Iran unlikely to make bomb: Israel army chief

[ExpandMyMind]

Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to produce an atomic bomb, describing its leadership as "very rational" in an interview published on Wednesday.

Read more...

[+and-then]

Sounds like some seriously mixed messages going out. I'd hate to be an Iranian general trying to figure out who was being listened to in the cabinet in Israel. Either Israel has indeed been bluffing about a strike and they've decided to let the issue cool (unlikely) or this is just disinformation....who knows. There were reports a few days ago that Oby had made a backdoor deal with Iran to look the other way on their program as long as they made public statements and allow some inspections. If that story was true then I could see Netanyahu washing his hands of Oby and going ahead with his own plans. If this is what's happening I hope he can postpone until October and possibly smack down Oby's election chances.

[Leonardo]

Sounds like some seriously mixed messages going out. I'd hate to be an Iranian general trying to figure out who was being listened to in the cabinet in Israel. Either Israel has indeed been bluffing about a strike and they've decided to let the issue cool (unlikely) or this is just disinformation....who knows. There were reports a few days ago that Oby had made a backdoor deal with Iran to look the other way on their program as long as they made public statements and allow some inspections. If that story was true then I could see Netanyahu washing his hands of Oby and going ahead with his own plans. If this is what's happening I hope he can postpone until October and possibly smack down Oby's election chances.

Israel's government policy and statements don't necessarily reflect the opinion of all in the country. The govt is much more likely to take a 'grandstanding stance' than the military is, to attempt to win international influence and/or sympathy.

And why would you want Netanyahu, the PM of Israel, to have ANY say or influence on a US general election?

Edited April 26, 2012 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

Israel's government policy and statements don't necessarily reflect the opinion of all in the country. The govt is much more likely to take a 'grandstanding stance' than the military is, to attempt to win international influence and/or sympathy.

And why would you want Netanyahu, the PM of Israel, to have ANY say or influence on a US general election?

It's quite simple really. I loathe and heartily disrespect everything Barack Obama is about. I have a real fear that he will be easily re elected and if Netanyahu beginning a necessary attack could also throw a "spanner" into his election chances then so much the better. Yes, it's a petty attitude and I admit it but I am sick of Oby and want him out of office asap. Romney could not possibly be worse. Hell, I'd even vote for RP rather than Obama.

As to your first point though, in a matter as serious as this has been touted to be for years, I would expect a unified message coming from government. And this IDF chief is definitely among the government.

[ExpandMyMind]

I would expect a unified message coming from government. And this IDF chief is definitely among the government.

Why would you expect that? The political entity of Israel and every other country all too often have completely different motives than the intelligence and military communities of said countries (similar to what Leonardo has already stated). Even more so in Israel these days with a religious nut-job cabinet at the helm.

This chief says nothing different than the Mossad chief, the NSA, CIA, FBI and, almost uniformly, every other US intelligence agencies' chiefs (as well as their Defence Secretary), along with the chiefs of Germany, France, Britain's intelligence, and about another half dozen to a dozen chiefs from countries around the world, that I can think of.

It is what is known as 'common knowledge'. And a subject I have been, futily, it seems, trying to educate you on for some time now. The declared case against Iran is completely and utterly bogus, dude.

[+and-then]

Why would you expect that? The political entity of Israel and every other country all too often have completely different motives than the intelligence and military communities of said countries (similar to what Leonardo has already stated). Even more so in Israel these days with a religious nut-job cabinet at the helm.

This chief says nothing different than the Mossad chief, the NSA, CIA, FBI and, almost uniformly, every other US intelligence agencies' chiefs (as well as their Defence Secretary), along with the chiefs of Germany, France, Britain's intelligence, and about another half dozen to a dozen chiefs from countries around the world, that I can think of.

It is what is known as 'common knowledge'. And a subject I have been, futily, it seems, trying to educate you on for some time now. The declared case against Iran is completely and utterly bogus, dude.

I would expect a unified message from Israel's government because to do anything other is to make them seem foolish and it could also weaken them in their quest to stop Iran from acquiring the technology to build a bomb. They are amassing 20% enriched Uranium now. That's about 85% of the way time wise to weapons grade fuel. Once they are in position to actually decide to build then it's effectively too late. If there truly were no threat then it would be completely counter productive for them to have pursued sanctions so vehemently and pushed the US, their only real ally, to the wall for support in making the sanctions stick. If I had to guess I'd say that they've made a decision to go it alone and now they're just waiting for the optimum window. Then again, I could easily be COMPLETELY wrong and the whole run up of bellicose rhetoric over the past year has been just a joke on their part. I'm not even talking realities here, just perceptions. Why on earth would they raise the specter of a regional war and then suddenly have half the cabinet say...oops...just kidding... I find it more likely that they're trying to minimize the damage Panetta did a few weeks ago in announcing the approximate dates of a strike.

I think Israel could accomplish a great deal more by staging a conflict with Iran's proxies and eradicating them from the picture. Iran is in a position to have too much to lose and would probably leave Assad and Meshaal hanging.

Ex you don't really believe Iran is just interested in nuclear power generation, do you? With thousands of centrifuges, many being moved in to hardened sites? I think the case is about as strong as the rational mind can grasp.

[Leonardo]

Ex you don't really believe Iran is just interested in nuclear power generation, do you? With thousands of centrifuges, many being moved in to hardened sites? I think the case is about as strong as the rational mind can grasp.

Let's see, a lot of powerful nations have been making threatening overtures towards Iran's nuclear program, and Iran (quite reasonably) considers the possibility of these threats becoming military action. This possibility is very real, considering the recent interventionism by some of those nations in Middle Eastern countries.

So, they place their fuel production facilities in hardened buildings. Seems a reasonable precaution to me.

Do you know how many centrifuges are required to produce sufficient fuel for several energy producing reactors? I don't, but it's quite possible that thousands are required. Have you researched this to find out if the western media screaming that Iran has "thousands of centirfuges" isn't simply an attempt to whip up hysteria in the ignorant?

Iran are members of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). Israel are not.

There is a very rational argument to be made that Iran is moving towards nuclear power generation as a means of divorcing itself from oil or gas dependency, and not interested in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I am not going to jump to conclusions based on what I consider to be biased media reports from western nations and Israel.

[+and-then]

Let's see, a lot of powerful nations have been making threatening overtures towards Iran's nuclear program, and Iran (quite reasonably) considers the possibility of these threats becoming military action. This possibility is very real, considering the recent interventionism by some of those nations in Middle Eastern countries.

So, they place their fuel production facilities in hardened buildings. Seems a reasonable precaution to me.

Do you know how many centrifuges are required to produce sufficient fuel for several energy producing reactors? I don't, but it's quite possible that thousands are required. Have you researched this to find out if the western media screaming that Iran has "thousands of centirfuges" isn't simply an attempt to whip up hysteria in the ignorant?

Iran are members of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). Israel are not.

There is a very rational argument to be made that Iran is moving towards nuclear power generation as a means of divorcing itself from oil or gas dependency, and not interested in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I am not going to jump to conclusions based on what I consider to be biased media reports from western nations and Israel.

And if that rational argument is wrong then you've lost nothing. They have the potential to lose everything. And not only them, but many millions more could be affected if they felt compelled to use a nuke in the region. Ultimately the only players who matter here are the Israelis and how they feel about their security situation. They will act in their own best interests as they have done many times before.

[RavenHawk]

Do you know how many centrifuges are required to produce sufficient fuel for several energy producing reactors? I don't, but it's quite possible that thousands are required. Have you researched this to find out if the western media screaming that Iran has "thousands of centirfuges" isn't simply an attempt to whip up hysteria in the ignorant?

From what I last heard, there are at least two enrichment facilities. The one at Natanz has the capability of 50,000 centrifuges (weapons grade), but only 5,000 are functional (reactor-grade). And she has a sister site. The key is purity. The higher the enrichment, the more likely it will be used for weapons. More centrifuges means higher purity. These 5,000 should be enough to produce U235 at the 4% to 6% range for reactors without cascading, although I’m not sure how much time is needed. There are formulas for figuring it out. But it would be something like for every ton of yellow cake, you might get 10 kilograms of U235 over the period of a month. So if you know the capacity of a centrifuge, then you could figure it out. Although, they started to enrich U235 to 20% back in 2010. You need about 90% for weapons grade. Who knows what it is now??

[ExpandMyMind]

Who knows what it is now??

Everyone. Everyone knows where it is now: 20%.

We know this because Iran have given full access on numerous occasions, most recently last month or the one previous. If you read any of the reports, or even detailed reports of reports, then you will quickly learn that it is military sites that Iran do not let the IAEA enter - because they have literally no right to enter them and Iran are under no obligation whatsoever to allow them. All, I repeat (mainly for and then, because I don't know you) ALL, nuclear material in Iran is accounted for, meaning we KNOW they aren't working towards creating a weapon.

If they did start working towards it we would know almost immediately. And after gaining such knowledge there would be a year before they reached weapons grade uranium, and another one, possibly two, before they could deploy it on a warhead. Also, I think I should add because this is a common straw-man argument: the dirty bomb argument is pretty much redundant because the material from each reactor gives off a unique signature which would be almost immediately traced back to the point of origin. This means that they would be nuked to high heaven for little, and extremely hypothetical (hypothetical because claiming such and attack would happen in the first place is a nonsensical argument to anyone with the slightest ability to employ reasoned thinking), 'gain'.

That juice definitely ain't worth the squeeze.

In other-words, these claims and this entire situation are both entirely farcical, bordering on lunacy. Though this is how most wars are sold, so nothing new there.

Edited April 26, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

[+and-then]

Everyone. Everyone knows where it is now: 20%.

We know this because Iran have given full access on numerous occasions, most recently last month or the one previous. If you read any of the reports, or even detailed reports of reports, then you will quickly learn that it is military sites that Iran do not let the IAEA enter - because they have literally no right to enter them and Iran are under no obligation whatsoever to allow them. All, I repeat (mainly for and then, because I don't know you) ALL, nuclear material in Iran is accounted for, meaning we KNOW they aren't working towards creating a weapon.

If they did start working towards it we would know almost immediately. And after gaining such knowledge there would be a year before they reached weapons grade uranium, and another one, possibly two, before they could deploy it on a warhead. Also, I think I should add because this is a common straw-man argument: the dirty bomb argument is pretty much redundant because the material from each reactor gives off a unique signature which would be almost immediately traced back to the point of origin. This means that they would be nuked to high heaven for little, and extremely hypothetical (hypothetical because claiming such and attack would happen in the first place is a nonsensical argument to anyone with the slightest ability to employ reasoned thinking), 'gain'.

That juice definitely ain't worth the squeeze.

In other-words, these claims and this entire situation are both entirely farcical, bordering on lunacy. Though this is how most wars are sold, so nothing new there.

Assuming everything you say is true, it still comes down to Israel's intentions. So I'll ask again - as a rational world player who have had nukes for about 4 decades, why would Israel risk the wrath of the world community over a non issue? The fact that Iran is not at the point of being able to assemble a bomb is a very good thing. But once they have everything they'd need for it then it's just a matter of a few months. A gun type fission weapon is so simple it doesn't even require testing. Hiroshima is proof of that.

It all comes down to Israel's ability to accept an Iranian bomb. They have said they cannot, under any circumstances do that. They've said that as bad as the war would be if they strike, an Iranian bomb would be worse. I support them whatever they choose.

[ninjadude]

Assuming everything you say is true, it still comes down to Israel's intentions. So I'll ask again - as a rational world player who have had nukes for about 4 decades, why would Israel risk the wrath of the world community over a non issue?

Because they have chosen irrational leadership.

[RavenHawk]

Everyone. Everyone knows where it is now: 20%.

Slow down there big fella. If it’s still 20% then that’s all you needed to say.

We know this because Iran have given full access on numerous occasions, most recently last month or the one previous. If you read any of the reports, or even detailed reports of reports, then you will quickly learn that it is military sites that Iran do not let the IAEA enter - because they have literally no right to enter them and Iran are under no obligation whatsoever to allow them. All, I repeat (mainly for and then, because I don't know you) ALL, nuclear material in Iran is accounted for, meaning we KNOW they aren't working towards creating a weapon.

Around and around she goes, where she stops, no body knows. How do we know that *ALL* material is accounted for and how do we know they are not working towards creating a weapon if the IAEA cannot get into those military sites? This is a legitimate question and the honest answer is “we don’t”. But given track record, what do you think? Everything must follow character.

If they did start working towards it we would know almost immediately.

We would? We have excellent detection capabilities but we are not that good.

And after gaining such knowledge there would be a year before they reached weapons grade

uranium,

Depends when that year started.

and another one, possibly two, before they could deploy it on a warhead. Also, I think I should add because this is a common straw-man argument: the dirty bomb argument is pretty much redundant because the material from each reactor gives off a unique signature which would be almost immediately traced back to the point of origin. This means that they would be nuked to high heaven for little, and extremely hypothetical (hypothetical because claiming such and attack would happen in the first place is a nonsensical argument to anyone with the slightest ability to employ reasoned thinking), 'gain'.

I don’t think finding the signature will be a major concern (we’ll know where it came from) and I really doubt that the West would nuke Tehran in retaliation. But it would bring a world of hurt on it. But there are plenty of opposition in Iran that using nukes would not be necessary, provided that we supply aid and support to that opposition. But people need to understand this time that this is a multi-generational endeavor. We’ll have to go in with boots on the ground and stay for a long time. We’ll need to prepare for that.

In other-words, these claims and this entire situation are both entirely farcical, bordering on lunacy. Though this is how most wars are sold, so nothing new there.

Not farcical but definitely all lunacy. But the Muslim hatred of Israel and the world and their “Right of Arrogance” would be just enough to make them think that they could get away with it.

[MichaelW]

Because they have chosen irrational leadership.

According to your unbiased opinion. Everyone knows that Israel has merely been the loudest opponent to Iran's nuclear program. No one is waxing lyrical about what Saudi Arabia wants to do with Iran, for instance.

And don't sit there and think that Saudi Arabia doesn't have the means because it does.

[ninjadude]

How do we know that *ALL* material is accounted for and how do we know they are not working towards creating a weapon if the IAEA cannot get into those military sites? This is a legitimate question and the honest answer is "we don't". But given track record, what do you think? Everything must follow character.

The exact same holds true for Israel. And we KNOW they have the bomb and are threatening to use it. And they do NOT allow ANY international body to inspect their nukes.

[+and-then]

The exact same holds true for Israel. And we KNOW they have the bomb and are threatening to use it. And they do NOT allow ANY international body to inspect their nukes.

That's a lie. Sure, it's implicitly understood that any nation that tries to END the Jewish State will be incinerated, but no such threats have been been made since 1973 and even then they were made through back channels.

[ninjadude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLlHQTT0FhA

Not a lie. you can google - Israel threatens Iran with nukes - to get some of the articles.

[+and-then]

https://www.youtube....h?v=sLlHQTT0FhA

Not a lie. you can google - Israel threatens Iran with nukes - to get some of the articles.

I was wrong and I apologise for calling you a liar. The FoxNews article quotes a senior un named source but I accept the report since it is from Fox. The context of the article was that as a last chance way of stopping Iran from gaining a nuke Israel would use a tactical nuke so that definitely counts as a threat.

[MichaelW]

The exact same holds true for Israel. And we KNOW they have the bomb and are threatening to use it. And they do NOT allow ANY international body to inspect their nukes.

Israel threatens to strike Iran, not use nuclear weapons. We don't know how they will do so, through air power or through their submarines or even through conventionally tipped missiles. After all, they are not nuclear weapons unless they actually have nuclear warheads fitted to them.

[+and-then]

Israel threatens to strike Iran, not use nuclear weapons. We don't know how they will do so, through air power or through their submarines or even through conventionally tipped missiles. After all, they are not nuclear weapons unless they actually have nuclear warheads fitted to them.

This was my point as well but Dude was correct in that Israel DID threaten to use nukes if all else failed to stop Iran from gaining a nuke. I was unaware that they had made such a threat. They did not casually say they would use them as a first strike weapon but a threat is a threat. And frankly, I doubt the Iranians even take them seriously. I would be amazed if Israel used even a nuclear bunker buster unless their existence was threatened because once they uncork THAT bottle, the world just becomes unbearable for them.

[Parsip]

Israel does not openly have nuclear weapons. They have a policy of nuclear opacity. They neither admit nor deny the existence of their weapons. They've stated that they won't be the first nation to openly introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East, and the Arabs have stated that if Israel acquires nuclear weapons, they will withdraw from the NPT. It's inconceivable for Israel to threaten to use something they don't possess. All they can do is hint, which is no different than the Iranian' statements that Israel is an illegal parasite that will be destroyed, in one week, or within 15 years.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Parsip

[RavenHawk]

The exact same holds true for Israel. And we KNOW they have the bomb

Of course, but if Israel opens up then they will be subjected to disarmament and that would make them weak and encourage Iran to attack. There would be no deterrent to prevent that.

and are threatening to use it. And they do NOT allow ANY international body to inspect their nukes.

Well, I wonder why? Could it be because Iran threatens them? DOH! The only way to disarm a belligerent is to either intimidate them or give them a bloody nose. And right now, Israel’s deterrent is working. And that is keeping the entire region as stable as possible.

[ninjadude]

Of course, but if Israel opens up then they will be subjected to disarmament

the NPT is nothing about disarmament. Where would you get this mistaken idea?

[ninjadude]

Of course, but if Israel opens up then they will be subjected to disarmament

the NPT is nothing about disarmament. Where would you get this mistaken idea?

[ExpandMyMind]

Slow down there big fella. If it's still 20% then that's all you needed to say.

Apparently not. You are speaking as somewhat of an authoritative figure on the subject, yet you clearly do not know even the most simplest of details on the subject.

Around and around she goes, where she stops, no body knows. How do we know that *ALL* material is accounted for and how do we know they are not working towards creating a weapon if the IAEA cannot get into those military sites? This is a legitimate question and the honest answer is "we don't". But given track record, what do you think? Everything must follow character.

We know that *ALL* the material is accounted for - and as I already explained, in the post you quoted no less - because the IAEA have stated this after EVERY inspection. Every single one. We know they are not working on developing a *NUCLEAR* weapon because they would need the uranium on site to do this - we know for a fact that they do not have the material on site. They already have weapons that could be modified to carry a warhead, so there is really no point in the IAEA asking, along with no right, to be allowed access to a militaryfacility. This request was made at the behest of the U.S. and Israel (through the U.S.) as a means to try to find something, anything, to make it look in the eyes of the West's governments and Western public as though Iran are doing anything at all wrong. Which they aren't. In fact, Iran have already went way above and beyond what is required of them as signatories of the NPT, yet there is still nothing which would actually lead anyone to believe they are working towards gaining a nuclear weapon.

Remember, just about every entity of U.S. intelligence has stated that Iran DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. This would not happen if there was even a possibility of the statement being untrue.

We would? We have excellent detection capabilities but we are not that good.

Actually they are that good. We would know almost straight away from either of three scenarios: Either the IAEA during their next visit would notice the diversion of nuclear materials, or they would be refused entry to nuclear sites, or Iran would remove itself as a signatory of the NPT.

Depends when that year started.

See above.

I don't think finding the signature will be a major concern (we'll know where it came from) and I really doubt that the West would nuke Tehran in retaliation. But it would bring a world of hurt on it. But there are plenty of opposition in Iran that using nukes would not be necessary, provided that we supply aid and support to that opposition. But people need to understand this time that this is a multi-generational endeavor. We'll have to go in with boots on the ground and stay for a long time. We'll need to prepare for that.

The West would turn Iran to glass for using a nuke. To think any different is just silly.

And I fear you completely and utterly over estimate the internal opposition to Iran's current regime. You're talking about less than 30% of the population (going by the last election - please, please don't try to claim to me it was fixed. I have debunked that silly claim far too many times on here to have to do it once again. Use forum search and you'll quickly see what I mean), of whom only probably 10% would actually rise up (estimate of course). Though we did managed to fund a minority in Libya successfully and are doing the same through back channels in Syria, not to mention we have done it countless times all over the third and developing world against the majority of the involved countries' populations, so who knows, maybe Iran could be the next in a long line of democratically elected governments to be overthrown by the West (U.S., Britain). One thing is for sure, they will be one of the only countries that have had their democratically elected government overthrown twice! Hah! Champions of freedom and democracy my a-r-s-e!

Not farcical but definitely all lunacy. But the Muslim hatred of Israel and the world and their "Right of Arrogance" would be just enough to make them think that they could get away with it.

The hatred for Israel and 'The West' (not the World, as you seem to believe) from arabs does not stem from religious roots. It is primarily down to the foreign policy forcibly exerted in the region to the detriment of the collective populations. If you do not realise this, then read a history book.

Edited May 3, 2012 by ExpandMyMind