It's died off a bit now, but a few months ago we were hearing a LOT of sounding off about war with Iran. Conventional wisdom is that this is off the table until after the US election if Obama has anything to say about it, so we might hear more on it later in the year.

I want to cover one point, which is the reason for war. Supposedly Iran is developing nukes.

It isn't and if you think it is you are wrong. It has a peaceful nuclear energy programme.

I've summarised responses to some fairly common points below, originally posted by me for somewhere else entirely, which I'm hoping will let people see why exactly it is stupid to assume Iran has nukes.

Iran has loads of gas and oil, why would it need a domestic nuclear energy programme? It must be trying to develop nukes.

This sounds like a decent argument. Common sense says this is logical, until you see the details of how Iran operates. http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IR This is a link to the EIA, the part of the US government which analyses energy in foreign countries. Almost everything I'll mention here is pulled from there seeing as I think we can all assume the US government won't be biased in favour of Iran.

Iran has a lot of fuel, both in terms of oil and natural gas. Based on latest reports it produces 3.7 million bbl/d (Barrels per day) of crude oil and consumes 1.8 million bbl/d of fuel itself. However Iraq's refinery capability is comparatively poor and it can only actually refine 1.5 million bbl/d of fuel; below the amount it consumes. This means it is facing an oil deficit and actually has to import fuel into the country - specifically light fuels like gasoline. Gasoline actually makes up nearly 70% of total products imported into Iran.

Iran's fuel consumption is also rising incredibly fast. Their gas production, for instance, has risen by 550 percent in the last two decades but their consumption has risen at the same rate and they still do have to import some gas from Turkmenistan. This massive increase in consumption is increasingly likely to result in shortfalls and also hinders their ability to export at a profit, not to mention meaning that it's energy reserves will run out all the sooner. This consumption increase is the reason why "build more refineries" isn't a solution for them, they're already doing so and are still fighting hard to keep up with their skyrocketing demand.

Iran's ability to upgrade its infrastructure to keep up with this rate of consumption is also hampered by the nature of the problems it faces such as high natural decline rates (Due to circumstances like water flooding) in its fields, an inability to efficiently upgrade its capacity due to the sanctions and international pressure which stop it getting the equipment and investment it needs and competition in the supergiant South Pars gas field which Qatar also access to and is tapping into at a much higher rate.

The various energy related problems which it faces, all of which put pressure on export prices, are a sound reason for Iran wanting to invest in nuclear power.

This isn't just something that is supported by US government figures and my explanation of them, this position is backed up by peer reviewed studies and accepted by the UK government as a legitimate reason even if it then still does have concerns about potential nuclear weapons:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/1/377.full.pdf+html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/80/8006.htm#a14

Why don't they let us look? If they had nothing to hide, they'd let us look.

Unfortunately Iran's position is often misrepresented and a lot of people truly believe that Iran is closed off and no inspectors go in there.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspects all Iranian nuclear sites. It has a regular presence at major sites like Nantaz, makes inspections at other sites at required, have installed cameras to record what's happening 24 hours a day, measure feed inputs into centrifuges, conduct interviews and have access to documentation, place seals on reactors so that fuel can't be input without their knowledge, etc, etc. The wide held belief that there's some kind of impenetrable wall around Iran that inspectors can't get through isn't true in the slightest.

Here are the reports the IAEA have issued since just before Iran opened up its nuclear program to international scrutiny in late 2003:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iaea_reports.shtml">http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iaea_reports.shtml

While there are parts of their reports where they're critical of Iran or press for additional access, that Iran is being inspected regularly to the original NPT standards cannot be denied.

This mistake largely happens because the media will run wild with exaggerated reports, leaks which later turn out to be untrue, biased sources and complaints that Iran isn't implementing a higher level of inspection. What filters through the public consciousness is just that "Iran isn't letting inspectors in".

But what about the evidence of them creating nukes?

The first major area criticism based on something tangible, if only barely, regards evidence the IAEA has found during its inspections. That's actually a bit of a lie in itself, because the IAEA has been given the information that is causing concern by third parties like the US and Israel intelligence services rather than actually finding it themselves. None of the information given is proof of Iran creating nuclear weapons, but it has included a few things which IAEA has raised concerns about and published in its reports. These get wildly blown out of proportion. I'll use one of the latest 'smoking guns' as an example.

If you've been paying attention over the last couple of years, you might know there's been a laptop found that's presented as uncovering a lot of evidence about Iran potentially developing nuclear weapons. A fuss was made about it because there were several things that the IAEA brought up with Iran at once and when the IAEA tried to resolve these with Iran in 2008 the laptop was the only one that didn't get resolved and still hasn't been.

What most people probably don't know, even though a lot of this is tucked away in the IAEA reports I linked to and other IAEA documentation, is:

- The laptop is 10 years ago old. It contains information from before Iran changed their nuclear doctrine and opened up their program to international inspection in 2002/3. It isn't related to anything Iran has been doing in the last decade.
- http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-22-nuclear-iran_N.htm IAEA diplomats have mentioned off the record to the AP that they doubt the significance and veracity of the laptop. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/transcripts/2009/hindu011009.html ElBaradai, the Director of the IAEA at the time the laptop became a major issue, said "The IAEA is not making any judgment at all whether Iran even had weaponisation studies before because there is a major question of authenticity of the documents."
- The US, which provided the documentation, only believes that weaponisation occurred up until 2003 at which point it stopped. Even the US does not believe the laptop is evidence of anything beyond that (Mentioned in IAEA articled linked in above point).
- The laptop evidence contains information regarding Iranian missile systems. It showed designs for a missile which could potentially carry a nuclear payload. The thing is, we know Iran has been developing conventional missiles for ages and the IAEA's analysis showed it could also just be used for carrying a normal warhead like all the other types of missiles that we know about and accept to not be used for nuclear purposes.
- Iran and the IAEA in 2007 signed an agreement to resolve a number of issues called http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2007/infcirc711.pdf "Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues". They both agreed in relation to the alleged studies from the laptop that an appropriate response was:

"As a sign of good will and cooperation with the Agency, upon receiving all related
documents, Iran will review and inform the Agency of its assessment."

Everything other than the alleged studies that needed to be dealt with in the Modalities Agreement was dealt with. The alleged studies did not get resolved because it turned out the IAEA couldn't get permission from the US to actually give Iran copies of anything more than select portions of the data, so the IAEA couldn't meet it's end of the bargain by giving Iran all related documents http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf

The proposed solution to this is that Iran just reveals a mass of national secrets regarding it's conventional missile program to satisfy the IAEA not being able to meet it's side of the agreement agreement, because if they aren't in a position to provide specific information to refute the allegation then they will just have to release massive swaths of data because some of it will have to refute the suggestion. Releasing so much incredibly sensitive data is as unpalatable to Iran as it would be to any other country.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Porter Gareth Porter has ( http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21994 ) written a report which goes into some of the more complicated reasons why the laptop evidence is very possibly either fake or being massively misinterpreted, which are too detailed to her into here.

To sum it up, the evidence is nowhere near being the smoking gun the neo-liberals have been making it out to be by a long shot, even to someone intensely critical of Iran. Personally I find the laptop information so shot full of holes that I don't even view it as circumstantial evidence and the laptop is an example which is fairly representative of the kind of evidence used against Iran.

That's just your amateur interpretation of the facts. What about the experts who claim they are producing nukes?

They don't. Your average opinion piece in a newspaper might freely claim they are, but high level political and scientific figures, if they make suggestive comments about Iran, make sure to couch their objections in specific terms. See:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0218/breaking6.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0122/iran.html

You'll notice that the detractors don't say Iran is making nuclear weapons, they refers to Iran increasing it's nuclear capability. This isn't due to Iran focusing on nuclear weapons in any way, at least not any way which we yet know about or has been shown, but rather because the development of a domestic nuclear power by it's very nature involve the development of a nuclear infrastructure which can be geared towards peaceful domestic nuclear energy or destructive nuclear bombs. Increase in nuclear capability is simply what it says on the tin - it means a country is more nuclear capable, not that the nuclear capability is directed towards producing weapons

Increasing nuclear capability is unavoidable for most countries. One of the core tenants of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treat is that states have the unalienable right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, which necessitates increasing nuclear capability.

In fact we have outright statements from people who should be in the know saying that they aren't developing weapons:

Like the US Director of national intelligence:

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2011/03%20March/11-11%20-%203-10-11.pdf

Key quote from Page 14 as it's quite lengthy:

Chairman LEVIN. Now, relative to Iran, Director Clapper, you mentioned in your statement that you do not, we do not know, talking about the Intelligence Community, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. I read into that that Iran has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program. Is that correct?
Mr. CLAPPER. Yes, sir. I would like, though, to defer a more fulsome response to a closed session.
Chairman LEVIN. Okay. But, what is level of confidence that you have that as of this time they have not decided to restart that program? Is that a high level of confidence?
Mr. CLAPPER. Yes, it is.

Or half a dozen former ambassadors to Iran:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

Or Mossad chief Meir Dagan who when he retired last year said that he does not believe Iran is even capable of building a nuclear weapon before 2015.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/outgoing-mossad-chief-iran-won-t-have-nuclear-capability-before-2015-1.335656

All Western Intelligence agencies, including all 16 of the USA's, are confident Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons. The danger about them is simply a media narrative.

Why doesn't Iran comply with the IAEA if it has nothing to hide?

Post 2003, Iran has been complying extremely well with it's obligations under the NPT. What it hasn't been doing so great at is complying with obligations it never agreed to them, like unilateral demands from the UN or obligations that it hasn't agreed to meet because it hasn't signed up to the higher standard of inspections known as the Additional Protocols.

The crux of this revolves around the Additional Protocols ( http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sg_overview.html ). These are a series of major amendments that increase the obligations of a NPT signatory, which as all major treaty amendments would typically have to be ratified by a government's Parliament or head of state before commencing.

Iran has no objection to sticking to the Additional Protocols, it followed them from 2003 to 2005 on a voluntary basis pending actually signing them into force. However it ended up not signing them into force and stopping its voluntary concessions because despite its compliance it was still being threatened by other countries and it was still being treated disingenuously by being referred to the UN security council even though it had been fully implementing the higher protocols without any breach in compliance.

The UN then issued a resolution, a decision made unilaterally rather than the prior willing bilateral co-operation on which inspections were based, demanding Iran agree to the Additional Protocols. Iran hasn't complied with this, but has been engaging since then with various nation groups; mainly the France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (AKA: EU3) or the EU3 + China, Russia, and the United States (AKA: P5+1).

This is really the heart of the matter because the two main issues with Iran are, in no order of importance, firstly that it's not implementing the the AP which allows investigators a much broader mandate and secondly that the West wants absolute confirmation that the alleged studies didn't take place, which could be shown using the AP. Getting Iran to agree to the AP is the key point of all this trouble and a really crucial matter if we want everything to chill out.

So why doesn't Iran sign up to the AP?

Well (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf) the whole point of the NPT is that by meeting internationally set obligations, a country has the inalienable right to develop research, production and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.

The problem is that even if Iran agrees to the AP, or even assumes obligations beyond the AP, the West is not willing to let Iran conduct it's own enrichment activities ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/90569.pdf ). As the whole point of the NPT is that if you don't have to face that kind of sanction, it's a no brainer that Iran wouldn't want to comply under those terms.

Iran have spent untold billions over decades to develop their nuclear program and abandoning domestic enrichment activities (All of which are monitored by the IAEA as mentioned earlier, so we know they're only being enriched to energy/research levels rather than weapon grade levels). Abandoning that would be an economic disaster, not to mention that it would seriously damage their energy security by making them reliant on foreign powers to sell them enriched uranium. That's why Iran really shouldn't comply with these demands until a decent agreement can be made.

The other aspect is that even without the AP being in force, we know that all the known centrifuges in Iran are not producing uranium to be used for weapons, they're too highly regulated to be doing so (And Iran has suggested making them even more so as part of its counter offers) and there has been no suggestion from the IAEA otherwise. The AP is aimed at uncovering secret centrifuges we might not know about, at top secret clandestine sites and the such. If Iran were to secretly want to enrich to a weapons grade level, it would be doing so at these hypothetical secret sites which wouldn't need to stop enriching if Iran agreed to the EU3 and P5+1 demands because they are secret, we don't know about them and can't be checked. The Western focus on stopping their enrichment activities is completely and totally useless for it's stated purpose, even if Iran could be forced to accept it.

The way forward is to offer Iran a fair deal where they can grant inspectors the greater access they require to ensure no nuclear weapon research is being conducted and put all of us at ease, while simultaneously allowing Iran to develop a peaceful nuclear program under plenty of international scrutiny so that we can be satisfied nothing untoward is going on in Iran and the situation can be defused. This moderate and easy approach to the situation is just something that the West has refused to consider even though it has been endorsed by neutral experts: ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/mar/20/a-solution-for-the-usiran-nuclear-standoff/?page=2 )

Iran is enriching fuel at too high a level for it to be for peaceful energy related purposes.

Iran is enriching its fuel to just under 20% uranium-235, which means it's classed as low-enriched uranium (LEU). Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is what is used for weapons and technically counts as everything above 20%, not far from the maximum Iran enriches.

However it isn't just any HEU that can be weaponised; you need to get it around 80% enriched to be usable in nuclear weapons, meaning they're not even nearly producing weapons grade Uranium.

Looking into this in a bit more depth, people with a bit more knowledge might know that you don't need 19.75% enriched uranium for energy production, ~4% will do. The reason this isn't suspicious is that Iran needs 19.75% enriched is because it has a single research reactor.

These type of reactors need a higher level of LEU because rather than produce energy they're used for more specialised purposes to do; namely research into a variety of mundane fields but also things like producing radioactive isotopes used in medical diagnosis and treatment.

Iran's research reactor was given to it by the US before the Islamic revolution, when Iran was headed by the Shah's pro-US government. At the time it actually accepted very highly enriched weapons grade uranium of 90+% and it was only after the Islamic revolution that the current government converted it to work on LEU instead of HEU.

IN CONCLUSION

Until there is either a robust body of evidence showing that Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons or Iran has refused to cooperate with valid and fair minded solutions which meet the needs of the countries on both sides, the nuclear controversy cannot be legitimately used to press for aggressive action against Iran.

Your argument is pretty good, though for your first point I'd like to know why Iran doesn't simply upgrade their refineries. It would have to be cheaper and more efficient really.

That's fine, so long as the UN is allowed to continue periodically checking for machines capable of enriching material well beyond what is needed for the reactor. Fortunately, unlike with the Iraq fiasco, there's little grey area when it comes to an inspection of this type, the things are bloody tough to hide.

You are quite correct in saying that we don't have hard evidence that Iran is actively making nuclear weapons, or that they have specific plans to do so. However, considering the region's history and openly stated goals, a continued state of caution is very well warranted.

Blablahb:
Clearly another TLDR thread. For one thing I don't see anything adressing Iran's warmongering language and threats, so I doubt the OP can make a point.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

2) Since the revolution Iran have never started a war with another country. They have prolonged a war that Iraq started, but that is it.

3) You don't bomb someone over warmongering language and threats otherwise there would be a massive world war because a lot of other countries do this as well. Quite a few of them make these comments at Iran.

4) It's a pretty substantial issue. This is as small as I can get my primer! At least there isn't a tiny word count here so I have to split it into 7 pieces like I did the first time I posted it.

The TLDR is: Iran doesn't have nukes and if you think they do, you are wrong.

5) I don't want to derail this thread into "Well actually the translation of what he said was... blahblahblah" so I'll leave it there.

Revnak:
Your argument is pretty good, though for your first point I'd like to know why Iran doesn't simply upgrade their refineries. It would have to be cheaper and more efficient really.

They are upgrading their refineries, but it is a slow process hampered by the sanctions on them which limit their access to the needed equipment and materials as well as their ability to actually pay for things.

They have six new refineries being built which will massively boost their capibilities, but it will be quite a while before they are ready

Heronblade:
That's fine, so long as the UN is allowed to continue periodically checking for machines capable of enriching material well beyond what is needed for the reactor. Fortunately, unlike with the Iraq fiasco, there's little grey area when it comes to an inspection of this type, the things are bloody tough to hide.

You are quite correct in saying that we don't have hard evidence that Iran is actively making nuclear weapons, or that they have specific plans to do so. However, considering the region's history and openly stated goals, a continued state of caution is very well warranted.

Yup, I have no qualms with Iran being monitored. That will be an essential part of any solution. My main point is that no aggressive action should be taken until damning evidence is found and until then nations should negotiate in good faith.

First, I can't resist... OMG IRAN'S GHOSTS HAVE NUKES!

But on topic,
Coal and Oil: Aren't sustainable power sources, and would be much more profitable if Iran was able to export them/produce at a level where they no longer need to import, and this is actually one of the things that I'm really happy with Iran about, that they "say" they're trying to produce a clean, safe, low carbon emission energy source for their country.

I'm going to bundle all the next points together (IAEA, why won't they let us look, ask an expert): I thought the issue was that they are letting us look, but that what we were finding, we couldn't prove that they were using the technology to develop a weapons program. This is because one of the major things that the IAEA looks for is dual purpose production facilities, which some of the Iran facilities were/are (I haven't been keeping up with this tbh, the range of Iran's conventional missile delivery systems doesn't keep me up at night) so there was the concern/evidence from that direction.

As for refining the uranium to high degrees, as newer reactor designs are developed (admittedly probably not the designs Iran would be using) don't they generally use closer to weapons grade material? But those reactor designs are monitored by the IAEA. Also as mentioned, Iran is staying below the definition, so its fine.

Your original post makes it seem like it is inevitable that the USA would go to war with Iran, but I should hope that is far from the case, as mentioned above, you've glossed over the other issues which relate to the reasons countries go to war, which I think would be a much greater incentive for a country.

Blablahb:
They have the means and the motive. Why would they not be building them?

They don't have the means. Even senior Israeli Intelligence officers doesn't think they are capable of building a nuke until 2015.

They've proven in the past to be quite willing to go to war for their imperialism (Somalia, Lebanon, possibly Iraq).

Except they didn't go to war.

Also they show all signs of preparing for that now, with their enrichment facility being built as a fortitied bunker in complete secrecy under military control. What sort of powerplant is built like that?

I assume you are talking about the Fordow/Qom site

Complete secrecy? You mean announced to the IAEA by Iran before any nuclear materials were introduced? And then have let them inspect it before they did anything there? And have then allowed it to be inspected as per normal IAEA monitored sites?

Also, why would it not be fortified? Israel has a history of bombing other countries nuclear facilities and has expressed a desire to bomb Iran's. If they want to develop another peaceful nuclear site, building it out in the open would be pretty stupid.

For them not to pursue nuclear weapons, something would have to have changed.

What is your evidence that things have changed? Because without, you cannot deny the chance that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

Why does something have to have changed for them not to be pursuing nuclear weapons? Changed form what? Changed form there pre-2002 stance of nuclear secrecy, when they did compeltely change and overhaul their international atomic co-operation?

Ciryher:
I'm going to bundle all the next points together (IAEA, why won't they let us look, ask an expert): I thought the issue was that they are letting us look, but that what we were finding, we couldn't prove that they were using the technology to develop a weapons program. This is because one of the major things that the IAEA looks for is dual purpose production facilities, which some of the Iran facilities were/are (I haven't been keeping up with this tbh, the range of Iran's conventional missile delivery systems doesn't keep me up at night) so there was the concern/evidence from that direction.

Basically dual use facilities means that centrifuges could refine the uranium so it is HEU, although one of Iran's suggestions is to limit the centrifuges with devices which will actually destroy them if they try to do this. The US of course refused anything short of Iran completely shutting down their entire programme. It's not a concern because that is just what centrifuges do and they don't have all the more advanced and specific facilities needed to construct a bomb.

You might be getting confused with dual use technology rather than facilities (or rather multi-use, as almost all of them have more than 2 uses), which is brought up quite a bit more regularly in regards to Iran. Things like sophisticated mining/demolition equipment which could also be used as part of nuclear bomb design. It has been pointed out they have this technology by the IAEA, but there is really no reason they wouldn't have it.

As for refining the uranium to high degrees, as newer reactor designs are developed (admittedly probably not the designs Iran would be using) don't they generally use closer to weapons grade material? But those reactor designs are monitored by the IAEA. Also as mentioned, Iran is staying below the definition, so its fine.

Some research reactors can get to HEU levels, but can also be used with LEU. Iran's current research reactor is a great example of that, as it was originally given to them before the revolution and it ran on high-grade uranium. After the revolution when they lost access to HEU, they switched it to run off LEU. Reactors for energy generating purposes will always be LEU, refined to less than a twentieth of the level needed for a bomb (4% or so rather than the 80% needed for a bomb).

Your original post makes it seem like it is inevitable that the USA would go to war with Iran, but I should hope that is far from the case, as mentioned above, you've glossed over the other issues which relate to the reasons countries go to war, which I think would be a much greater incentive for a country.

I think there is more chance there won't be a war, simply because of the cost. Iran is larger and has a bigger population than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, so an occupation would be awful for the US and exactly what it doesn't want.

Military strikes and bombings I can see happening with greater probability.

That is all supposition though.

Even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons: why is it any business of the United States to do anything? Apart from them being a posturing, empire-in-all-but-name? Let me consult my maps and-... oh yes... so I thought, Iran and the USA are on different continents. Could someone like the EU perhaps lecture Iran, because at least it would be somewhat less hypocritical - the US being the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons against civilians.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:
Even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons: why is it any business of the United States to do anything? Apart from them being a posturing, empire-in-all-but-name? Let me consult my maps and-... oh yes... so I thought, Iran and the USA are on different continents. Could someone like the EU perhaps lecture Iran, because at least it would be somewhat less hypocritical - the US being the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons against civilians.

Legally: Iran has signed the non-proliferation agreement which states it won't develop nuclear weapons and if they do develop them or breach the NPT, the decision on how to deal with this goes to the UN security council which the USA exerts a lot of influence over. Of course the NPT is also meant to give them the right to develop nuclear power peacefully and the US isn't willing to grant that to them, so...

Practically: Iran is one of the most powerful countries in the region and is very anti-USA. The USA wants to oppose it however it can.

Blablahb:
All the more reason to pile on the pressure now so the situation gets resolved before the Iranian imperialists think themselves all-powerfull and start to stir up even more trouble eh? The last we need is a triple-sided world war 3 between western countries and Israel vs Sunnites vs Shi'ites, or however the allegiances would come to lay.

Not only do they not have the capability, but every intelligence agency in the world agrees they are currently not trying to build nukes.

I think the Israeli and Ethiopian soldiers who had to kill Iranian 'volunteers' on the way to their objectives will disagree with that claim.

1) That isn't a war

2) People do volunteer to go fight different countries:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-01/American-joins-ranks-of-Libyas-rebels/50224660/1
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-08/world/libya.us.trainer_1_libyan-war-moammar-gadhafi-rebel-training-camp?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/matthew-vandyke-american-who-joined-libya-returning-to-us_n_1077804.html

Just a few examples from Libya

If 'history' means blowing up a few North Koreans building nukes of Assad of Syria on only one occasion, in which case their intel proved to be 100% correct and their bombing spot on, so a war was prevented, then yes.

A bit that, but also Operation Opera. Also it was a reactor that was bombed in Syria, not weapons.

Because they have means, motive and opportunity. That makes the cards stacked against your claim that you know for certain that they are not.

It's like me claiming the US would never invade another country. If I said that, you'd want me to explain what about the US has changed to make that a valid claim.

They don't have the means. As I mentioned, they cannot build a nuke now if they tried. They don't have the motive. It would be suicide to build a nuke because it would be found and they would be invaded or bombed to hell. They do not have opportunity. They are under massive monitoring.

Not only that, but means, motive and opportunity don't mean shit. I have the means to kill my boss at work because he's an old dude and I'm fit and young. I have the motive to kill him because I'm Communist and he's bourgeois. I have the opportunity because often we're the last two in the office and I have all the keys. So obviously I will murder him without any thought for the consequences? Right?

Also that is a really false comparison. The US invades a few countries every decade. Iran has never constructed or used a nuclear weapon. Completely different scenario. The US needs to change because we know they go to war a lot. We don't know Iran builds nukes, so we don't know they need to change.

Overhead:
Snip

Very well constructed and all are good points, good job with that. :)

I would ask why do you think everybody (including the US government) assumes the country has nuclear weapons, since you have researched so deeply into this topic.

arbane:

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:
Even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons: why is it any business of the United States to do anything? Apart from them being a posturing, empire-in-all-but-name? Let me consult my maps and-... oh yes... so I thought, Iran and the USA are on different continents. Could someone like the EU perhaps lecture Iran, because at least it would be somewhat less hypocritical - the US being the only country to have ever deployed nuclear weapons against civilians.

It's very simple. After the Iraq Fiasco, pretty much every country on earth figured out what most already suspected: Having nukes is 'base!' in the schoolyard game that is international politics. If you've got nukes, the US CANNOT jack with you the way they smack around helpless ratholes like Iraq.

And the US hates it when someone else joins that club.

Yes, because the US is the only one that ever gets upset over it, and there's no other possible reason to want to avoid nuclear weaponry in the hands of every single bloody country around, including the ones likely to "accidentally lose" a warhead or five, even if they won't use it publicly.

Okay Mr. Bush, magical invisible nuke hunt is over. It's 2012, time for our leaders to defend the country from REAL threats.

Like how the GOP party leaders want to defend us from the dire threat of homosexuals, non-Catholics, and women.

Not G. Ivingname:

Overhead:
Snip

Very well constructed and all are good points, good job with that. :)

I would ask why do you think everybody (including the US government) assumes the country has nuclear weapons, since you have researched so deeply into this topic.

Well the thing is, they really don't assume the country has nuclear weapons!

The danger quoted by politicians, intelligence officials and defence officials is that they might choose to develop nuclear weapons in the future. Even the more militant politicians (Ignoring the odd ignorant Republican senator who says whatever pops into their head) will only overstate the risk of Iran choosing to develop nuclear weapons, not state that they actually have them already.

It is just that there has been so much on the news where the words Iran and Nuke are juxtaposed that people assume Iran has nukes. In truth the only country in the Middle East with nukes, which also refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty and subject itself to international scrutiny on the matter, is Israel.

arbane:

It's very simple. After the Iraq Fiasco, pretty much every country on earth figured out what most already suspected: Having nukes is 'base!' in the schoolyard game that is international politics. If you've got nukes, the US CANNOT jack with you the way they smack around helpless ratholes like Iraq.

And the US hates it when someone else joins that club.

Because everything is absolutely USA Centric. Last time I checked the only countries that have nukes in any reasonable quantity with any power of projection are also economic or military or population powerhouses, or all of the above, so maybe that's why the USA can't screw with them whenever they want... oh yeah, North Korea, still has piles of sanctions so you know, totally not getting screwed by the USA economically if not militarily.

Also, how does what happened in Iraq even relate to other countries having nuclear weapons and becoming omnipotent?

Overhead:

It is just that there has been so much on the news where the words Iran and Nuke are juxtaposed that people assume Iran has nukes. In truth the only country in the Middle East with nukes, which also refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty and subject itself to international scrutiny on the matter, is Israel.

That is a really good point, how is it that Israel has escaped being forced into the NPT or being on the list of countries accepted to have nuclear weapons? I actually didn't realise that there was another nuclear state in the region, which makes Iran's alleged development make a lot more sense. (of course this is answered with Israel's special relationship with it's big buddy)

For the OP, as you've clearly done more research than myself, what would you consider the major reasons all this 'media hype' is focused towards Iran and not for example Israel?

Ciryher:

arbane:

Overhead:

It is just that there has been so much on the news where the words Iran and Nuke are juxtaposed that people assume Iran has nukes. In truth the only country in the Middle East with nukes, which also refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty and subject itself to international scrutiny on the matter, is Israel.

That is a really good point, how is it that Israel has escaped being forced into the NPT or being on the list of countries accepted to have nuclear weapons? I actually didn't realise that there was another nuclear state in the region, which makes Iran's alleged development make a lot more sense. (of course this is answered with Israel's special relationship with it's big buddy)

For the OP, as you've clearly done more research than myself, what would you consider the major reasons all this 'media hype' is focused towards Iran and not for example Israel?

It is the only real ally of the United States in the area, and the only nation that isn't going to create terrorists that will attack the US. They do not need to be apart of that treaty to assure trade agreements to the US. Isreal however has some good reasons to have nukes, being surrounded on all sides by nations that don't believe it should exist. However, Isreal has never officially said they had nukes, making sure no nation has a good enough reason to leave the treaty.

Overhead:

Not G. Ivingname:

Overhead:
Snip

Very well constructed and all are good points, good job with that. :)

I would ask why do you think everybody (including the US government) assumes the country has nuclear weapons, since you have researched so deeply into this topic.

Well the thing is, they really don't assume the country has nuclear weapons!

The danger quoted by politicians, intelligence officials and defence officials is that they might choose to develop nuclear weapons in the future. Even the more militant politicians (Ignoring the odd ignorant Republican senator who says whatever pops into their head) will only overstate the risk of Iran choosing to develop nuclear weapons, not state that they actually have them already.

It is just that there has been so much on the news where the words Iran and Nuke are juxtaposed that people assume Iran has nukes. In truth the only country in the Middle East with nukes, which also refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty and subject itself to international scrutiny on the matter, is Israel.

Fair point. Of course people also assume Iran's president actually matters, which he doesn't.

arbane:

It's very simple. After the Iraq Fiasco, pretty much every country on earth figured out what most already suspected: Having nukes is 'base!' in the schoolyard game that is international politics. If you've got nukes, the US CANNOT jack with you the way they smack around helpless ratholes like Iraq.

And the US hates it when someone else joins that club.

It's great isn't it, the country that invented nuclear deterrent gets angry whenever anyone else tries to ward off their enemies with the MAD stick

Ciryher:
That is a really good point, how is it that Israel has escaped being forced into the NPT or being on the list of countries accepted to have nuclear weapons?

The NPT is a voluntary treaty. Countries can't be compelled to join it.

It isn't considered on official nuclear power because it hasn't been conclusively proven even though its an open secret and none of the major powers that could prove it have anything to gain by doing so.

For the OP, as you've clearly done more research than myself, what would you consider the major reasons all this 'media hype' is focused towards Iran and not for example Israel?

In the countries that set the media narrative (US and other western countries), Israel is viewed much more favorably than Iran and this bleeds into the stories. If papers started printing stories about how Israel is a nuclear state and needs to be sanctioned, they would lose a lot of right-wing/zionist readers so there is an economic imperative for them not to annoy their customers. Israel also has large stateside lobbying and activist groups like AIPAC which can easily cause a furor over stories which are too critical of Israel. Additionally, a lot less time is now actually spent on research and digging up news stories and a larger percentage of stories are simply pulled from wire services, government press releases and marketing which Israel has far more traction with than Iran.

It isn't anything really unique to the Iran/Israel situation, just that a lot of the flaws in the modern reporting world which happen to fall in favor of Israel. if you're interested in this, I would advise you to check out Flat Earth News a book by Nick Davies an award winning journalist which is backed by research that was carried out by a university specifically for the book.

When I get home I can see if I can pull out a few interesting quotes from it.

Iran isnt developing nukes true but its important to note that they do not currently have the technology to develop a nuclear weapon even if they wanted to and its unclear if they want to or not, hopefully that do not.

Overhead:
It isn't anything really unique to the Iran/Israel situation, just that a lot of the flaws in the modern reporting world which happen to fall in favor of Israel. if you're interested in this, I would advise you to check out Flat Earth News a book by Nick Davies an award winning journalist which is backed by research that was carried out by a university specifically for the book.

When I get home I can see if I can pull out a few interesting quotes from it.

Okay, just a little bit in relation to the Israeli lobby, although in relation to Palestine rather than Iran. The reference to an 'Electric Fence' is a metaphor started earlier in the section, about how stories can be made 'dangerous' to run with and present in certain way.

"Now, however, there are multiple new electric fences, erected by professional lobbying groups, who are part of a brace new world of PR. In the United States, for example, the Parents Television Council has orchestrated vitriolic campaigns against media outlets who don't accept their conservative Christian values. According to Mediaweek magazine, in 2003 the PTC was responsible for 99.8% of indecency complaint to the Federal Communications Commission. In the UK, the Countryside Alliance was highly effective in disciplining coverage of the debate about hunting. But the most potent electric fence in the world is the one erected on behalf of the Israeli government."

"Journalists who write stories which offend the politics of the Israeli lobby are subjected to a campaign of formal complaints and pressure on their editors, most of all, they are inundated with letters and emails which can be extravagant in their histility. Robert Fisk of the Independent has been told that his mother was Adlof Eichmann's daughter, that he belongs in hell with Asama Bin Laden, that he is 'a hate peddler', a 'leading anti-semite and proto-facist Islamaphile propagandist' and a paedophile. After broadcasting an iTV programme about the Palestinians, John Pilger was told he was 'a demonic psychopath', a Nazi and that the murder of his family was 'not a bad idea'. In 2006, a German correspondent was simply told by an Israeli government spokesman that he was 'a bag of shit'."

"There is now a network of pro-Israeli pressure groups who specialise in orchestrating complaints against the media. Honest Reporting has offices in London, New York and Toronto and claims to have 140,000 members on whom it can call to drench media organisations in letters and emails. (One campaign aimed at the Guardian landed so many emails on the readers' editor, Ian Mayes, that he developed repetitive strain injury in opening them all and needed three months physio-therapy.) Camera, the Comittee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, uses street demos, pressure on advertisers, formal complaints and email showers. Giyus, Give Israel Your Support, supplies its members with a browser button which they can hit to send them any article which they deem offensive, and software called Megaphone to assist them in launching mass complaints. Memri, (the Middle East media Research Institute), Pelestine Media Watch, Bicom (the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre) and Israeli Embassy staff all supply more energy for the fence. They share aims and/or funding sources with the immensely powerful network of organisations which lobby governments and political parties on behalf of Israel."

"The result is that some facts become dangerous: to report Palestinian casualties, to depict the Palestinians as victims of Israeli occupation, to refer to the historic ousting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians form their homes, to refer to the killing of Palestinian civilians by Zionist groups in the 1940s. The facts are there, but the electric fence will inflict pain on any reporter who selects them. Words themselves becomes dangerous; to speak of 'occupied territories'; to reject the Israeli government euphemism of 'targeted killings'. Crucially, there is no lobby of similar force on the Palestinian side. The pro-Israeli groups are able to claim numerous victories."

"HonestReporting claims: "Since 2000 the organisation prompted hundreds of thousands of apologies, retractions, and revisions form news outlets." They cite, in paticular, their campaign against CNN, which saw them sending up to 6,000 emails a day to the chief executive and which resulted in their being invited to CNN's headquarters in Atlanta to meet managers who, they say, 'showed a genuine sensitivity to HonestReporting's concerns'. They had complained that CNN was failing to describe Palestinian bombers as 'terrorists'; that too little attention was being given to Israeli victims; and that CNN has been willing to broadcast videotaped final statements by bombers. Following their meeting, they note, CNN.com started referring to 'Palestinian terrorism' and ran a special series on Israeli victims, while the chief executive issued a ban on the use of videotaped statements by bombers. HonestReporting also quotes from transcripts of CNN broadcasts in which the anchor in Atlanta interrupts the correspondent on the ground to put the Israeli case."

"HonestReporting also claims credit for Reuters' decision to stop referring to HAMAS as a group seeking an independent state and to describe them instead, for example, as 'Hamas, sword to Israel's destruction'; and for the Washington Post's decision to change a website headline from 'JEWISH TODDLER DIES IN THE WEST BANK' to 'JEWISH BABY SHOT DEAD ON WEST BANK' within ninety minutes of HonestReporting starting to complain. The New york Times printed a fulsome apology for publishing a photograph of a pro-Israeli demonstration which showed anti-Israeli protesters in the foreground. A survey by fair.org found that in 90% of references to the Palestinian territories occupied by the Israeli Army, American cable news described them only as 'contested' or'disputed' or even 'Israel'."

"The BBC has been targeted paticularily heavily, winning Honest Reporting's annual award for dishonest reporting. One senior journalist there told me: "The lobby insinuates a sense of fear. If the Editor of the Today programme knows that an item will make the phone ring off the hook, he may think twice about running it. Sure, the lobby works. I can think of numerous examples where I have felt the brunt of it." One member of staff at the BBC recalls the former press officer at the Israeli embassy in London, David Schneeweis, persuading a Today producer to set up a story about Yasser Arafat's involvement in corruption, even though the BBC correspondents in Israel said there was nothing to it. "You get correspondents there who will file a piece about Palestinians and be told by London 'Nice piece, but it needs an Israeli voice'. And that would never happen the other way around". Two extensive academic surveys have found that the BBC routinely gives more airtime to Israeli voices than to Palestinian and that it focuses more frequently on Israeli victims than Palestinians. The judgements are there to be made."

Eh, it isn't great when taken out of context from the rest of the section and the earlier information that this is all built upon, but you get the idea.

It also contains a nice little section on Mordechai Vannu later on, the Israeli nuclear scientist who tried to spill the beans on everything he knew about Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal, managed to give a little to Sunday Times reports and then was tricked to going to Italy by an Israeli plant where he was then assaulted, knocked unconscious and taken back to Israel drugged, blindfolded and bound on a cargo boat. He spent the next 18 years in prison, 11 of those being in solitary confinement.

Blablahb:

All the more reason to pile on the pressure now so the situation gets resolved before the Iranian imperialists think themselves all-powerfull and start to stir up even more trouble eh?

I'm sure you know the purpose of a turn signal. To let people in other vehicles know that you plan on turning. Many people, however, when they are switching lanes on a highway choose to wait until they've already started moving into as open spot to put their turn signal on. Why do they do this? Because the believe that if the other drivers see that they want to switch lanes, they will speed up to make sure they can get in front. These drivers, refusing to give others warning before turning, have come to the conclusion that to avoid someone else acting like a douchebag, they should act like the douchebag first.

You are making a comparable "be the douchebag first" decision here. And while it may seem to lead to a better outcome for you personally by cutting off someone else, which scenario is more likely to end in a tragic accident: you acting like a douchebag right away or giving the other driver the chance to decide themselves?

Oh crap... I just accidentally constructed a prisoner's dilemma. Now I feel like a douchebag.

renegade7:
Okay Mr. Bush, magical invisible nuke hunt is over. It's 2012, time for our leaders to defend the country from REAL threats.

Like how the GOP party leaders want to defend us from the dire threat of homosexuals, non-Catholics, and women.

Uh, Bush isn't Catholic. Most Republicans aren't Catholic. Most Republicans are protestant.

Um, you don't build a secret nuclear reactor hidden inside a mountain, surrounded by anti-air missiles, and not connected to the power grid, if you are trying to create a "peaceful nuclear program" for purposes of generating electricity.

Iran is not building a nuclear weapon yet, we think, but they are clearly trying to stockpile highly enriched uranium in order to be prepared to build several nuclear weapons quickly when they decide to do it; they're getting all the pieces in place so they can go nuclear in a very short period of time if they have the opportunity. Their nuclear program is not designed to generate power, or anything like that; they want to at least create the ability to build nuclear weapons later.

Yosarian2:
Um, you don't build a secret nuclear reactor hidden inside a mountain, surrounded by anti-air missiles, and not connected to the power grid, if you are trying to create a "peaceful nuclear program" for purposes of generating electricity.

arbane:
[citation needed], Mr. Bond.

I assume he's referring to a relatively new facility in Iran that has been the buzz of the last few months.

On the other hand, given the relative boldness Israel and the US has been exhibiting in targeting Iranian nuclear scientists, and the threat of an airstrike by Israel, moving even civilian development to a fortified position would be an intelligent move by the Iranian government.

Think about it: Israel has already targeted reactors for airstrikes in the past in Syria and has recently resorted to significant saber rattling about a repeat event in Iran. Imagine the consequences if they strike while fuel is loaded. You're talking a serious nuclear event (not meltdown serious, but radioactive debris and the lives of some of your most valuable citizens serious).

Anyone who mentions hidden inside a mountain will inevitably be talking about Fordow, so I'll answer it on the basis that it is that site (Not that "Yosarian2" likely knows which site he is even talking about. So to counter the allegations:

"Secret" - Iran revealed it to the IAEA in 2009 and has let them inspect it several times since then.

"Inside a mountain" - Yes, it is. Israel has twice bombed nuclear facilities of other countries and has been stating for years how it might bomb Iran's nuclear facilities at any point. If they didn't build it somewhere it couldn't be blown up, they would be massive idiots.

"Anti-aircraft missiles" - Yes, they don't want it getting blown up. That is not damning in any way, it is common sense.

"Not connected to the power grid" - It is, otherwise, they wouldn't be able to run it, it just doesn't generate power. That's because they don't have a reactor there, they have cascades of centrifuges to enrich uranium. The enriched uranium is then taken to their reactors where it is used to generate electricity. Why would you expect electricity to be generated from the part of the nuclear process where no electricity is generated?

"Stockpiling highly enriched uranium" - The highest Iran has enriched to is 19.5%, which is Low Enriched Uranium. Iran has not been enriching HEU and is constantly monitored by the IAEA so it can't do this even if it wanted to.

Overhead:

"Stockpiling highly enriched uranium" - The highest Iran has enriched to is 19.5%, which is Low Enriched Uranium. Iran has not been enriching HEU and is constantly monitored by the IAEA so it can't do this even if it wanted to.

For a light water nuclear reactor plant, the fuel that is used is between 3% and 5% enriched uranium. You don't enrich uranium up to 20% like Iran is doing now if your goal is to generate power.

Again, yes, Iran is not building a nuclear bomb RIGHT NOW, we have established that. However, their program is not for peaceful uses, either. It's somewhere in the middle; they are currently trying to create the capability to go nuclear in a fairly short period of time, if they ever choose to do that. So what they're doing is getting their uranium as highly enriched as they legally can (and, yes, you are technically correct, anything under 20% is technically low enriched uranium), get a great number of centrifuges in places where they can protect them from air strikes. Their entire goal seems to be to create a program that is capable of creating nuclear weapons in a relatively short period of time if they ever choose to do that. They are not going nuclear RIGHT NOW, but they want the OPTION to go nuclear quickly if they feel the need.

And they are also testing improving delivery systems, their medium range missiles, at the same time.

Now; how much of this is bluff? How much is an attempt to create a better diplomatic position? Or an attempt to look strong to distract Iranians from domestic problems? It's probably some combination of all of that. But what it is not is a peaceful nuclear program designed to generate power.