Iran, Nukes and Diplomacy 2011-2014
Note this new thread is for discussions in 2011. Iran and nuclear weapons has come to the fore again. I have started this 2011 thread and moved a small number of posts added in 2011, in a moment the previous thread will be closed and locked.
Original Post
An IISS Strategic Comment on the impact on Iran's civil nuclear programme, which I knew existed, but not in any detail and worth reading:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...clear-rethink/
Meir Dagan on possibility of Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities
Former Mossad chief: Israel air strike on Iran 'stupidest thing I have ever heard'
In first public appearance since leaving post as Mossad chief, Meir Dagan warns of regional war if Iran is attacked; says fall of Assad regime would benefit Israel.
By Yossi Melman
Haaretz, Published 18:52 07.05.11
Quote:
Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan referred to the possibility a future Israeli Air Force attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as "the stupidest thing I have ever heard" during a conference held at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem on Friday.
Dagan's presentation during a senior faculty conference was his first public appearance since leaving his former role as chief of the Mossad at the end of September 2010.
Dagan said that Iran has a clandestine nuclear infrastructure which functions alongside its legitimate, civil infrastructure. It is the legitimate infrastructure, he said, that is under international supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Any strike on this legitimate infrastructure would be "patently illegal under international law," according to Dagan.
Dagan emphasized that attacking Iran would be different than Israel's successful air strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran has scattered its nuclear facilities in different places around the country, he said, which would make it difficult for Israel to launch an effective attack.
...
The IAF's abilities are not in doubt, Dagan emphasized, but the doubts relate to the possibilities of completing the mission and reaching all targets.
When asked about what would happen in the aftermath of an Israeli attack Dagan said that: "It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end."
Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options:catch all thread 2011
Iran and nuclear weapons has come to the fore again. I have started this 2011 thread and moved a small number of posts added in 2011, in a moment the previous thread will be closed and locked.
playing Persian Incursion, a board game of a hypothetical Israeli air campaign
Hat tip to FP Blog for a glimpse into the possibilities of an Iranian-Israeli conflict:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...sian_incursion
Quote:
Persian Incursion is basically two games in one. There is a highly detailed military game of a seven-day Israeli air offensive in which Israel plans and executes its strikes while the Iranian air defenses try to stop them. But there is also a political game that unlocks the military aspect...
...As U.S. history has demonstrated for the last 65 years, before you blunder into a war, it's best to figure out exactly how you're going to win. Although Persian Incursion is a war game, destroying or protecting Iran's nuclear sites is only a means to victory -- not victory itself. The real prize is political. If Israel or Iran can knock down the other's morale enough through military or political action, it wins. Part of the goal, then, is to score points on "political tracks," which measure public opinion and morale.
Nowhere does it say who sells the game, sorry Rex!
The first review of the game I found:http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7...sian-incursion
Israel vs Iran: the regional blowback
Professor Paul Rogers has written a short article, which opens with:
Quote:
The prospect of an Israeli military assault on Iran's nuclear assets is growing. The scale and impact of any attack would be far greater than most observers expect.
Quote:
It is the link between the weapons research and two other factors that makes the case for revisiting Iran's nuclear ambitions....The first is the programme of uranium enrichment...The second factor is the Iranian construction programme, which includes several major underground facilities.
This part intrigued me, partly as I do not recall reading about this aspect:
Quote:
But Israel cannot guarantee effective results by operating from its own territory alone; it needs local allies. Here, Kurdish (northeast) Iraq and Azerbaijan are important. Israel has assiduously developed close relations with both. In the latter case, this has meant taking sides with a Muslim country locked in a frozen conflict with (Christian) Armenia - in turn supported by Iran - over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Kurdish Iraq and Azerbaijan would not necessarily offer Israel forward operating bases for strike aircraft; but their numerous support functions could include the insertion of special forces into Iran; search and rescue; overflying by tanker aircraft; and, above all, launch sites for some of Israel's many and potent armed drones.
In short, an Israeli operation against Iran will be comprehensive and will use regional facilities to inflict maximum damage on Iran's nuclear programme. But the moment it starts, the political dynamics change.
There's more on the link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...ional-blowback
Israel vs Iran wargame compendium
I've assembled a compendium of recent (2009-present) public-domain wargames on a possible Iranian strike against Iranian nuclear facilities here.
General Dempsey to CNN: Iran Shouldn't "Miscalculate Our Resolve"
General Dempsey to CNN: Iran Shouldn't "Miscalculate Our Resolve"
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
A collapse I missed, did you too?
Quote:
The most striking indicator is the collapse of the Iranian rial's value against the US dollar: from around 7,000 rial to the dollar in October 2011 to 15,150 at the end of trading on 20 December 2011.
Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/wo...loom.html?_r=1
Hat tip to Paul Rogers for drawing attention to this:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...-shifting-risk
Given that Iran continues to import much of its petrol, which I assume is paid in US$, this collapse could be rather painful quickly.
New plant is open to inspection
Yes the new, underground nuclear processing plant is open, but somewhere today I read it is under IAEA safeguards - which is an important point IMHO.
A collapse I missed, did you too? Updated
Curiously the Iranian Rial exchange rate to the US Dollar has improved in the last three weeks and is now 11,279; three weeks ago it was 15,150.
I assumed the exchange rate was a barometer of international confidence in trading with Iran.
New plant is open to inspection: Part 2
A week ago I posted this:Yes the new, underground nuclear processing plant is open, but somewhere today I read it is under IAEA safeguards - which is an important point IMHO.
Now for Part 2. Today in the Daily Telegraph is a report headlined Great Salt Desert bunker could be trigger for an attack on Iran' and sub-titled:
Quote:
A bunker buried in a mountainside in the Great Salt Desert could become the crucial trigger for any decision to launch military strikes on Iran.
I noted this less bellicose passage:
Quote:
Last November, the IAEA reported that Fordow held 412 centrifuges, representing 14 per cent of its capacity.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...k-on-Iran.html
All this and without deep reading on such matters puzzles me. Iran develops and reveals an underground factory, which is inspected by the IAEA and under safeguards - which IIRC includes time lapse CCTV and more. Why would the Iranians allow such external oversight?
But the Ayatollahs are nothing if not true believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
the root cause is various actions of the Government of Iran.
You have to be a true believer in the free market to crank up a privatization program in the context of sanctions preventing international investments in your country.
The deal the West could strike with Iran
A rare insight into the diplomacy with Iran, by a retired British diplomat, including the offers made - which the author contends should have been accepted:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...with-Iran.html
I cite the last two paragraphs:
Quote:
At the moment, however, we are locked into a process of imposing ever tighter sanctions on Iran. This economic warfare has many drawbacks. It requires an exaggeration of the Iranian “threat” that fuels the scare-mongering of those who want this pressure to be a mere step on the way to war. It risks provoking retaliation, while hurting ordinary Iranians. And it risks higher oil prices that the West can ill afford. Moreover, even if Iran were unexpectedly to give way, coercion rarely delivers durable solutions. Its effect on motives is unpredictable. It can breed resentment, while restrictions can be circumvented in time.
It may be asking a lot of our leaders that they swallow their words, lower their sights and focus on a realistic target. They could do it, though, and the talks due to take place shortly in Turkey could be the setting for a change of course. What is much more likely, unhappily, is that we will continue to see a variant on the devil having the best tunes. Far too many American politicians see advantage in whipping up fear of Iran. I can almost hear them sneering that the NPT is for wimps. The odds must be that they will continue to propel the West toward yet another Gulf war. Still, nothing is inevitable.
True -- and with respect to monetary and fiscal movement, rarely do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Event and its causes do not need to have the same date.
However, Government tinkering is most often the root cause. In the US , the result then gets the sitting President applause or disapproval when he likely had little to do with it. Same deal with wars and such... ;)
In the case of Iran, folks within get the word out that a combination of official corruption and poor policies jointly lead to poor results, exacerbated by the sanctions and resultant smuggling (both a result of government policy).
Living with a nuclear-armed Iran?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strickland
Why is a nuclear-armed Iran incompatible with our vital national interest? In lay terms - why cant we live with a nuclear-armed Iran?
A good question and one that could be asked about other nations that have gained a nuclear weapons capability: Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa (renounced), Libya (renounced) and Ukraine (renounced).
So in lay terms I'd say:
1) Geography - being in a rather volatile region
2) History of relations, or lack of them between Iran and the USA since 1979
3) The Israel-US relationship, notably within American politics
4) A Western policy of avoiding more nuclear capable states, NPT etc
5) Fear that Iran is a crazy, irrational state - in American and a few other's eyes
6) The fear that other nuclear capable nations will decide to go for weapons
If for example Brazil decided to for weapons, how would the West react? Could the USA live with that decision? Many nations are known to have considered going for nuclear weapons since 1945, without being under duress.
I'd recommend checking this website:http://www.thebulletin.org/
Where I've taken this quote from an article on Iran:
Quote:
Crying wolf. As strategic analysts Anthony Cordesman and Khalil al-Rodhan remind us, in the 1990s, high-level American and Israeli policymakers repeatedly warned of an Iranian bomb by the year 2000. When that did not come to pass, policymakers warned of an Iranian bomb by the year 2005. Then they said it would happen by 2010. Now the talk puts Iran's nuclear debut in the 2013-2015 time frame, if not sooner.
Link:http://www.thebulletin.org/web-editi...n-nuclear-bomb