Iran Situation

[ColinEssex]

Any clues yet as to what the US is going to do over the Iran nuclear situation? Does anyone in the US know there's a problem there?

maybe the usual subtle approach perhaps?
they're a fiesty lot the Iranians, it'll make Iraq look like a sunday stroll if the US invades in its discreet way.

Col

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I was rather concerned last night to see talk of getting Israel to go and bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran, as they did in Iraq. Colin Powell was talking to Paxman, and of course completely refused to admit he was wrong on WOMD. Of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (and Germany), the UK, France and Germany wanted to bring sanctions, the US was open to any options (including military action), China wanted to do nothing (they are heavily dependent on oil from Iran) and Russia I *think* Russia wanted to supplu Iran with the refined (?) material they needed for their reactors.

However, as we all know there is far too much money to be made from war, so that will probably end up being the action *someone* takes... hopefully we will not get dragged in this time. I think we (the UK public) made our feelings perfectly clear last time...

 

[Brianwarnock]

I find the attitude of the "nuclear club" very hypocritical, its ok for them to go nuclear but nobody else, except Isreal of course, and anybody too big for them to take on e.g. China.

I think that Russia's response is the mature one , provided that the material is at a price that can't be refused except for political/strategic reasons

Brian

 

[ColinEssex]

I find the attitude of the "nuclear club" very hypocritical, its ok for them to go nuclear but nobody else, except Isreal of course, and anybody too big for them to take on e.g. China.

Its a "don't do as I do, do as I say" scenario.

It seems that the current nuclear club don't trust the Iranians, these shady Middle Eastern types could suddenly drop a nuclear bomb anytime.

Not that any of the current nuclear bomb holders would do that - much to responsible.

Col

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I find the attitude of the "nuclear club" very hypocritical, its ok for them to go nuclear but nobody else, except Isreal of course, and anybody too big for them to take on e.g. China.

I think that's an over simplification of the issue. Its not about Iran "going nuclear". Nuclear power is one thing, nuclear weapons are another. The issue AFAIK, is that Iran has been repeatedly asked to be open about their nuclear facilities, and have refused. The UN Security Council's position is that they are moving towards nuclear weapon development, rather than nuclear power. Combine this with the leader of Iran calling for Israel "to be wiped off the face of the earth", and you've got a very volatile situation.

I think that Russia's response is the mature one , provided that the material is at a price that can't be refused except for political/strategic reasons

It does seem to be a positive way forward, however, the recent issue with Russia supplying gas to its neighbours indicates there might be trouble with this agreement as well. Russia is still a "super power", only now in natural resources rather than military might. How they will use this power is very uncertain yet.

 

[FoFa]

Iran with nukes>? Could you imagine the London Tube bombings with Iranian supplied nukes?

 

[Kraj]

Considering that only one American has chimed in so far, I thought I'd drop in:

Does anyone in the US know there's a problem there?

Yes.

Any clues yet as to what the US is going to do over the Iran nuclear situation?

No strong indicators yet. My best guess is: they have a pretty good picture of what's going on in Iran and what the potential danger is. They also are well-aware that our military will never be able to handle another major campaign (especially against Iran) until one of the current ones (likely Iraq) is resolved. However, considering the 'mandated by God', shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy toward the rogue nations, going the diplomatic route would be an unmistakable sign of weakness at this point. I figure that we'll pretty much pretend there's no problem in Iran as long as possible or until our troops are out of Iraq. That way we're not committed to a fight we cannot win nor are we backing down. We just didn't notice.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Iran with nukes>? Could you imagine the London Tube bombings with Iranian supplied nukes?

Are small scale nuclear devices feasible?

If so... I'm glad I live out in the sticks...

 

[reclusivemonkey]

No strong indicators yet. My best guess is: they have a pretty good picture of what's going on in Iran and what the potential danger is. They also are well-aware that our military will never be able to handle another major campaign (especially against Iran) until one of the current ones (likely Iraq) is resolved. However, considering the 'mandated by God', shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy toward the rogue nations, going the diplomatic route would be an unmistakable sign of weakness at this point. I figure that we'll pretty much pretend there's no problem in Iran as long as possible or until our troops are out of Iraq. That way we're not committed to a fight we cannot win nor are we backing down. We just didn't notice.

Pretty good guess there Kraj under the current administration. How long is it till the next elections though? Is Bush going to win another term?

 

[Rich]

Is Bush going to win another term?

fortunately for us, he's not allowed too

 

[Rich]

Iran with nukes>? Could you imagine the London Tube bombings with Iranian supplied nukes?

Are you suggesting Iran supplied the materials for the July bombings?

 

[jsanders]

Considering that only one American has chimed in so far, I thought I'd drop in:


Yes.


No strong indicators yet. My best guess is: they have a pretty good picture of what's going on in Iran and what the potential danger is. They also are well-aware that our military will never be able to handle another major campaign (especially against Iran) until one of the current ones (likely Iraq) is resolved. However, considering the 'mandated by God', shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy toward the rogue nations, going the diplomatic route would be an unmistakable sign of weakness at this point. I figure that we'll pretty much pretend there's no problem in Iran as long as possible or until our troops are out of Iraq. That way we're not committed to a fight we cannot win nor are we backing down. We just didn't notice.

Maybe,


But I’m guessing before this is over American made jets are going to change the uranium enriching capabilities of the Iranians.

Not necessarily American pilots though.

 

[Rich]

But I’m guessing before this is over American made jets are going to change the uranium enriching capabilities of the Iranians.

I doubt it, they'll probably use the superior Mig

 

[Kraj]

How long is it till the next elections though?

November 2007, unless I'm mistaken, so two more years of Duh-bya.

fortunately for us, he's not allowed too

Amen to that. Anyone want to take bets on whether he proposes to repeal that Ammendment this year?

God help us if Jeb Bush runs....

Are you suggesting Iran supplied the materials for the July bombings?

I didn't get that impression. I think he was referring to the fact that Iran is known to be supplying terrorists in general, so if they have nuclear weapons it's more likely terrorists can get ahold of them.

But I’m guessing before this is over American made jets are going to change the uranium enriching capabilities of the Iranians.

Not necessarily American pilots though.

Quite possibly. But if we do so we had better be prepared if they do something that escalates the conflict.

 

[Rich]

I think he was referring to the fact that Iran is known to be supplying terrorists in general,

is that from the same reliable source that said Iraq had wmd ?

 

[jsanders]

is that from the same reliable source that said Iraq had wmd ?

Do you think that we should just give in to them like there some kind of spoiled child.

The broke the seal on an enrichment program.

you want to play with the big boys...

 

[Kraj]

is that from the same reliable source that said Iraq had wmd ?

How about the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

Go a ways down and it mentions Iran's support for Hezbollah. You want more?

 

[Rich]

Go a ways down and it mentions Iran's support for Hezbollah. You want more?

Yes, the article mentioned refers to events of the 1980's

 

[Rich]

Do you think that we should just give in to them like there some kind of spoiled child.

The broke the seal on an enrichment program.

you want to play with the big boys...

And George Bush is breaking international law, who's in a position to lecture who?

 

[ColinEssex]

Do you think that we should just give in to them like there some kind of spoiled child.

The broke the seal on an enrichment program.

you want to play with the big boys...

Make sure you get it right if you send in the planes, unlike last Fridays US attack in Pakistan. Yet another US ****-up killing more innocent people.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz says his country cannot accept a repetition of a US air strike on a village that killed at least 18 people.
His government also insist it did not share intelligence with the US before Friday's attack

Col