of the current stripe? Is such a regime capable of disregarding, disbelieving, or misjudging MAD? Capable of giving the weapons to third parties in a way that would make MAD meaningless? Is the US prepared to drop large numbers of nuclear weapons on Iran if a single nuclear device traced to them goes off in NYC? If Israel has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all of Iran, are we prepared to watch that happen if a single nuke goes off in Tel Aviv?

Even if, like the Iranian government, you think all Jews should be exterminated, there might still be legitimate reasons for preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. These reasons also might not happen fully to be covered by the NPT, IAEA, or international law, as modified, and/or made laughable, by Russian and Chinese veto powers.

Within Iran, who controls the nuclear program? To what extent is the program driven and controlled by the religious leadership and military (revolutionary guards) and to what extent is it in the hands of the civilian and/or scientific community? Do different answers to those questions suggest Iranian intent and, therefore, the degree to which the international community should be concerned about Iranian developments?

1. Please outline, if possible, the reasons that the US should be the driving force behind a move to stop Iran's nuclear "ambitions".
2. What countries would be most at risk if Iran were to gain weapons capability?
3. What actions are underway to  dissuade or prevent Iran from gaining access to the technology, or has the technology already been transferred?
4. Is the Iranian nuclear desire motivated from fear or is this just the next logical step in a "nuclear caliphate" with Pakistan leading the way?
   

1 - The offer the EU3 made to Iran in August 2005 is pretty widely agreed to be a bad/borderline insulting deal.  Even the EU3's ambassadors to Tehran seem to agree about that.

a - Was the offer the most the EU3 could offer and if so why is the EU3 not able to offer, for example that Europe would guarantee trade with Iran under WTO terms if Iran halts enrichment for some period of time?

b - Is it a reasonable inference that Europe's strategy was to maintain negotiations permanently, which would turn Iran's voluntary suspension during negotiations into a de-facto permanent ban?

2 - If Iran develops the full fuel cycle under the terms of its March 2005 offer to submit to the strictest safeguards system in the world, but then after mastering the fuel cycle leaves the NPT:

a - How long would it take from now until Iran masters the fuel cycle under such a program

b - If Iran leaves the NPT after mastering the fuel cycle, how much time would it take to put together a weapon

3 - What do you expect to happen?

a - Do you expect sanctions from Europe in the absence of UN sanctions?

b - There is talk of Iranian officials being denied travel visas.  Is this a joke?

c -  If the US bombs Iran's facilities, how long would it take Iran to rebuild?  Would Iran get international help (China, Russia, Pakistan) in rebuilding?  Would increased oil prices help Iran more than the bombings hurt?

4 - In conspiracy circles there is talk of the Iranian oil bourse denominated in Euros that comes on line in March 2006.  Will the nuclear issue impact that at all, is the bourse seen as a threat to the United States?

Iran claims to want to pursue its nuclear program for peaceful purposes only. Would it be fruitful for the US to offer to provide nuclear reactors to Iran for such uses, with the US being required to maintain them?

It doesn't seem possible to restrict forever which countries are allowed to use nuclear power, so an alternative would be to eliminate the need for other countries to do the basic research, develop the experimental reactors, develop enrichment facilities, etc. by simply providing them with nuclear power reactors as needed. But, is the US even capable of building such reactors now?

Why is the US not offering changes to its policy on Israel, particularly supporting the maintenance of settlements on the land conquered in 1967, and forcing Israel into the non-proliferation regime, as part of its offers to Iran? If the US is serious about reducing the incentives for Iran to go nuclear, these are obvious elements for a deal which in no way damage US interests.

Keep in mind that the nations that signed the NPT have not aquired nuclear weapons, and the natiosn that did not sign the NPT HAVE aquired nuclear weapons (with the exceptions of Cuba and Switzerland (and Switzerland only recently even joined the UN).

Are you aware of any nations that have signed on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty under a previous government that was subsequently deposed by a revolutionary, or simply a new government, that cited the illegitimacy of the previous government in committing a state to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

The NPT was a concept developed by the US Government.  France and China did not acquiesce to join sign the NPT until 1992.  Prior to 1992 is is well known that France was trying to sell atomic energy services to Pakistan and Iraq.  France's current leader, President Chirac, was a key negotiator in the selling of the Osirak reactor to Iraq.  For what reasons did France and China join the NPT that previously were viewed as unnecessary?

What is your view on future proliferation of nuclear weapons and its relationship with the makeup of the United Nations Security Council? 

I would very much appreciate an analysis of the legal basis (if any) under NPT or international law for an attack on Iran if they violate their NPT requirements.  Also, what legal basis (if any) for an attack if Iran were to withdraw from NPT before continuing enrichment.  Thanks!

1. In what aspects is the alleged Iranian nuclear program different from the alleged Israeli nuclear program? Why do we all of a sudden have to be more afraid of Iran going nuclear but didn't we apply the same measures when Israel developed their (alleged) nuclear capabilities?

2. Wouldn't disarming all nuclear capabilities in the area (Iran, Pakistan, India and Israel) be a much better approach to the Iranian issue than merely prohibiting one nation while allowing others?

David,

As far as the Iranian President goes, it seems fair to say that he is a highly influential, elected head of state, and that (by his own assertion) he was speaking in his official capacity as head of that state when he made these remarks.

Cf. The Guardian 10/28/05:

Mr Ahmadinejad appeared at an anti-Israeli rally attended by thousands of Iranians in Tehran and rejected the international condemnation of his comments as "invalid".

"My words were the Iranian nation's words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid," he said.

Here is some Wiki boilerplate on the president's role in the state. I think it is fair to say that all the hope in reform that progressives placed in Khatami has turned to legitimate fears regarding the corresponding potential influence of Ahmadinejad.

The President of Iran holds a very important office in Iran's political establishment. Originally a figurehead position when created after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the presidency has become an increasingly important office, especially since 1989. The current president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Role in the state

In contrast with most republics, the effective head of Iran's political establishment is not the president, but rather the Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts. For instance, Ruhollah Khomeini, who is perhaps the most famous Iranian leader in the West, was never president.

Despite this, Iran's president fulfills many of the classical functions of a head of state, such as accepting the credentials of ambassadors. Since the change in the constitution that removed the post of Prime Minister and merged most of the prime ministerial duties with the President's, the once figurehead Presidential post has become a position of significant government influence. In addition, as the highest directly elected official in Iran, the President is responsive and responsible to public opinion in a way that the Supreme Leader is not.

I never stated that Iran had a current policy of exterminating Jews: "fears for the future" are exactly what I am articulating.

Combine the state's official statements about wiping Israel off the map with its statements doubting the Holocaust, and the policy of supporting armed groups that deliberately target Jewish civilians, and a reasonable person might conclude that this regime hates Jews and likes to see them killed. If making noises to this effect makes an Iranian president more popular, that also speaks volumes.

You say I stated many things to be facts which were just propaganda: can you give an example?

As for "inflammatory rhetoric," I don't understand how you can have it both ways. I will oversimplify somewhat to make what I think is a valid point. Either:

a) the Iranian president in his official capacity made outrageous, racist, inflammatory and destabilizing statements, and Iran has a policy of supplying armed groups with similar intent, in which case it could be thought highly offensive to suggest that it's an utter mystery why anyone might not want this state to have nuclear weapons; or

b) the Iranian president's statements were basically reasonable, in which case I am not attributing anything inflammatory to anyone.

Just please be aware that given Iran's policies and public gestures, saying, "Why should we care if Iran gets nuclear weapons?" can be deeply offensive to some. I find it sad that one even has to point this out, and an enigma how this position on Iran ever comes to be called "progressive" or "liberal."

FOREIGNID: 85555
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12230
AUTHOR: Jim from Roswell
DATE: 01/21/2006 07:34:53 PM

After seeing FEMA's response to Katrina, I'm wondering what a competent response to a nuclear blast in the U.S. would be.

Air Force cargo jets standing by to drop food, water, medical teams, etc.?

What kind of injuries would the survivors of a nuke have?

What percentage could be saved in the government responded with a non-Brownie rescue effort? 

Incidentally, it is fascinating to see the transition the left has undergone since the days of the Spanish Civil War (prior to Stalin's intervention.) Back then, Loyalists (the ones I have known, anyway) would have seen today's Iran as a religious-conservative and largely authoritarian government employing firey anti-Semitic rhetoric, supplying weapons to like-minded violent foreign entities, and possibly ramping up mass armaments. If people voiced neutrality-shading-into-support for such a government's actually getting weapons of mass destruction, the Loyalists would have had a word for it: they would have unhesitatingly (if broadly) called it fascist, and perhaps they'd have been right. This is not an ad hominem: the point is the substantive position being named, and what kind of world it stands for. Of course, it wasn't long after that that Stalin realigned his followers on the "left" in a certain direction.

The disjunction then between a genuinely progressive ethics and actual "left-wing" ideological positions, and the scarcity of voices between/apart from this so-called "left" and the (oddly similar in their way) right-wing Western imperialists seems perhaps still instructive for the present climate. Cf. Foucault's lonely journey from predicting in 1978 that Iranian Islamists could never be dictatorial to protesting against martial law in Poland in 1981 and being criticized for it by the French Socialists. Which position is actually "progressive" or "left" in some meaningful sense?

It seems that out of this ideological maze one cannot now even expect a banal consensus that, people and states being what they are, and nuclear weapons being what they are, it might be worth some effort to minimize the number of states that have these weapons.

Anyway, the question remains whether potential Iranian nuclear ambitions could be stopped, and at what cost.

2006 congressional elections are coming up and Bush/Rove need a diversionary issue.

I tend to think that they want power and weapons-they have said they view Israel as a threat. The thing is, do we really have a right to stop them?

If they really just want nuclear power, that is really easy to accomplish.

Canada has a non-breeder reactor, the CANDU.

Wrong.  Just look at a map, and at history books describing expansion and contraction of nations and borders.

By the way it's surviving, not 'surviving'.  When you use the latter spelling you undermine your claim that 'so do we all'. 

A map will show you how small Israel is...and how crazy its borders are.   Israelis are trying to expand, to grow...partly to defend themselves, partly to provide a home for more Jews.

Using words like 'racist' and 'colonies' only reveals your ignorance and true position.   By those definitions all of Israel is a colony and establishing a Jewish nation is a racist enterprise.  You obviously don't approve of such things so why would you want to see Israel survive?