Iran Nuclear Agreement

[Ziggurat]

There is no sense in hiding information from the IAEA if you are not developing a nuclear weapon.

That's not entirely true. As Saddam demonstrated, one can also hide stuff from inspectors in order to bluff, to make one's enemies think one has such weapons. In particular, Saddam seems to have wanted Iran to think he had WMD's to keep them at bay.

But a number of factors such as the scale and nature of what we DO know about suggest that's not the case with Iran.

 

[WildCat]

I'm confused.

Either Iran is more than two or three years away from building a bomb, or building a bomb is so trivial that Iran could build one at any time and it's likely they've built two or three already. Which is it?

I think in Iran's case they could probably make a bomb right now if they wanted one, but they don't want one right now. Reason being not because they don't want to become a nuclear power, but that their missile development lags behind.

Once Iran gets an operational long-range missile capable of carrying a nuke they will produce the bomb to go in it. And they are certainly trying to develop that missile.

 

[Doctor Evil]

That's not entirely true. As Saddam demonstrated, one can also hide stuff from inspectors in order to bluff, to make one's enemies think one has such weapons. In particular, Saddam seems to have wanted Iran to think he had WMD's to keep them at bay.

But a number of factors such as the scale and nature of what we DO know about suggest that's not the case with Iran.

I agree, and was aware of that, but chose to omit this for sake of brevity.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Instead of posting wild speculation on their capabilities-- really, there is not one whiff of publicly available information that the "year or two" thing is even realistic, and I've heard this song-n-dance before (in 2002/2003)-- why not actually discuss things about the cards we can all see right now at this point? I mean, crap, give me sufficiently enriched uranium or plutonium manufactured into the shapes I'd require, and with the resources available to Mozambique I could construct a simple nuclear bomb. The hard work was already done around sixty years ago. That doesn't make me an existent threat to my neighbors, no matter how much crap I talk about them (though it would make me a right a-hole).

I get the feeling you misinterpret the claim regarding the setback. It is not a claim about the time it would take Iran to make a nuclear weapon. It is rather an estimate of the time it would take Iran to enrich Uranium to replace the amount it would send to Russia under the deal. The latter estimate has less unknowns, but is still somewhat speculative.

The result is that Iran do not give up much in the proposed deal. It only set back one aspect of the program, the Uranium enrichment part. Furthermore, their enrichment effort will be only put back for a year or two. In any case, it is not clear at this time that the deal will actually be signed.

As for your latter point, would it be that the only thing that Iran do is talk crap. Instead they support extremist groups which prefer violence to negotiations, by giving them money and weapons in large quantities.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I think in Iran's case they could probably make a bomb right now if they wanted one, but they don't want one right now.

Based on what? I'm not disputing whether or not Iran would be able to build a nuke right now, but I'm curious as to your source on this. My understanding was that the most recent intelligence estimates either said Iran didn't have a nuclear bomb program or was several years away from developing a bomb.

As for long range missiles being useless without a nuclear warhead, I think there's still a rationale for developing long range conventional missiles. The US uses cruise missiles all the time, for example.

 

[theprestige]

It's the situation without the false dichotomy you've just created.

Don't look at me. You're the one who questions whether or not a "year or two [to build a bomb] is even realistic", and then promptly follows it up by saying that building a bomb is so trivial that Mozambique could do it today if they had the parts (Iran has about 44x the GDB that Mozambique does, by the way).

So which is it?

Do you understand what "hubris" means?

Yes, which is why I don't mis-use it in a sentence.

But to address the point you're trying to make: Last time I checked, it wasn't official US policy to talk a lot of crap about Canada and Mexico. But hey, if you want to expand the neighborhood a bit, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that given his recent statements about Honduras, perhaps the Obama administration shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons...

... Of course, that's one of the nice things about the US, compared to Iran: We get a regime change every four years--more often than that, even, when you consider how often members of the legislature are up for election. Seeing what happened the last time the Iranian people tried to democratically change their regime, I have no qualms at all about putting Iran high on the list of nations that shouldn't have nukes, and the US low on the list of nations that should give up the nukes they have.

Why you're so intent on evening the playing field between the two, I have no idea.

 

[theprestige]

As for long range missiles being useless without a nuclear warhead, I think there's still a rationale for developing long range conventional missiles. The US uses cruise missiles all the time, for example.

The US is also a world leader in missile guidance systems and target acquisition systems, though. It can actually engage in warfare based on precision strikes against high-value strategic targets with minimal collateral damage.

Before these highly-advanced technologies--still largely unmatched by other advanced nations, let alone developing countries like Iraq--our strategy relied heavily on things like carpet-bombing (and, for a time, even considered battlefield nukes).

For a nation like Iran, which doesn't have precision guidance and targeting tech, and which doesn't really have the industrial base to launch a major strategic missile war, it's much more in their interest to cause as much devastation with as few warheads as possible. The big three--Nuclear, Biological, Chemical--are ideal for this.

tl;dr, long-range missiles with conventional warheads are almost useless in modern warfare.

 

[MikeMangum]

and i have not seen any evidence that leeds to the conclusion that they are developing Nuclear weappons.

Iran was working feverishly on enrichment of uranium before it even had any power plants that could use them, as noticed by The Guardian.

[T]here is another huge question mark hanging over Isfahan and Natanz: why is the government in such a rush to enrich fuel, when it has no nuclear power plants in which to use it?

Bushehr uses low enriched uranium pressed into pellets, which is provided by Russia as part of it's deal with Iran on construction and use of the Bushehr reactor, and that reactor will just be coming online this year.

Secondly, it is rather suggestive that Iran has plans for a nuclear warhead.

The agency has been seeking possession of the blueprints since 2005, when it stumbled upon them among a batch of other documents during its examination of suspect Iranian nuclear activities. While agency inspectors had been allowed to examine them in the country, Tehran had up to now refused to let the IAEA have a copy for closer perusal.

...

Both the IAEA and other experts have categorized the instructions outlined in the blueprints as having no value outside of a nuclear weapons program.

When the Lavizan complex was discovered, Iran repeatedly denied requests by the IAEA to visit it. They then razed the entire complex to the ground and THEN agreed to allow the IAEA to visit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml

Fresh evidence has emerged that Iran is working on a secret military project to develop nuclear weapons that has not been declared to United Nations inspectors responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme.

Nuclear experts working for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna are pressing the Iranians to make a full disclosure about a network of research laboratories at a secret military base outside the capital Teheran.

Suspicions have been growing that Iran has a secret military nuclear research programme since UN inspectors discovered particles of enriched uranium at a research complex at Lavizan, a military base on the outskirts of Teheran, in 2003.

The Iranians agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the Lavizan complex but then razed it to the ground before the inspectors arrived.

Iranian nuclear officials have ignored repeated requests by IAEA officials for a detailed explanation of the Lavizan project. Now the IAEA officials are studying new intelligence indicating that the Lavizan research project has been moved to a secret military location outside Teheran.

Although IAEA officials do not know the precise location of Zirzamin 27, they have comprehensive details of its activities.

“This is a truly alarming development,” said a senior western diplomat working with the IAEA. “This evidence indicates that the Iranians remain committed to developing nuclear weapons, despite their claims to the contrary that their nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.”

Those are certainly suggestive pieces of information.

 

[aviolet4u]

oh bother- I'd be a very happy soul if I didn't hear the word "nuclear" in any of the news, media ever again. But then I'd probably be a corpse wouldn't I?

 

[MikeMangum]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/13/20060513-120435-8643r/

VIENNA, Austria -- U.N. inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment from an Iranian research center linked to the military, diplomats said yesterday -- a revelation likely to strengthen U.S. arguments that Tehran wants to develop nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging the confidential information, cautioned that confirmation still had to come through other laboratory tests.

Still, they said, further analysis could show that the find matches others established to have come from abroad. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) determined earlier traces of highly enriched uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity.

Even then, nevertheless, the find would be significant.

Because Iran has previously denied conducting enrichment-related activities at the site -- a former research center at Lavizan-Shian -- the mere fact the traces came from there bolsters arguments that it has hidden parts of a program that can create the fissile material used in nuclear warheads. Additionally, the site's connection to the military weakens Iranian arguments that its nuclear program is purely civilian.

"That has long been suspected as the site of undeclared enrichment research and ... the Iranians have denied that any enrichment research had taken place at that location," said Iran specialist Gary Samore of the MacArthur Foundation in Chicago. "It certainly does reinforce the agency's suspicion that Iran has not fully declared its past enrichment research."

One diplomat said the samples came from vacuum pumps that have various applications, including use in uranium-enriching centrifuges at Lavizan-Shian.

The United States says Iran conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site.

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan-Shian's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil removed to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The IAEA later confirmed the site had been razed.

http://www.iranwatch.org/privateviews/ISIS/perspex-isis-Lavizan-061704.htm

The site in Lavizan-Shian, a northeastern neighborhood of Tehran, has been under investigation since 2003 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United States, and likely other governments as a potential undeclared nuclear or nuclear-related site. Adding to suspicions, while these investigations were ongoing the buildings were dismantled, rubble carted away, and the ground was scraped between approximately the first of the year and March 2004. The IAEA is continuing to investigate and will likely soon request a visit to the site.

This site first came to public attention in May 2003 when the Iranian opposition group, National Council for Resistance of Iran, announced that the site, called the Lavizan-Shian Technical Research Center, was associated with biological weapons research. They said the Center was affiliated with Malek-Ashtar University and was formed under the Ministry of Defense.

Later, a radiation detection device, called a whole body counter, was discovered to have been delivered to the site from overseas. The equipment itself is not direct evidence of a nuclear weapons program, but it is out of place at a site that was not declared by Iran to have any nuclear activity. Spare parts for the machine were also known to have been sent to the site. These additional pieces of equipment may actually have allowed modifications to the whole body counter that would make it more useful for a nuclear weapons program. However, the actual purpose and current location of the equipment remains unknown.

The site was photographed by DigitalGlobe's Quickbird commercial satellite in August 2003 and March 2004. The first image shows large buildings inside a secure perimeter. In the second image, the buildings were removed and the earth scraped. Even the roads and walkways were removed or covered.

This destruction at the site raised concerns because it is the type of measure Iran would need to take if it was trying to defeat the powerful environmental sampling capabilities of IAEA inspectors. At other sites, less extensive deception measures were employed by Iran, but the inspectors nonetheless discovered traces of enriched uranium, revealing details about activities at the sites and leading Iran to revise its declarations to the IAEA.

There are satellite photos of before and after. BTW, Lavizan isn't a city, it is an army garrison and weapons developement center.

No, no evidence of anything but peaceful power generation at all.

 

[GreNME]

Haaretz: Report: Iran rejects nuclear draft deal
Iran state TV: Tehran proposes buying nuclear fuel
rather than shipping its uranium stockpile to Russia.

Don't you find it interesting how the hyperlink text there claims Iran rejected the deal, when it didn't reject the deal? That doesn't rule out that it might, and their counter-proposal is a pretty regular tactic for them to avoid commitment on any deals, but I think the statement says more about bad faith than honest assessment on the part of commentary.

-----

I get the feeling you misinterpret the claim regarding the setback. It is not a claim about the time it would take Iran to make a nuclear weapon. It is rather an estimate of the time it would take Iran to enrich Uranium to replace the amount it would send to Russia under the deal. The latter estimate has less unknowns, but is still somewhat speculative.

The result is that Iran do not give up much in the proposed deal. It only set back one aspect of the program, the Uranium enrichment part. Furthermore, their enrichment effort will be only put back for a year or two. In any case, it is not clear at this time that the deal will actually be signed.

I didn't misinterpret what you were saying. That's why I pointed out that even I could make a nuke if I had even a fraction of the resources and the key nuclear material. Without the material of a high enough enriched quality, no bomby-bomb. That's the goal of the current deal taking place. Iran would be pretty effectively blocked from the key element to making a nuclear bomb.

As for your latter point, would it be that the only thing that Iran do is talk crap. Instead they support extremist groups which prefer violence to negotiations, by giving them money and weapons in large quantities.

Yes, I'm aware of that as well. So, are we going to invade them for supporting turriss' or are we going to work on getting them to agree to cease the support? Or maybe we're just going to continue trying to come at this government like they're going to stop supporting terrorists because we disapprove? Does this current attempt to find an accord not seem to factor into a larger plan for getting Iran playing nice to you?

-----

It's the situation without the false dichotomy you've just created.

Don't look at me. You're the one who questions whether or not a "year or two [to build a bomb] is even realistic", and then promptly follows it up by saying that building a bomb is so trivial that Mozambique could do it today if they had the parts (Iran has about 44x the GDB that Mozambique does, by the way).

So which is it?

I'll try to re-phrase it: it's neither. The point of getting Iran into some form of accord isn't about whether they can build the bomb parts, because the only important part of the bomb is the fuel (which hey can't build), and speculation on how close they are to having the capability is just that-- speculation (unless you're able to provide proof). No, I'm not going to go through a full explanation of how a nuclear bomb works since you can find that out for yourself with a simple internet search, but the whole point of what I stated had to do with the viability of getting proper fuel for a bomb. The current facilities we know about, even if they had twice the number of that in secret, could accomplish such a feat even if we gave them four years. We keep hearing references to how far along the Iranian nuclear weapon program is but rarely get any glimpse of the actual reasons behind the claims.

You can base your political outlook on confirmation bias if you like, but I'd rather have more actual data.

Do you understand what "hubris" means?

Yes, which is why I don't mis-use it in a sentence.

But to address the point you're trying to make: Last time I checked, it wasn't official US policy to talk a lot of crap about Canada and Mexico. But hey, if you want to expand the neighborhood a bit, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that given his recent statements about Honduras, perhaps the Obama administration shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons...

... Of course, that's one of the nice things about the US, compared to Iran: We get a regime change every four years--more often than that, even, when you consider how often members of the legislature are up for election. Seeing what happened the last time the Iranian people tried to democratically change their regime, I have no qualms at all about putting Iran high on the list of nations that shouldn't have nukes, and the US low on the list of nations that should give up the nukes they have.

Yes, far be it from me to assume that someone could actually experience hubris when they're unwilling to admit their own silliness. Why bother with embarrassment when distraction and denial remove the need?

Assuming that I was aiming at the low-hanging fruit here (the US) would be easy for you to dismiss, I agree, but what about Pakistan and India? How about Israel? Even better, how about Russia? I assume all of the above are countries you don't think deserve nukes, correct?

Why you're so intent on evening the playing field between the two, I have no idea.

Oh, bravo. When faced with a challenge to the typical bad-faith rhetoric, play the only-slightly-more-eloquent-than "why do you hate America?" card. Very creative.

 

[DC]

Iran was working feverishly on enrichment of uranium before it even had any power plants that could use them, as noticed by The Guardian.


Bushehr uses low enriched uranium pressed into pellets, which is provided by Russia as part of it's deal with Iran on construction and use of the Bushehr reactor, and that reactor will just be coming online this year.

Secondly, it is rather suggestive that Iran has plans for a nuclear warhead.


When the Lavizan complex was discovered, Iran repeatedly denied requests by the IAEA to visit it. They then razed the entire complex to the ground and THEN agreed to allow the IAEA to visit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml


Those are certainly suggestive pieces of information.

yup, no evidence at all.

 

[Doctor Evil]

I didn't misinterpret what you were saying. That's why I pointed out that even I could make a nuke if I had even a fraction of the resources and the key nuclear material. Without the material of a high enough enriched quality, no bomby-bomb. That's the goal of the current deal taking place. Iran would be pretty effectively blocked from the key element to making a nuclear bomb.

Not blocked, but delayed, and nor for long either. Which was my main point. Iran do not give up much in this deal.

Yes, I'm aware of that as well. So, are we going to invade them for supporting turriss' or are we going to work on getting them to agree to cease the support? Or maybe we're just going to continue trying to come at this government like they're going to stop supporting terrorists because we disapprove? Does this current attempt to find an accord not seem to factor into a larger plan for getting Iran playing nice to you?

Huh? Where did I say or support that?

Work on getting them to change their behavior means either putting fairly severe sanctions or working to replace the current regime.

The current attempt seems to me bound to failure. Iran may accept this deal, as they do not have to give up much, and this would pretty much be it. The deal would remove the pressure to do anything else. They would neither change their support for Hizbulla, Hamas, etc, nor stop their nuclear weapons development.

 

[WildCat]

Based on what? I'm not disputing whether or not Iran would be able to build a nuke right now, but I'm curious as to your source on this. My understanding was that the most recent intelligence estimates either said Iran didn't have a nuclear bomb program or was several years away from developing a bomb.

Actually the latest intelligence has Iran capable of producing abomb now. All they need is the fissile material, and that only takes time, and they already have the equipment.

As for long range missiles being useless without a nuclear warhead, I think there's still a rationale for developing long range conventional missiles. The US uses cruise missiles all the time, for example.

The US can put a cruise missile exactly where they want it, not so much with Iran which doesn't even have cruise missiles at all, let alone ones that can strike with such precision.

Iran's missiles are about as accurate as a Scud, and pretty much useless when fitted with a conventional warhead, as Scuds were. However, you don't need precision accuracy with a nuclear warhead.

 

[Oliver]

Actually the latest intelligence has Iran capable of producing abomb now.

[/twilightzonetheme]

Also:

Edition.cnn.com
Iran to decide on nuclear deal 'next week'

Two days after negotiators reached a draft agreement over Iran's nuclear
activities, Tehran left it unclear whether it would ultimately sign on. Tehran
is "studying the draft proposal" and will have an answer next week, said
Iranian diplomat Ali Asghar Soltanieh, on state-run Press TV..... full story

 

[Dr Adequate]

That wouldn't necessarily mean the Supreme Leader doesn't wish for a viable program, but if wishes were fishes we'd all own boats.

If wishes were fishes we'd all own fish. So why would we need boats? The rate of boat-ownership would, if anything, decline, were your radical proposal to be put into practice.

 

[GreNME]

Not blocked, but delayed, and nor for long either. Which was my main point. Iran do not give up much in this deal.

They give up the pretense to their people that the forces opposing their regime can't be dealt with. That would be a huge blow to the hardliner rhetoric. Also, with this deal they'd give up enough, and the important thing is that they won't be able to make sufficient fuel for a bomb.

Huh? Where did I say or support that?

You didn't, but I offered three possibilities with the hope that you could clarify what you do think is going to work? The "invasion regime change" has been a mixed bag, to say the least, and our "shake heads and cluck tongues" method (N. Korea) has done about jack toward stopping the bomb. If we're going to try diplomacy, it's going to lead inexorably to negotiations. This isn't going to be pleasant for those who equate negotiation with capitulation. Do you make such an equation?

Work on getting them to change their behavior means either putting fairly severe sanctions or working to replace the current regime.

The current attempt seems to me bound to failure. Iran may accept this deal, as they do not have to give up much, and this would pretty much be it. The deal would remove the pressure to do anything else. They would neither change their support for Hizbulla, Hamas, etc, nor stop their nuclear weapons development.

This is wrong on so many levels, and it seems you do make the equation that negotiation is capitulation and is out of the question. I would agree that the having the current regime out of power of ceasing its extremist support is the ultimate goal, but why does it all have to happen in one fell swoop?

 

[GreNME]

If wishes were fishes we'd all own fish. So why would we need boats? The rate of boat-ownership would, if anything, decline, were your radical proposal to be put into practice.

It's a phrase I modified slightly. The original (points to identifying the origin) is "If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets."

 

[theprestige]

Yes, far be it from me to assume that someone could actually experience hubris when they're unwilling to admit their own silliness. Why bother with embarrassment when distraction and denial remove the need?

Fact: The US does not have a longstanding policy of talking crap about its neighbors. Iran does. Therefore it is not hubris to reject claims of such a policy as a basis for dismantling the US nuclear stockpile, while simultaneously considering such claims as a basis for prohibiting an Iranian nuclear stockpile.

Such claims might be weak for other reasons, but they're not actually hubris.

I'll confess to and repent of any hubris you convict me of. But first you have to actually convict me of hubris. And that means using it correctly in a sentence.

I think what you meant to use here was "hypocrisy", but since the US doesn't talk crap about its neighbors the way Iran does, there's nothing hypocritical in taking Iran to task for talking crap about its neighbors but not doing the same for the US.

Assuming that I was aiming at the low-hanging fruit here (the US) would be easy for you to dismiss, I agree,

Since we're specifically comparing the US and Iran, why would you assume any different? But I'm glad to see that you agree with me regarding policy towards Iran.

but what about Pakistan and India? How about Israel? Even better, how about Russia? I assume all of the above are countries you don't think deserve nukes, correct?

Red herrings. This is a thread about policy towards Iran. You want to talk about Pakistan, India, Israel, or Russia, start your own thread.

That said, I will make a few remarks. First, it's a lot harder to disarm a nuclear power than to prevent them from becoming one. Russia became a nuclear power during a period when nobody in the world was in a position to stop them. I wish it weren't so, but what's done is done. Having seen Russia slip through our grasp, why should we allow Iran to do the same, when we have the power to prevent it?

Second, if I were to make a list of nations that should not acquire nuclear weapons, or should give up the ones they already have, every nation on the world would be on it. And if I were to order the nations on the list by priority; putting those I believed required the most urgent attention, the most forceful action, and the greatest immediate expenditure of resources, I would rank Iran and North Korea much higher on the list than Pakistan, India, Russia, and Israel, and I would rank the US much lower.

I'm not entirely sure how your own list would be ordered, but I get the impression that you would find the idea of such a list offensive, and that you would consider it "hubris" (for some definition of the word, YMMV), for anyone to place Iran higher on it than the US. Is this true?

Oh, bravo. When faced with a challenge to the typical bad-faith rhetoric, play the only-slightly-more-eloquent-than "why do you hate America?" card. Very creative.

I assure you I'm arguing in good faith, to the best of my knowledge.

And I'm quite serious: It seems like you desire to level the nuclear playing field between the US and Iran (i.e., that Iran should have more nukes and the US less). Is this true? If so, why?

If it's not true, could you clarify your preferred policy regarding a potential Iranian arsenal?

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's a phrase I modified slightly. The original (points to identifying the origin) is "If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets."

And again, I fail to see your reasoning. If wishes were fishes, the act of casting nets would become singularly superfluous, due to the superabundance of fishes we'd have. I for one would be knee-deep in seafood, much of it pornographic in nature.