Iran to 'speed up' uranium enrichment at nuclear plants

[Mihais]

When wasn't I honest and straightforward about these things?This is politics,this is strategy and everyone does it.Your own nation is a dedicated practitioner in supporting all sorts of a$$holes in similarly energy rich areas.

As a matter of fact I can't stand those that come with all sorts of BS explanations.There is however a good case for an old Roman saying:victorious in war,magnanimous in peace.As it is,history shows the Americans practice this a bit more than others.Its not they aren't a$$holes themselves,its that they put Roman wisdom in practice more often than others.

[snapper]

Dubitante I am forced to believe that you are being obtuse. Your standard of proof you require involves the death of millions, which is exactly what we are trying to prevent. Please continue in obtuseness for I shall defend your right to it. I do not have the patience to argue with you with you knowing that you are wrong.

For ink blot you see a sunny sky which is potentialy a nastier cloud. Nor do I go by what I am 'told to believe'; I was in Tehran a year and half ago and have friends there on whose information, combined with the current inforrmation, I base my judgement.

It is not an 'ink blot'; it smells like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, do I need a DNA sample before I assume it's a duck?

[S2]

Dubitante Reply

"I'm happy to go with that, as long as you're happy to agree that the US is waging / has been waging a massive proxy war against the Palestinians, Lebanese et al."

I'm completely unprepared to admit to such a complete travesty of the truth. There's no evidence whatsoever that America has waged a proxy war upon Lebanon nor the Palestinian people. In point of fact it is America who's sponsored the vast majority of attempts to find a peace settlement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

Lebanon? Read some American propaganda. I'll be eager to see your dispute of the information enclosed-

U.S.AID Assistance To Lebanon

Who, btw, would be "...et al"?

"...That is, to use your term, BS..."

Hardly.

...The NPT expressly allows for withdrawal..."

Absolutely.

"...There is no such admission attached to such withdrawal..."

Absolutely. Should we expect one?

"...That's your skewed [anti-Iranian/anti-Liberal/anti-Muslim/anti-reality/pro-war] (choose one) narrative."

Careful. I'll accept I'm no friend of the Iranian mullocracy.

Beyond that you tread uncertain ground. I absolutely reject any notion that I'm anti-muslim. I possess not one iota of disdain for Islam nor muslims. Nor is my sense of reality questioned here except by you. That we disagree vehemently hardly calls to question my perception of the facts although it constitutes an ad hominem attack. That'll most likely only weaken your argument.

Pro-war? I've likely a far better understanding of war and its consequences. Combat operations are a tool of statecraft and a indisputable means of resolution when practiced with alacrity. It offers, however, no absolute guarantee beyond an immense cost in human and material potential. Neither the potential good nor cost are reasons to accept or reject military operations out-of-hand

"I don't like the Iranian regime.
I don't like the American regime.
I don't like the Israeli regime."

This thread is about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. You've thus far attempted to obfuscate that purpose by expanding the discussion through the inclusion of red herrings and straw men.

Were you honest in your discourse you'd recognize that Iranian nuclear weapons only further destabilize a volatile region. Instead, your narrow interests seek to equivocate Iranian acquisition of nuclear arms as some theoretical counter-balance to Israeli weapons.

Trust that your Iranian enemies are grateful for your misguided efforts.

"...I do, however, on the whole, enjoy knowing many Iranians, Israelis and Americans..."

How nice but irrelevant. Count me as one who can't reciprocate the enjoyment.

"...Need I remind you that Iran had a secular democracy until the British and American regimes conspired to overthrow it..."

Ancient history drawn from different motivations. Irrelevant.

"...And the West has been torturing the Iranian people since they ousted our favoured dictator..."

Laughable. Have we employed the Iranian secret police for such purpose or are we in (losing) competition with them?

"...How you see me is not something that weighs heavily on my mind..."

Of course not. Were you to live in Iran, Palestine or Lebanon that might change.

[snapper]

Were you honest in your discourse you'd recognize that Iranian nuclear weapons only further destabilize a volatile region. Instead, your narrow interests seek to equivocate Iranian acquisition of nuclear arms as some theoretical counter-balance to Israeli weapons.

Agreed; an Iranian bomb is de-stabilising for the region and could potentialy cost many lives. Sometimes being a 'humanist' forces pre-emptive actions.

North Korean/Iran nuclear ties: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rt-claims.html

[Dreadnought]

This should end anymore "speculations" about Irans intentions.

AP Exclusive: Iran prez said pushing for nukes
Jul 22, 8:09 AM (ET)

By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) - Iran's president wants to shed the nation's secrecy and forge ahead openly with developing nuclear weapons but is opposed by the clerical leadership, which is worried about international reaction to such a move, says an intelligence assessment shared with The Associated Press.

That view, from a nation with traditionally reliable intelligence from the region, cannot be confirmed and contrasts with assessments by other countries that view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as relatively moderate on the nuclear issue compared to the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Attempts to interpret Iran's goals are important because as it expands uranium enrichment, it is moving closer to being able to make a nuclear weapon by the day, even as it asserts that it is not interested in such arms and its programs are geared only to making reactor fuel.

A U.S. official cited one assessment he has seen suggesting Ahmadinejad may be more "moderate" - more open to talks with the international community on resolving nuclear concerns than Khamenei. He asked for anonymity because his information was privileged.


But a blunt comment by Ahmadinejad last month raises questions. While repeating that Iran does not want nuclear arms, he openly reinforced its ability to make them, telling Iranian state TV that "if we want to make a bomb, we are not afraid of anybody."

That defiant statement fits the scenario laid down by the intelligence assessment shared with the AP, depicting Ahmadinejad as wanting to move publicly to develop a nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad is pushing "to shake free of the restraints Iran has imposed upon itself, and openly push forward to create a nuclear bomb," says the assessment shared with the AP. But Khamenei, whose word is final on nuclear and other issues, "wants to progress using secret channels, due to concern about a severe response from the West," says the report.

The varying views reflect the difficulties that intelligence agencies face when probing a secretive nation that plays its cards close to its chest. Lines of division are murky. Alliances shift and positions change, leaving governments and private analysts frustrated as they try to nail down Tehran's nuclear end game.

They converge, however in noting that recent political divisions between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have spilled over to encompass Iran's nuclear activities to a greater degree than before.

While much about Iran's nuclear program is opaque, the growing capacity - if not the intention - to make weapons is on the record, captured in International Atomic Energy Agency reports documenting the expansion of Iran's enrichment program from its clandestine beginnings more than a decade ago to one that has produced enough material for more than two nuclear bombs.

More recently Iran has begun enriching to higher levels that would lessen the time needed to make weapons-grade material. And its stonewalling of an IAEA probe based on U.S. and other intelligence of secret work on components of a nuclear weapons program is adding to concerns raised by Tehran's refusal to freeze enrichment despite U.N. sanctions.

Intelligence reports of tensions between Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics are in line with other signs showing Ahmadinejad at odds with Khamenei with less than two-years to go into his presidency.

In recent months, Ahmadinejad apparently fired - and was forced by Khamenei to reinstate - his interior minister in what some analysts see as a rebuffed attempt by the president to eliminate rivals to candidates he would like to see in positions of power, once his second and last term ends in 2013. That prompted an outburst of public criticism and led rivals in parliament to start proceedings that could in the most extreme case lead to impeachment.

Reports of disagreement on nuclear issues predate that dispute, but some officials from member nations of the Vienna-based IAEA see tensions over the future of the nuclear program sharpening.

Proliferation expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says his briefings from European government officials who have seen the latest U.S. intelligence assessment on the Islamic Republic seem to support the assessment shared with the AP that Khamenei is worried about how the world would react to a nuclear-armed Iran.

"There is a lot of caution in the regime about the implication of building nuclear weapons," says Albright. Asked whether Ahmadinejad or Khamenei have been the most circumspect, he says "the implication is that it was the Supreme Leader."

The leadership is "worried about starting a nuclear weapons race and worried about the international impact," said Albright, naming reactions from regional powers Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey as that of greatest concern to Tehran. Both Egypt and the Saudis have indicated that they would contemplate acquiring nuclear weapons if Iran had them.

One theory voiced by government officials and private analysts is that Iran might be looking to reach the level just short of making nuclear weapons - but able to do so quickly if it feels threatened. That would fit in with Khamenei's reported cautious stance.

In any case, Ahmadinejad seems to be further weakened by the dispute. That leaves the Revolutionary Guard - the military-industrial powerhouse that is increasingly asserting itself in most aspects of Iran's society - as a beneficiary says the intelligence assessment.

"Khamenei has decided to transfer engagement with the most sensitive parts of the nuclear program, including activity that can be used for nuclear weapons, from ... the group of scientists at the Defense Ministry, who are identified with Ahmadinejad, to a special body in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.," it says. "This, due to the increasing lack of trust the Leader has in people in sensitive positions, who are identified with the President."

The summary interprets the apparent decision to give the guard greater say over nuclear issues as a boost to its quest "to establish its status as a leading power force in the regime."

iWon News - AP Exclusive: Iran prez said pushing for nukes

[S2]

"Khamenei, whose word is final on nuclear and other issues, 'wants to progress using secret channels, due to concern about a severe response from the West,' says the report...Proliferation expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says his briefings from European government officials who have seen the latest U.S. intelligence assessment on the Islamic Republic seem to support the assessment shared with the AP that Khamenei is worried about how the world would react to a nuclear-armed Iran...."

Both wish for a nuclear weapon. Khamenei, however, evidently understands that subterfuge and duplicity has its role in matters such as this.

[Mihais]

Or they play the classical bad cop-less bad cop game. Actually we have very little intel about Iranian decision making circles.They're a known unknown.We don't know what they know about US policy,we don't know where they think there is the line and we don't know if they think there is a line in the first place.

All we have is what's published. Opinions and assessments of tertiary sources at best.

[Dubitante]

There is one and one reason only to leave the NPT, especially since the NSG has tighten its trade policies with non-NPT members.

Read the NPT and come back to me.

[Officer of Engineers]

Read the NPT and come back to me.

Don't have to. The NSG has tighten its trade grip. You want nuclear technology from the top guys. You follow their rules.

[Officer of Engineers]

Read the NPT and come back to me.

And what of your much vaunted disproven views now.

[Dubitante]

I'm completely unprepared to admit to such a complete travesty of the truth. There's no evidence whatsoever that America has waged a proxy war upon Lebanon nor the Palestinian people.

No evidence? How many billions of military aid to Israel? No doubt if Iran sent billions of dollars of military aid to Hamas you'd be calling it a proxy war. The US sends billions in military aid to Israel with the full knowledge that it will be used to further the brutalisation of the Palestinian people. One of the reasons that there is a very good argument to make that military aid to Israel is illegal under both US domestic law and International law.

In point of fact it is America who's sponsored the vast majority of attempts to find a peace settlement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

That's pretty much the opposite of the truth. Pretty much the entire world supports a peaceful two state settlement, the US-Israel alliance is virtually isolated in their rejection of it. Every year the UN General Assembly votes on a resolution called 'A Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine'. Every year the whole world votes for it, every year the US and Israel vote against it. The US funds a proxy war against the Palestinians, and also provides complete protection for Israel's criminal policies. The US is part of the problem, not the solution.

This thread is about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. You've thus far attempted to obfuscate that purpose by expanding the discussion through the inclusion of red herrings and straw men.

Name one.

Were you honest in your discourse you'd recognize that Iranian nuclear weapons only further destabilize a volatile region. Instead, your narrow interests seek to equivocate Iranian acquisition of nuclear arms as some theoretical counter-balance to Israeli weapons.

If you were honest, you'd be more concerned about the destabilising effects of Israel's rogue nuclear hegemony than you are about Iran's hypothetical/non-existent nuclear weapons program.

[Mihais]

Name one destabilising effect,please.

[Officer of Engineers]

No evidence? How many billions of military aid to Israel? No doubt if Iran sent billions of dollars of military aid to Hamas you'd be calling it a proxy war. The US sends billions in military aid to Israel with the full knowledge that it will be used to further the brutalisation of the Palestinian people. One of the reasons that there is a very good argument to make that military aid to Israel is illegal under both US domestic law and International law.

That is a blatant distortion of the truth and an insult to the Americans. Israel and the US are allies. By your measure, the British and Canadian armies are slaughtering Afghans on behalf of the Americans. Israeli policy is Israeli policy. It has not been and it is not American policy. At no time in history has the Americans declare the Palestinian People their enemy and vice versa.

I demand that your withdraw your comment.

[Dubitante]

And what of your much vaunted disproven views now.

If you believe that Iran has a weapons program, as I said before, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the 2011 N.I.E and the 16 intelligence agencies that wrote it.

If you know better than they do, you have my respect. Otherwise, I don't think I can help you.

[Officer of Engineers]

If you believe that Iran has a weapons program, as I said before, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the 2011 N.I.E and the 16 intelligence agencies that wrote it.

If you know better than they do, you have my respect. Otherwise, I don't think I can help you.

I posted their collective conclusions and it shows that you did not read their assessment.