Thread: Time's up on Iran

Originally Posted by Zinja

You don't need sustained bombardment to take out one site. You just need a one off, swift blitz (Iraq & Syrian style) and you are outta there before even the Iranean generals put on their regalia.

One site? excuse me? If anyone wants to do more than just throw up a speed bump then it will have to be more than just one site. Not sure how many (I'm sure others here do), but its more than one.

Originally Posted by Castellano

The IAEA under ElBaradei has become a disgraced, politicized organization whose most visible mission is to appease Muslim countries, on the theory that years ago democratic Israel got a bomb, so what’s the big deal if an autocratic Muslim country does the same?

Hmm - when faced with an organisation that disagrees with your politically motivated pro-whatever israel does view, try and discredit them.

I find it strange that you basically accuse the IAEA as an appeasing organisation with a view that because Israel has a bomb, why shouldn't Arabs. The IAEA is far more than one man Autocratic show Catellano , no matter how much you'd like to simplify the scenario to justify the means.
just so everyone is clear and without making the post too long heres a link to the IAEA's About Page: About IAEA: About the IAEA

Castellano here's some just for you:

IAEA Mission & Programmes

The IAEA´s mission is guided by the interests and needs of Member States, strategic plans and the vision embodied in the IAEA Statute. Three main pillars - or areas of work - underpin the IAEA´s mission: Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification. See Our Work.

(Too bad whiter than white Israel isn't a member to express it's interests)

Relationship with United Nations

As an independent international organization related to the United Nations system, the IAEA´s relationship with the UN is regulated by special agreement [pdf]. In terms of its Statute, the IAEA reports annually to the UN General Assembly and, when appropriate, to the Security Council regarding non-compliance by States with their safeguards obligations as well as on matters relating to international peace and security.

Besides being a completely wrong view

The IAEA is an investigative and safety orientated organisation. It is not paid to make views known other than that based on the evidence available to it . It has more access to available intel than Israel ever has, because it accepts intelligence information and can act on it. To assert that someone, or something knows better would have to come from an Iranian themselves.

it also shows a fundamental flaw in ElBaradei's understanding of his function.

Making an unsubstantiated claim based on an unsubstanted smear campaign because one smacks down your theory isn't very convincing. The IAEA isn't a one man show. You don't even know how the organisation works.

He is not there to make policy, but to execute what others decide.

What an absolute Joke. The IAEA mission is to guide nuclear security & it is under review every year by the signatory nations anyrate. The IAEA investigates. If it investigates on a lead and finds no evidence, then that is as far as it goes. You seem to think it's fine that it's okay to smack allegations around without scrutiny. It's not because if you allegations can't be found as factual, continuing to assert them wastes valuable investigation time, resources & money, because there are a few persistent nut jobs always carping on about irrefutable proof which for some reason always get traction, even thoughthey are more often than not nowhere near qualified to say as such, nor in the physical position to affirm as such . In which case it the IAEA is well within it's rights to make a statement which is a polite way of saying get lost, to counter the subversive, and undermining baseless allegations and media snippets joe gullible snaps up without even accessing IAEA publications. They wouldn't have a clue about how in depth the agency is.

YOU seem to think it revolves around one guy (or if not that, than all the member states are all involved in one big appeasment conspiracy theory).

Here are a few links on the actual make up of the IAEA

General Concerance Nations
About IAEA: General Conference

Here's one to the Board of Govenors About IAEA: IAEA Board of Governor


Here's a link to the Chair of the Board of Govenors Bio
Biography of M. H. Arshad

I reckon that coming from autocratic Egypt, he might be unclear on the concept, but it is actually his duty to STFU

And there it is, racial bias and mistrust, based on where he is from and his position to influence policy... No Castellano, His job is to be responsible for the Duties of the IAEA.

Even more embarrassing for you is the IAEA keeps some pretty comprehensive material on Iran for everyone with an internet connection to see. It's available right here: News Center : In Focus : IAEA and Iran

Perhaps you should follow some of your own advice.

- as for his actual duties, the falsifications relating Iran are matter of public record.

Apart from the fact that the person responsible for nuclear safegaurds is also a Deputy Director at the IAEA whoom is Finnish, Not Egyptian and hence the primary person responsible for verification. The fact that You've just blamed the wrong person responsible for primary tasks re-Iran, means I wouldn't take your word too seriously.

You can find his Bio here: About the IAEA: Mr. Olli Heinonen

The second guy in line that advises re- IAEA compliance, is this guy About the IAEA : Mr. Tomihiro Taniguchi A Japanese man.


Far from your naughty Egyptian The two people of interest are from Finland and Japan. Doesn't Bode well for your Arab Vs Israeli conspiracy theory.

And no Mr ElBaradei, proliferation in a ME teeming with theocratic thugs and crooks and assassins is a mortal danger for free societies and should be stopped at all costs.

Since Israel is not a Signatory to the NPT, and is under no pressure whatsoever to abide to it; you have to understand some simple home truths. There are a bunch of nations, that have exercised a heap of maturity about the topic, who are signatories alongside the Iranians. They want answers, and they are likely to get them. If they don't life will be a lot harder than it already is for Iran. Your basis for war is based on mistrust. Signatory nations fears are based on failure to comply. One of them has a lot more moral high ground than the other.

As for Iran, it is obvious that is hell bent on getting the Bomb.

The NPT is there to stop it. The IAEA is there to Help the Process of Stopping it. If the Signatory nations to the NPT are unhappy with the way the IAEA is being managed, they have the power to ask for a review, and, they will get one in 2010 - well before your bomb is reputed to be available. These are basic things you in your paranoid affixiated state of Arabian Hate are continually avoiding, based on baseless allegation of an individual simply because they dissagree with your view.

There is a ton of evidence right here in the WAB.

Theres a ton of paranoia based on newspaper articles. Frankly sunshine, as much as you'd like to be recalcitrant, the very organisation you've done a very poor job at attacking, with gross oversimplification, based on naiivity of the workings of the organisation which has it's own reviews in place by the signatory nations[/u], with multiple levels of checks and balances. [u]There are matters of concern, that are reasons why those nations should hold Mistrust for Iran, that is why Iran is jumping through hoops right now.

But the issue is even simpler,

Even simpler? My god.

the point is purely logical.

Your post is logical? So logical it's utterly convincing?


[/Quote]
It is a win-win for the Mullahs domestically and abroad. That’s also the very reason no combination of sanctions/incentives by itself would persuade them from giving it up.
[/Quote]
If Iran fails to comply, it will likely face very trough sanctions, and weapons inspectors. We all know where that leads. If Iran gets the bomb, it looses.

There is an inexorable logic driving the way this crisis plays out. And it has been clear for years.

Logic Eh? More convincing by the sentance.

I don’t know what the precise timing would be, but I think the script of what’s in store is pretty clear: absent military action, we will eventually have a nuclear Iran.

Thats like saying the world will be a tsunami in 2100 so we should all move inland now.
The title of this thread is Time's up on Iran. It's your title, you made it. You want military action now. Like your logic behind the IAEA what it comes down to is Mistrust and conspiracy theories. We have a heap of qualified diplomatic appointments to the IAEA, and all you have is a bunch of faceless newspaper reports written by someone that can even match the qualifications and appointments made to the body - all speculating.

If Israel does strike, the intervention may prove to be a military and diplomatic disaster (which is the bad choice, as opposed to the worse one of allowing a nuclear Iran) that will allow the U.S. and the West at last to decouple from this “rogue” nation and cut them loose.

When you premeditate an attack on a nation and effect it, you reap the rewards. Japan did it to the U.S in 1941 remember. Look where it got them. Premeditating an attack during ongoing Diplomacy will stuff everything, there is no other option than constant war until regime change is effected in that scenario. I hope you take up a gun and lead the attack in that case.

Originally Posted by Chunder

When you break treaty conventions, your not treated as in. period. Thats what the stink is about. Iran isn't getting unreasonable pressure because as a signatory it's bound to abide by conventions. Foreign Ministers & sec's of State are Demanding Iran has to show concrete actions. So far, to date, the U.S & Iran are having the highest level talks they've had for 3 decades on the matter.

You can break treaties all you want but that doesn't make you NOT a member anymore. Infact it precisely that point that world powers continue to pressure Iran because as a member of the treaty it 'should oblige by the rules'. If Iran was not a member anymore the world powers have no authority to be pressuring Iran to honour those rules. Your continuing insistance that Iran is not a member is a making of your own mind. It is neither fact nor legally viable.

[QUOTE=Chunder;678876]

Yes there is. Iran has a right to develop nuclear material for peaceful means.

Chunder, you are being logically incoherent. I stated that twice Iran tried to get away with a nuclear program and twice the IAEA has not been able to pick it up, hence duped and you produced a link of the IAEA charter, how does that make my statement wrong? How does the IAEA charter make faulse the fact that the regime fooled them twice?

This has nothing to do with Iran's right ro nuclear technology but my point is about deliberate clandestine nuclear proliferation right under the IAEA's nose.

The fact that Iran did not abide by at least two - and a third mentioned above in an earlier post, one being a safegaurd matter, another beign a failure to notify the IAEA of a site under development, and another being a materials failure, does not mean the IAEA has been duped. The IAEA is a verification agency.

Im not talking about sins of ommission here, im talking about sins of commission. Not having proper safegaurd is one thing, but building a secret facility is another thing. And the IAEA did not know it, right under its nose, dispite all the access that they had been given to Iran, albeit limited. Western intel did not have the privilege of the access that the IAEA had yet they know more and better. To me this says a lot about the vaunted IAEA.

The only people here that are being duped are the signatories that are abiding by the rules as signatories. Thats why the pressure exists, they have a right to pressure, a right to demand. But Iran has a right to demonstrate compliance.

Like I said, no western intel has been duped, it is the IAEA that has been caught unawares. There is nothing that has come to light recently that western intel did not know, it was the IAEA that has been busy defending Iran accusing the western of making unfounded allegations against Iran. As events unfold, now with egg on their face they are calling urgent action on Iran raising concerns, concerns which the west has always been making and they were accusing the west of unfounded allegations. What this is showing is despite all the lessons that history has taught us in dealing with Iran, the IAEA is the slowest of all learners, if at all they are willling to learn anything.

The IAEA is not an intelligence agency kiddo. There is a huge difference between the two. It's a verification one. The IAEA is the only agency that will ever get access in the current climate. The Nature of the allegation also has to fit the evidence - if it doesn't tough luck.

What verification have they made so far about the blue prints of the nuclear warhead moulding that Iran has been found in posession of? What verification have they made about the presence of a weapons expert in Iran's program? What about the other IAEA outstanding questions that Iran has still not answered for years to date? This is information that is out there which the IAEA is only too happy to burry its head in the sand about only to raise it again to accuse the west of making unfounded allegations.

If there is a beleif, as you so clearly believe that Iran is producing Nuclear weapons, then state where. Let the IAEA investigate the claims. So far they have been doing just that.

Like they have been investigating the Syrian facility bombed by Israel eh? The first thing they opened their mouth to say was to condemn Israel for the bombing and not Syria for the facility. They were quick to say it is premature allegations to say Syria was building a nuclear facility even when the US produced pictorial evidence of the site before it was bombed showing cooling towers, reactor site etc. And when they eventually got access sure enough, lo and behold radio activity is detected and still the vaunted IAEA refuses to point a straight fingure at Syria and instead accuses everyone but themselves of coming into premature conclusions and urge to wait for test results of the isotopes. And when the results come positive Syria refuses to give IAEA access to its other facilities that had been a line of enquiry, .... and what does the IAEA do ..... bury its head in the sand! Yeah, so much for letting "the IAEA investigate the claims"!

Frankly, your the guy demanding a bombing & you have little understanding whatsoever on just what the IAEA's Charter is

And i suppose you do? Amaze me, show me something you know about the charter that i do not.

You are busy missing the point. The issue is not the charter at all. The issue is the way it is handling the Iranian issue inspite of all the deception that it has exhibited. The IAEA should smell the coffee and start stamping its authority as a international watchdog and stop being taken for a ride. It should get out of its denial mode with Iran and come back to earth.

Your the kind of guy that rings up the registrar of motor vehecles and abuses the customer service team because a traffic cop wrongly identified your car as not being registered.

Except that we are not talking about cars and traffic cops here. When you are done story telling let me know and we will have an adult conversation.

But guys like you going around demanding a bombing, really only worsen the situation from one thats salvageable.

There is absolutely zero evidence to your assertion. On the contrary, we have three historical evidence we can draw lessons from. Two of which attest to the fact that limited, targeted military action against a nuclear can impose immediate peace with little to no fallout after that. Iraq facility was destroyed, and there was no WWIII. The Syrian facility was hit, and lo we are still waiting for your amageddon.

On the other hand we have a third lesson of your sand head-burrying approach which has now given the greatest nuclear threat in the world with NK.

This blah, blah, blah, attacking Iranian facilities is going to lead to WWIII is just empty scare mongering. No one gives monkeys about Iran to risk WWIII at Iran's behest. World wars are not started by insignificant countries begrudged of having been denied the chance to have a nuclear bomb. World wars are started by world powers playing appeasement to rogue states.

Originally Posted by rj1

And that in a nutshell is why Americans by and large do not respect the United Nations.

What's the point of an agreement saying murder is illegal if there's no police force to go catch the murderers once the act has been committed?

Aye? Iran hasn't dropped a bomb on anyone, further, its already facing tough sanctions as a result of it's actions to date.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Further

You can find this here
Recent Media Report on Iran


Edit, In addition to the above, theres a Review conferance in 2010 of the NPT for the Signatory States. It provides ample opportunity to review the bearances of the NPT and hence review of it's scope.

Heres a page News Center : In Focus : IAEA and the NPT with extensive articles that give some scope as to the IAEA's operations.

And one day later....

The UN nuclear inspection agency believes that Iran has "sufficient information" to make a nuclear weapon and had "probably tested" a key component, it was reported last night.

And...

In the document quoted by AP, his inspectors report: "The agency… assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based on HEU [highly enriched uranium] as the fission fuel."

And...

The annexe, entitled Possible Military Dimension of Iran's Nuclear Program, gives details of a top-level meeting in 1984 in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then president now supreme leader, appears to give the green light for building a bomb, saying: "A nuclear arsenal would serve Iran as a deterrent in the hands of God's soldiers."

Source

Make up your mind Chunder.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

One site? excuse me? If anyone wants to do more than just throw up a speed bump then it will have to be more than just one site. Not sure how many (I'm sure others here do), but its more than one.

Im not for all out war myself. I just think if you put the writting on the wall, Iran will start behaving. Neither am i for irrational behaviour either. I think bombing this recently revealed illegal site would put the writting on the wall for Iran and would be rational, measured response which would force Iran to take things seriously and behave.

Im not entirely against nuclear energy for Iran so as such I wouldn't be enclined to destroying all their facilities. I just think they should be stopped from enrichment capability and instead give them civilian peaceful nuclear power thats free of all the risks we are currently having with Iran.

But yes, i understand your arguement though Bigfella.

Originally Posted by Zinja

You can break treaties all you want but that doesn't make you NOT a member anymore. Infact it precisely that point that world powers continue to pressure Iran because as a member of the treaty it 'should oblige by the rules'. If Iran was not a member anymore the world powers have no authority to be pressuring Iran to honour those rules. Your continuing insistance that Iran is not a member is a making of your own mind. It is neither fact nor legally viable.

I hate to tell you this - but if you break treaties you might as well not be a member, from the view of other signatories. This is why your wrong. It's not productive to expell someone from the NPT treaty - obviously. That is why the demand is that it comply. Iran is bending over backwards too comply because the option is far worse if it does not. There are plenty of examples of expulsion from treaties if you don't comply with them where the consequences arn't so dire - Fiji's expulsion from the Commonwealth is a recent example. Thats the reality of how things run in International diplomacy. South Africas removal during Apartheid also comes to mind.

Chunder, you are being logically incoherent. I stated that twice Iran tried to get away with a nuclear program and twice the IAEA has not been able to pick it up, hence duped and you produced a link of the IAEA charter, how does that make my statement wrong? How does the IAEA charter make faulse the fact that the regime fooled them twice?

No, you are being logically inco-herant. This is very simple. The IAEA IS NOT AN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. I have already linked, numerous times to the mission of the IAEA, where you can read it for yourself - which seems beyond you. The IAEA specifically follows up allegations, and checks safegaurds. It does not search for new sources of Uranium, new construction sources, new materials sources, unless anomalies come up for reporting. If you actually bothered to read the material provided by the IAEA head, they actually have addressed both circumstances.

This has nothing to do with Iran's right ro nuclear technology but my point is about deliberate clandestine nuclear proliferation right under the IAEA's nose.

That the IAEA says the proof is in the pudding. Your alleging. Proove it. There are numerous step required to produce a nuclear weapon. All material must be accounted for and audited. Some steps are common steps for nuclear power and weaponry, which is where a few bogus claims keep showing up. The IAEA has the resources to determine whether those criteria can be sufficiently met. They have to pass Auditing processes, They have to break seals, they have to do numerous amounts of things that mean they are on their way to being able to develop a bomb. The IAEA has Numerous publications about it's safety and verification process - the main problem with people claiming that they are cladestinely proliferating nuclear weapons, is that it revolves around the publics gullibility in what it takes to make a bomb - especially with an agency like the IAEA hovering over your shoulder. You can't just get some uranium and magically produce a bomb with it. Nor can you just magically hide the facilities in which to do so without attracting attention through the auditing process. Frankly, theres a whole heap of nations which have access to the IAEA's evidence, as signature states, that arn't creating hyperbole and are not joining you on this crusade.

Im not talking about sins of ommission here, im talking about sins of commission. Not having proper safegaurd is one thing, but building a secret facility is another thing.

No it's not. The U.S said it knew of the facility for over a year. I.E During a republican Administration. All this demonstrates is how hard it is to build such a facility without being noticed, and as a consequence, how hard Iran has made life for itself. It's been caught out. Infact it's precisely the tool the NPT signatories need to seek action on Iran. Also, it's part of the IAEA's charter of how it goes about it's day to day operations, by being provided information by nations.

And the IAEA did not know it, right under its nose, dispite all the access that they had been given to Iran, albeit limited.

I don't know how many times I have to say it like a stuck record the IAEA is not an Intellegence Agency. There is no nuclear material at the site, the IAEA accounts for nuclear material, that is it's job. Something would be amiss, especially in the quantities and qualities required to effect it. - along with the manufacturing oversight and capacity. Its exactly this approach that spurs on the ill-information about nuclear materials processing.

Western intel did not have the privilege of the access that the IAEA had yet they know more and better. To me this says a lot about the vaunted IAEA.

Incorrect on both statements. No nuclear material processing has occured there, and yet again, the IAEA is not an intelligence agency. You have no Idea about it's charters, you can't even be bothered readinding about what it does, your have completely managed to missapropriate how the IAEA is able to go about it's job (for some reason it's lost on you that intel being provided to it by nations is a one and the same process of it's operations, not as a failure to do it's job) and the the rest of the bomb Iran Brigade.

Like I said, no western intel has been duped,

Iraq. WMD

Western intel has never been duped?

it is the IAEA that has been caught unawares. There is nothing that has come to light recently that western intel did not know, it was the IAEA that has been busy defending Iran accusing the western of making unfounded allegations against Iran.

To put it quite simply for you. Intel agencies to the IAEA are what Citizens are to the Police. Full stop. The Police arn't caught unawears because neighbor x saw neighbor y manufacturing crack.


Further, the IAEA was not defending Iran, it was defending against media reports. Lets not try and make them one and the same for conveniance factor, because they are far from it.

As events unfold, now with egg on their face they are calling urgent action on Iran raising concerns, concerns which the west has always been making and they were accusing the west of unfounded allegations.

Nobody is disputing this. Infact I agree - even if it's the only point I agree with in this post.

What this is showing is despite all the lessons that history has taught us in dealing with Iran, the IAEA is the slowest of all learners, if at all they are willling to learn anything.

No, what it's taught us is that as usual, there are a bunch of simpletons that read the newspapers, and coupled with blissfull ignorance of an agencies role, despite reams and reams of information available should some of these guys actually be bothered to type IAEA into google.

What verification have they made so far about the blue prints of the nuclear warhead moulding that Iran has been found in posession of? What verification have they made about the presence of a weapons expert in Iran's program? What about the other IAEA outstanding questions that Iran has still not answered for years to date? This is information that is out there which the IAEA is only too happy to burry its head in the sand about only to raise it again to accuse the west of making unfounded allegations.

Their publications are available online. Right Here: News Center : In Focus : IAEA and Iran

What you are alleging is false. It's freely available. You just have to go to the damn website and be bothered investing in some reasing of some in depth nature other than some columnists opinion in some rag coupled with your own suspiceons.

Like they have been investigating the Syrian facility bombed by Israel eh? The first thing they opened their mouth to say was to condemn Israel for the bombing and not Syria for the facility. They were quick to say it is premature allegations to say Syria was building a nuclear facility even when the US produced pictorial evidence of the site before it was bombed showing cooling towers, reactor site etc. And when they eventually got access sure enough, lo and behold radio activity is detected and still the vaunted IAEA refuses to point a straight fingure at Syria and instead accuses everyone but themselves of coming into premature conclusions and urge to wait for test results of the isotopes. And when the results come positive Syria refuses to give IAEA access to its other facilities that had been a line of enquiry, .... and what does the IAEA do ..... bury its head in the sand! Yeah, so much for letting "the IAEA investigate the claims"!

Im sure since you havn't really looked on Iran - your not every going to look on Syria either. Nor am I going to babysit links for you.

And i suppose you do? Amaze me, show me something you know about the charter that i do not.

Evidently a helluva lot more than you. You clearly don't even know how it operates.

You are busy missing the point. The issue is not the charter at all. The issue is the way it is handling the Iranian issue inspite of all the deception that it has exhibited.

There are multiple steps needed to make a nuclear warhead. The steps quite clearly seem lost on you. These steps come up in the IAEA's security verification techniques. These Steps all otehr nations have to abide by. They agree to abide to them via agreeing to the Charter. The Charter is the damn issue! It's the means via which signatory nations can apply pressure.

The IAEA should smell the coffee and start stamping its authority as a international watchdog and stop being taken for a ride.

It is, and it does regularly.

It should get out of its denial mode with Iran and come back to earth.

You should get out of Denial mode about what the IAEA is responsible for, and do some reading. So far your making lots of claims about Iran and nukes. So far I've made clear Im skeptical about their intentions. But your claims about the IAEA, and Castellano's are over the top, based on ignorance on how it operates. That may seem a hard knock to cop, But I bet you havn't bothered to ever read a single page past thier front page as clearly evidenced by your appoach towards the agency.

Except that we are not talking about cars and traffic cops here. When you are done story telling let me know and we will have an adult conversation.

There is Zero point having a conversation about an Agency which you know nothing whatsoever about. Edit: I'll be honest, I've only wasted about 6 hours of my time reading some very boring reports available on the IAEA as well as some of their structure, so I don't particularly know much either, but theres enough there to suggest its nowhere near as simple as your making the issue out to be. But found it interesting for that fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is absolutely zero evidence to your assertion. On the contrary, we have three historical evidence we can draw lessons from. Two of which attest to the fact that limited, targeted military action against a nuclear can impose immediate peace with little to no fallout after that. Iraq facility was destroyed, and there was no WWIII. The Syrian facility was hit, and lo we are still waiting for your amageddon.

When you bomb someone and they havn't bombed you. You set a precedent.
Try Japan bombing the U.S in ww2. Remember that? They got Nuked remember. Zero Evidence? Tell that to the Japanese.

Don't like that. Try German Invasion of Russia.

Don't like that. Try burning down Govt buildings in Toronto - that was a bright idea.

Don't Like that. Try Bombing London in the Blitz - really good idea that one.

What about the War of Jenkins Ear?

History is littered with retaliations. Yours presupposes that those sites were actually going to go nuclear. Somehow me thinks the U.S would never have let either Iraq, nor Syria go nuclear anyrate.

On the other hand we have a third lesson of your sand head-burrying approach which has now given the greatest nuclear threat in the world with NK.

The IAEA / NPT Iran vs North Korea bear no resemblance. There was never any action on NK because of the proximity of Seol to North Korea. Contrary to the assertion - if the States thought NK was going to go nuclear, it would go nuclear first and wax the place - if it couldn't do it conventionally anyrate. Heck they HAVE got nukes, or a Nuke, or they detonated it. Whats happening about them? Oh thats right - we forget them, the rougue state with nukes vs the one without.

This blah, blah, blah, attacking Iranian facilities is going to lead to WWIII is just empty scare mongering. No one gives monkeys about Iran to risk WWIII at Iran's behest. World wars are not started by insignificant countries begrudged of having been denied the chance to have a nuclear bomb. World wars are started by world powers playing appeasement to rogue states.

Spare me the sentimental rubbish. The post isn't about avoiding war per se, it's about factual process. Get yourself a shovel and dig your hole faster. If Iran gets near, smack them. Until then it'sjjust ringside jeering and deserves to be treated as such. Your the guy wanting to bomb stuff, your going to have to justify yourself based on concrete evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. I don't have to be polite about that - Im pretty sure it's a fair way off. Frankly claiming the moral high ground as being more concearned about being nuked than any others by presupposing they are appeasers with their head stuck in the sand is dumb.

Originally Posted by Zinja

And one day later....


And...

And...

Source

Make up your mind Chunder.

That isn't actually saying Iran is developing a warhead.

It is if your gullible.

Whats to say the configuration isn't one that's been tested for other uses? Further there would be very few states (At least in the the advanced state process) that wouldn't have an inkling of how to build a nuclear device. Even NK did it without help, and they are impoverished.

All it's saying is they have likely tested configurations that could be used on a nuke. All the more reason for keeping tabs on them. If you think diplomatic channels are not hammering this then you'd be naive to the extreem.

Sure I'll believe what I want to.

You need to put it into context.

From this Link Obama: Iran must follow through on nuke promises - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Thursday called landmark nuclear talks with Iran a constructive beginning, then challenged Tehran to match words with deeds by giving international inspectors "unfettered access" to a previously secret uranium enrichment plant within two weeks.

"Talk is no substitute for action," Obama said at the White House after talks ended earlier in the day in Switzerland. "Our patience is not unlimited."

If Iran fails to live up to its promises of cooperation, "then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely and we are prepared to move toward increased pressure," the president warned. His reference to pressure was an allusion to tougher U.N. and other sanctions already under discussion.

But Obama said that if Iran follows through with concrete steps "there is a path to a better relationship" with the United States and the international community.

"Going forward, we expect to see swift action," Obama said. Several times he called on Iran to take "concrete steps," signaling his intention to keep pressure on Iran until it follows through on promises.

Obama's comments were sharper and more specific than those earlier in the day by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said the talks had "opened the door" to potential progress on clarifying Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But, striking a cautious tone, Clinton said in Washington it remained to be seen whether the Iranians would act decisively to address concerns about their intentions.

The U.S. concern, shared by many other nations, is that Iran may be using its declared nuclear facilities — which it asserts are intended only for peaceful purposes — as cover for building a nuclear weapon.

Obama said Iran should act in two areas to alleviate those concerns, and he implied that the country was on the right track.

The first is what Obama called transparency. He said Iran must open the doors within two weeks to a newly disclosed facility near the city of Qom that is intended to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel. The senior European Union envoy at the talks, Javier Solana, told reporters that based on Iran's response on Qom he expected that they would grant access to international inspectors in "a couple of weeks."

The second area where Obama urged Iranian action is building international confidence in the peaceful nature of the nuclear program. In this regard he said Iran had agreed in principle to ship low-enriched uranium to a third country to further process the material for use in a research reactor in Tehran.

"We support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power," Obama said. "Taking the step of transferring its low-enriched uranium to a third country would be a step toward building confidence that Iran's program is in fact peaceful."

A senior U.S. official speaking to reporters in Geneva said Russia has agreed to perform the further processing of low-enriched uranium from Iran, and that France would then fabricate it into fuel assemblies for use at the Tehran research reactor, which is under international inspection.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss diplomatically sensitive aspects of Thursday's talks, said the potential advantage of that arrangement would be to significantly reduce Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which itself is a source of worry among countries that fear Iran intends to use it in a nuclear weapons program.

The official said the Iranians tentatively agreed to this arrangement, subject to working out details at a meeting in Vienna on Oct. 18 with experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. body.

Thursday's meeting, at a villa on Lake Geneva, marked the first time the United States and Iran have engaged in direct talks since the 1979 Iranian revolution. In April 1980 the U.S. severed formal diplomatic relations with Tehran.

During a break in Thursday's talks between Iran and six world powers — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — the lead U.S. negotiator, Undersecretary of State William Burns, had a rare face-to-face meeting with the Iranian delegate.

Officials said Burns amplified the U.S. view of Iran's responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and urged Iran to take swift action to resolve the cases of three Americans who have been detained in Tehran since their arrest in late July for illegally entering the country from Iraq.

State Department spokesman Ian C. Kelly said Burns also raised the case of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who went missing in Iran in 2007 while working as a private consultant.

Earlier, Clinton said that at the talks "there were a number of issues raised, put on the table, and now we have to wait and see how quickly — and whether — Iran responds." She did not specify the issues or speak in detail about how Iran should respond.

Clinton said she got a rundown on the substance of the talks in a telephone call from Burns.

"It was a productive day, but the proof of that has not yet come to fruition, so we'll wait and continue to press our point of view and see what Iran decides to do," Clinton said.

Asked whether the U.S. strategy of offering more direct dialogue with Iran was paying off, she said more than gestures and discussions are required.

"I will count it as a positive sign when it moves from gestures and engagements to actions and results," she said.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Hmm - when faced with an organisation that disagrees with your politically motivated pro-whatever israel does view, try and discredit them.

I find it strange that you basically accuse the IAEA as an appeasing organisation with a view that because Israel has a bomb, why shouldn't Arabs. The IAEA is far more than one man Autocratic show Catellano , no matter how much you'd like to simplify the scenario to justify the means.
just so everyone is clear and without making the post too long heres a link to the IAEA's About Page: About IAEA: About the IAEA

Castellano here's some just for you:

IAEA Mission & Programmes

The IAEA´s mission is guided by the interests and needs of Member States, strategic plans and the vision embodied in the IAEA Statute. Three main pillars - or areas of work - underpin the IAEA´s mission: Safety and Security; Science and Technology; and Safeguards and Verification. See Our Work.

(Too bad whiter than white Israel isn't a member to express it's interests)

Relationship with United Nations

As an independent international organization related to the United Nations system, the IAEA´s relationship with the UN is regulated by special agreement [pdf]. In terms of its Statute, the IAEA reports annually to the UN General Assembly and, when appropriate, to the Security Council regarding non-compliance by States with their safeguards obligations as well as on matters relating to international peace and security.




The IAEA is an investigative and safety orientated organisation. It is not paid to make views known other than that based on the evidence available to it . It has more access to available intel than Israel ever has, because it accepts intelligence information and can act on it. To assert that someone, or something knows better would have to come from an Iranian themselves.


Making an unsubstantiated claim based on an unsubstanted smear campaign because one smacks down your theory isn't very convincing. The IAEA isn't a one man show. You don't even know how the organisation works.

What an absolute Joke. The IAEA mission is to guide nuclear security & it is under review every year by the signatory nations anyrate. The IAEA investigates. If it investigates on a lead and finds no evidence, then that is as far as it goes. You seem to think it's fine that it's okay to smack allegations around without scrutiny. It's not because if you allegations can't be found as factual, continuing to assert them wastes valuable investigation time, resources & money, because there are a few persistent nut jobs always carping on about irrefutable proof which for some reason always get traction, even thoughthey are more often than not nowhere near qualified to say as such, nor in the physical position to affirm as such . In which case it the IAEA is well within it's rights to make a statement which is a polite way of saying get lost, to counter the subversive, and undermining baseless allegations and media snippets joe gullible snaps up without even accessing IAEA publications. They wouldn't have a clue about how in depth the agency is.

YOU seem to think it revolves around one guy (or if not that, than all the member states are all involved in one big appeasment conspiracy theory).

Here are a few links on the actual make up of the IAEA

General Concerance Nations
About IAEA: General Conference

Here's one to the Board of Govenors About IAEA: IAEA Board of Governor


Here's a link to the Chair of the Board of Govenors Bio
Biography of M. H. Arshad


And there it is, racial bias and mistrust, based on where he is from and his position to influence policy... No Castellano, His job is to be responsible for the Duties of the IAEA.

Even more embarrassing for you is the IAEA keeps some pretty comprehensive material on Iran for everyone with an internet connection to see. It's available right here: News Center : In Focus : IAEA and Iran

Perhaps you should follow some of your own advice.



Apart from the fact that the person responsible for nuclear safegaurds is also a Deputy Director at the IAEA whoom is Finnish, Not Egyptian and hence the primary person responsible for verification. The fact that You've just blamed the wrong person responsible for primary tasks re-Iran, means I wouldn't take your word too seriously.

You can find his Bio here: About the IAEA: Mr. Olli Heinonen

The second guy in line that advises re- IAEA compliance, is this guy About the IAEA : Mr. Tomihiro Taniguchi A Japanese man.


Far from your naughty Egyptian The two people of interest are from Finland and Japan. Doesn't Bode well for your Arab Vs Israeli conspiracy theory.



Since Israel is not a Signatory to the NPT, and is under no pressure whatsoever to abide to it; you have to understand some simple home truths. There are a bunch of nations, that have exercised a heap of maturity about the topic, who are signatories alongside the Iranians. They want answers, and they are likely to get them. If they don't life will be a lot harder than it already is for Iran. Your basis for war is based on mistrust. Signatory nations fears are based on failure to comply. One of them has a lot more moral high ground than the other.



The NPT is there to stop it. The IAEA is there to Help the Process of Stopping it. If the Signatory nations to the NPT are unhappy with the way the IAEA is being managed, they have the power to ask for a review, and, they will get one in 2010 - well before your bomb is reputed to be available. These are basic things you in your paranoid affixiated state of Arabian Hate are continually avoiding, based on baseless allegation of an individual simply because they dissagree with your view.

Theres a ton of paranoia based on newspaper articles. Frankly sunshine, as much as you'd like to be recalcitrant, the very organisation you've done a very poor job at attacking, with gross oversimplification, based on naiivity of the workings of the organisation which has it's own reviews in place by the signatory nations[/u], with multiple levels of checks and balances. [u]There are matters of concern, that are reasons why those nations should hold Mistrust for Iran, that is why Iran is jumping through hoops right now.





Even simpler? My god.



Your post is logical? So logical it's utterly convincing?



It is a win-win for the Mullahs domestically and abroad. That’s also the very reason no combination of sanctions/incentives by itself would persuade them from giving it up.

If Iran fails to comply, it will likely face very trough sanctions, and weapons inspectors. We all know where that leads. If Iran gets the bomb, it looses.



Logic Eh? More convincing by the sentance.


Thats like saying the world will be a tsunami in 2100 so we should all move inland now.
The title of this thread is Time's up on Iran. It's your title, you made it. You want military action now. Like your logic behind the IAEA what it comes down to is Mistrust and conspiracy theories. We have a heap of qualified diplomatic appointments to the IAEA, and all you have is a bunch of faceless newspaper reports written by someone that can even match the qualifications and appointments made to the body - all speculating.


When you premeditate an attack on a nation and effect it, you reap the rewards. Japan did it to the U.S in 1941 remember. Look where it got them. Premeditating an attack during ongoing Diplomacy will stuff everything, there is no other option than constant war until regime change is effected in that scenario. I hope you take up a gun and lead the attack in that case.

Wow, what a bunch of spin, of ridiculous assertions, and what a lame way to skip the subject. Hell, you sound as if you were ElBaradei’s press assistant.

If I say that ElBaradei has been withholding information about weaponization, don’t read back to me the IAEA statutes.

If I point out that since he is the IAEA director, it is not up to ElBaradei to publicize his personal opinions about the Israeli nuclear arsenal, don’t sink to your lame and clumsy "irony" to make stupid racism accusations


And notice the duplicitous spin: Iran sits on top of an estimated 948 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, IAEA inspectors have found stuff like traces of Polonium 210 and other illegal activities, but ElBaradei has been busy making up headlines to assure us that there is no evidence of a military program. It is not up to ElBaradei to be confrontational or not confrontational, but to tell the information available. Yet, at the same time, all these picky technicalities are brushed aside when it comes to Israel, and all assumptions are welcomed. The guy seems to know for a fact that Israel has a nuclear arsenal, and moreover, he recommends what to do with it, which again, falls well outside the parameters of his mandate. The net result is an Iranian regime apologist.

It is very simple, though you obviously don't get it. Only a fool or a knave would think that Israel didn’t do the right thing by blowing to smithereens the North Korean reactor in Syria. Yet the IAEA under ElBaradei condemned the raid.
So that leaves the question, what is the IAEA under ElBaradei?

Meanwhile, in the real World....

Report Says Iran Has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.

The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.

But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States.

Two years ago, American intelligence agencies published a detailed report concluding that Tehran halted its efforts to design a nuclear weapon in 2003. But in recent months, Britain has joined France, Germany and Israel in disputing that conclusion, saying the work has been resumed.

A senior American official said last week that the United States was now re-evaluating its 2007 conclusions.

The atomic agency’s report also presents evidence that beyond improving upon bomb-making information gathered from rogue nuclear experts around the world, Iran has done extensive research and testing on how to fashion the components of a weapon. It does not say how far that work has progressed.

The report, titled “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” was produced in consultation with a range of nuclear weapons experts inside and outside the agency. It draws a picture of a complex program, run by Iran’s Ministry of Defense, “aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab 3 missile system,” Iran’s medium-range missile, which can strike the Middle East and parts of Europe. The program, according to the report, apparently began in early 2002.

If Iran is designing a warhead, that would represent only part of the complex process of making nuclear arms. Engineering studies would have to turn ideas into hardware. Finally, the hardest part would be enriching the uranium that could be used as nuclear fuel — though experts say Iran has already mastered that task.

While the analysis represents the judgment of the nuclear agency’s senior staff, a struggle has erupted in recent months over whether to make it public. The dispute pits the agency’s departing director, Mohamed ElBaradei, against his own staff and against foreign governments eager to intensify pressure on Iran.

Dr. ElBaradei has long been reluctant to adopt a confrontational strategy on Iran, an approach he sees as counterproductive. Responding to calls for the report’s release, he has raised doubts about its completeness and reliability.

Last month, the agency issued an unusual statement cautioning it “has no concrete proof” that Iran ever sought to make nuclear arms, much less to perfect a warhead. On Saturday in India, Dr. ElBaradei was quoted as saying that “a major question” about the authenticity of the evidence kept his agency from “making any judgment at all” on whether Iran had ever sought to design a nuclear warhead.

Even so, the emerging sense in the intelligence world that Iran has solved the major nuclear design problems poses a new diplomatic challenge for President Obama and his allies.

American officials say that in the direct negotiations with Iran that began last week, it will be vital to get the country to open all of its suspected sites to international inspectors. That is a long list, topped by the underground nuclear enrichment center under construction near Qum that was revealed 10 days ago.

Iran has acknowledged that the underground facility is intended as a nuclear enrichment center, but says the fuel it makes will be used solely to produce nuclear power and medical isotopes. It was kept heavily protected, Iranian officials said, to ward off potential attacks.

Iran said last week that it would allow inspectors to visit the site this month. In the past three years, amid mounting evidence of a possible military dimension to its nuclear program, Iran has denied the agency wide access to installations, documents and personnel.

In recent weeks, there have been leaks about the internal report, perhaps intended to press Dr. ElBaradei into releasing it.

The report’s existence has been rumored for months, and The Associated Press, saying it had seen a copy, reported fragments of it in September. On Friday, more detailed excerpts appeared on the Web site of the Institute for Science and International Security, run by David Albright, a nuclear expert.

In recent interviews, a senior European official familiar with the contents of the full report described it to The New York Times. He confirmed that Mr. Albright’s excerpts were authentic. The excerpts were drawn from a 67-page version of the report written earlier this year and since revised and lengthened, the official said; its main conclusions remain unchanged.

“This is a running summary of where we are,” the official said.

“But there is some loose language,” he added, and it was “not ready for publication as an official document.”

Most dramatically, the report says the agency “assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device” based on highly enriched uranium.

Weapons based on the principle of implosion are considered advanced models compared with the simple gun-type bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima. They use a blast wave from a sphere of conventional explosives to compress a ball of bomb fuel into a supercritical mass, starting the atomic chain reaction and progressing to the fiery blast. Implosion designs, compact by nature, are considered necessary for making nuclear warheads small and powerful enough to fit atop a missile.

The excerpts also suggest that Iran has done much research and testing to perfect nuclear arms, like making high-voltage detonators, firing test explosives and designing warheads.

The evidence underlying these conclusions is not new: Some of it was reported in a confidential presentation to many nations in early 2008 by the agency’s chief inspector, Ollie Heinonen.

Iran maintains that its scientists have never conducted research on how to make a warhead and that any documents to the contrary are fraudulent.

But in August, a public report to the board of the I.A.E.A. by its staff concluded that the evidence of Iran’s alleged military activity was probably genuine.

It said “the information contained in that documentation appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts” about the nature of its nuclear program.

The agency’s tentative analysis also says that Iran “most likely” obtained the needed information for designing and building an implosion bomb “from external sources” and then adapted the information to its own needs.

It said nothing specific about the “external sources,” but many intelligence agencies assume that Iran obtained a bomb design from A. Q. Khan, the rogue Pakistani black marketer who sold it machines to enrich uranium. That information may have been supplemented by a Russian nuclear weapons scientist who visited Iran often, investigators say.

The I.A.E.A.’s internal report concluded that the staff believed “that non-nuclear experiments conducted in Iran would give confidence that the implosion system would function correctly.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/wo...gewanted=print

Originally Posted by Castellano

Iran sits on top of an estimated 948 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves

That's not hugely relevant, especially when people are trying to reduce CO2 emissions.