Iran option back on table? Jeruselum

[deziloooooo]

Debka revels more information about Irans nuclear program, possible enough enriched uranium for four bombs very shortly suggesting the Nuclear option may be back on the table in Jeruselum.
-----------------------------------------------
www.debka.com/article/20995/
-------------------------------------------------
Click on link to read article
--------------------------------------------------
Wed June 8, 2011

US researchers chart Israeli nuclear strike on Iran

Iran has secretly stocked enriched uranium for four nuclear bombs

DEBKAfile Special Report June 3, 2011, 8:24 AM Tags: Iran nuclear uranium enrichment

The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, American's scientific watchdog on world nuclear weapons production, estimates that by Dec. 2008, Iran had accumulated enough U-235 to fuel one nuclear bomb; by 2009, enough for a second, by August 2010 material for a third bomb and by April 2011, enough enriched uranium for a fourth bomb.
These estimates presuppose an Iranian decision to further process low-enriched material to weapons grade - a process taking no more than a couple of months.
Iran, says the Wisconsin Project, is consolidating its status as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state – meaning it can set about building a bomb whenever its rulers so decide"
-------------------------------------------------------------
"The controversy around his comments reflects a similar argument afoot in US political and defense circles over whether the time has come to smash Iran's nuclear capability or stand by and let the Islamic Republic becomes a "virtual nuclear weapon state."

In the last three years, the two schools of thought for and against military action against Iran have been joined by a third, which affirms that the US and Israel can live with an Iran armed with one or two nuclear bombs because this number would be dwarfed even by Israel's reputed stock let alone the American arsenal. Therefore, until Iran stockpiles a serous arsenal of weapons, it does not constitute an existential threat to Israel.

The Wisconsin Project's latest report explodes this argument because it exposes the steady accumulation of materials for four bombs in two-and-a-half years and Iran's dogged advance toward a serious arsenal unless it is stopped.

That is the reason why the military option is back on the table in Jerusalem."

[deziloooooo]

This article from Debka too, is a companion piece to the above in my mind..
Iran is moving two Submarines, missile firing, deep water types to the Red Sea and then possible through the Suez Canal to their new base in Syria, where Russia will be sending new Sea to Ground missiles that should meet up with the subs...
----------------------------------------------------
www.debka.com/article/21004/
----------------------------------------------------
[Click on link to read article]
----------------------------------------------------
Iranian subs to the Red Sea – a riposte to UN nuclear watchdog's indictment

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 7, 2011, 11:01 PM (GMT+02:00)

Deployment of Iranian "military submarines" in the Red Sea, announced Tuesday June 7, was Tehran's response to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency's report accusing Iran of nuclear work with "possible military purposes." It was also a pointed comment on the controversy in Israel over whether or not to go for the military option. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then delivered his most uncompromising statement yet on Iran's nuclear program, calling it "a train with no brakes or reverse gear."
Iran claimed its submarines had long-range capabilities without specifying how many or what types had been sent to the Red Sea. Our Western military sources estimate that two vessels of the Qaem type defined as "semi-heavy." Information about this submarine is sparse in the West: It is thought to be a multi-task 1,000-ton submarine capable of firing missiles from deep water with room for naval commando units trained to raid strategic targets.
Shortly after Tehran's submarine announcement, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called a news conference in which he presented Iran's nuclear case in exceptionally categorical and inflexible terms. After dismissing the UN watchdog's report as "lacking legal credibility," he declared: "The nuclear issue is like a train which has no brakes and no reverse gear, which means there will be no compromise."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Israel saved us from Iraq. Oh, yes- the far left frequently forgets that the only reason we didn't face a nuclear armed Iraq in 1990 - 1991 was because of a harrowing raid by the Israeli Air Force on the Osiris nuclear facility in Iraq in the 1980's.

[wyouser]

any further comments coming out of Saudi Arabia on these announcements? A possible preemptive strike by the Saudis may not be out of the question either. Any thoughts?

[deziloooooo]

Jun 8, 2011 11:35:07 GMT -5 wyouser said:

any further comments coming out of Saudi Arabia on these announcements? A possible preemptive strike by the Saudis may not be out of the question either. Any thoughts?

There has been thoughts put forward , by the Saudi's, that in answer to Iran's acquiring such weapons the Saudi's will look into and consider such a option them selves.
Right now , their relationship with us is shaky and they are going their own way, though since the King is not a young man and the country is following his lead, in time and not a long time possible not a well man , King, possible subsequent leadership will make a accommodation with us again, both sides need each other.

If it wasn't such a wild dream, becasuse of Palastinian situation, out of the qestion, though i survival is the option, accomadations might be in the cards, to align themselves with the Israeli's in many aspect of cooperation would be a slam duck, ok a lay up

Both seem to have the same concerns of opponents, enemies to their regime, Iran , the brother hood, Shia vs Sunni in the Saudie's case, [Israel has both against them }also a allie , weak one true , but a allie, Jordan, also under threat as well as all the emerites..

Saudie's could well afford the Nuc development and today the knowledge is not from Oak Ridge days..

To have more states going nuclear..from the world outlook, not the best thing in my opinion.

[wyouser]

not the most stable place in the world for a nuclear arms race

[ed1066]

I guess Iran will be entering the "nuclear age", but probably not the way they'd hoped...

[deziloooooo]

Jun 8, 2011 14:38:50 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

I guess Iran will be entering the "nuclear age", but probably not the way they'd hoped...

G-d forbid..if you think that will end it, I am afraid you are wrong and the death of thousands of innocents is not my idea of a way to make friends and innfluence people.

Once the use of such is a happening all bets are off the table, and even in jest, not a good thing, and if not in jest, a abomination of thought. IMHO.

[deziloooooo]

Latest from Debka..Iran now out in the open as to their attempts to get a Nuclear weapon..transferring production of weapon grade uranium to under gound mountain hide away where 3000 advance centriguges will continue the work to accomplish the event.
-----------------------------------------------------
www.debka.com/article/21006/
------------------------------------------------------
Enrichment transfer to Fordo: Iran's slap in the face for Obama, IAEA and Israel

DEBKAfile Special Report June 8, 2011,

"Iran has struck another blow in its nuclear offensive against the world. Tuesday, June 7, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad termed Iran's nuclear program "a train with no brakes or reverse gear" after Tehran announced the deployment of submarines in the Red Sea. Wednesday, Iran's vice president and atomic chief Fereydoon Abbasi Davani said Iran's 20-percent uranium enrichment work would be transferred from Natanz to Fordo this summer. Purification capacity would be tripled, he said, by improved centrifuges.

debkafile's military sources report that this move further shortens Iran's road to weapons grade uranium of 90 percent.

Last November, Abbasi Davani escaped an attempt of his life in northern Tehran, for which Iran held Israel responsible.

Fordo is a well-guarded underground facility situated near the military installations surrounding the holy city of Qom and protected by air defense missile batteries. It was burrowed deep into the side of a mountain. These features make the facility all but invulnerable to an American or Israel air strike.

The very name Fordo is a red flag for US President Barack Obama.

In Pittsburgh on Sept. 25, 2009, Obama appeared before the world media, flanked by the British prime minister of the day, George Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to reveal the existence of the surreptitious Iranian enrichment facility at Fordo. He gaveTehran two weeks to open up the facility to full International Atomic Energy Agency inspectionand disclose the plans for the site, failing which Washington, London and Paris would pursue joint action against the Islamic Republic.
The answer Iran gave was that the US president's allegations were baseless and the nuclear watchdog inspectors were welcome.
The UN inspectors arrived at the Fordo subterranean facility a month later and returned to Vienna to report they found nothing – neither centrifuges for enrichment nor nuclear materials. Two more UN inspections produced the same result.

Iran's announcement Wednesday demonstrates that in 2009, it made a fool of Western leaders, especially President Obama, and tricked the international atomic agency inspectors.Enrichment uranium to 20 percent meanwhile takes Iran another big step towards attaining the fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Three years ago, Obama accused Tehran of concealment and deceit. Today, the Iranians no longer bother to conceal the true function of the Fordo facility - or even that 3,000 advanced centrifuges will be working there when the plant reaches full capacity.
Iran's rulers feel they can be afford to be barefaced about their activities because they are certain that neither the US nor Israel with take military action against the Fordo plant. They do not find the condemnation of world powers or the nuclear watchdog too burdensome to live with"

[ed1066]

Jun 8, 2011 14:44:13 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 8, 2011 14:38:50 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

I guess Iran will be entering the "nuclear age", but probably not the way they'd hoped...

G-d forbid..if you think that will end it, I am afraid you are wrong and the death of thousands of innocents is not my idea of a way to make friends and innfluence people.

Once the use of such is a happening all bets are off the table, and even in jest, not a good thing, and if not in jest, a abomination of thought. IMHO.

You want to be "friends" with Iran? Go ahead and try, but I don't think they are interested...

[deziloooooo]

Present Government and the real leader, "Supreme leader " I agree , I know they are not interested .

However there are things that are important in cooperation to avert a accidental , non planned , but because of lack of contact, guide lines , to avert a escalation of.

We had this at the height of the cold war with the Soviets, when it was realized a accidental , non wanted incident by those who were on the front lines could trigger something that was not wanted and before high officials could get involved to cool things off.
This is important to establish with the Iranians, , especially in the waters off the shores of Iran.
There have been over fly by their Jets of our ships, our people not sure if deliberate or the actions of a jet jockey feeling his oats.
There have been incursions into waters they claim as theirs by our forces purposely, even though they are not in tune with what we consider national waters, just to prove our feelings of their claims are bogus, but still a push against them.

These are flash points and the over exuberance by a lower commander could trigger something more serious. It has been discussed , I will post the link that discusses the problem when I come up on it.

So far our administration has not wanted this local contact that is suggested.[Local is not a sailer to sailer, but high ranking officers of both sides , to get to know each other and how they and we think, and to know their concerns and fears as well as ours ]

[wyouser]

The MAD concept during the cold war was understood by both sides. Both sides were aware that the "winner" in a nuclear exchange would be no better off than the "loser". Are we at all sure of any "rational" thinking on the part of the religios leaders in Iran? If infidels can be exterminated does the leadership there care at all if their own population is decimated in the process?

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 12:31:20 GMT -5 wyouser said:

The MAD concept during the cold war was understood by both sides. Both sides were aware that the "winner" in a nuclear exchange would be no better off than the "loser". Are we at all sure of any "rational" thinking on the part of the religios leaders in Iran? If infidels can be exterminated does the leadership there care at all if their own population is decimated in the process?

May be they do and may be they don't but to be on the safe side USA should nuke Teheran right now. An Iranian nuke will surely be used on innocent civilians at some point. Nip that at the bud.

[deziloooooo]

Jun 9, 2011 12:36:47 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 9, 2011 12:31:20 GMT -5 wyouser said:

The MAD concept during the cold war was understood by both sides. Both sides were aware that the "winner" in a nuclear exchange would be no better off than the "loser". Are we at all sure of any "rational" thinking on the part of the religious leaders in Iran? If infidels can be exterminated does the leadership there care at all if their own population is decimated in the process?

May be they do and may be they don't but to be on the safe side USA should nuke Tehran right now. An Iranian nuke will surely be used on innocent civilians at some point. Nip that at the bud.

I would think any nuc used most anywhere would have many innocent civilians as it's victims, surgical weapon is not usually thought of when they are considered being employed me thinks.

[NoMoreLunacy]

If you want to send a strong message to Teheran, you have to accept some collateral damage. That's life.

[deziloooooo]

Jun 9, 2011 13:31:18 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

If you want to send a strong message to Teheran, you have to accept some collateral damage. That's life.

uh huh...

[wyouser]

I stand by my earlier comment...this is not the most stable place on the planet for a nuclear arms race.........way too much risk of someone intentionally...or accidentily pulling the trigger (Probably pushing the button is a more apt statement)

[deziloooooo]

Jun 9, 2011 14:19:53 GMT -5 wyouser said:

I stand by my earlier comment...this is not the most stable place on the planet for a nuclear arms race.........way too much risk of someone intentionally...or accidentally pulling the trigger (Probably pushing the button is a more apt statement)

Your suggesting we use nuclear weapons, no one can guarantee one would do the job, what are we attacking, do we know exactly where their production facilities are or do we just go after the "supreme leader " and the present President, he will be out of office with in a year, they usually hang out in Tehran..any clue how many people live in Tehran and the surrounding suburbs, and as far as I know, besides hating our guts and wanting us out of the area where they are, Iraq, they really haven't done anything to us really.
{Not counting some groups in Iraq who they favor who have attacked some of our people, even caused some deaths, but nuking them over a fire fight?}

mmmm...

[wyouser]

I am not suggesting our using nuclear weapons at all. What I am saying is that an arms race in this part of the world seems to me to be far more dangerous to all of us than the cold war. Response times between potential antagonists are way way short....and there would be far too many fingers on hair triggers....The possibility of an accidental response would be very high.

[ed1066]

Jun 9, 2011 14:19:53 GMT -5 wyouser said:

I stand by my earlier comment...this is not the most stable place on the planet for a nuclear arms race.........way too much risk of someone intentionally...or accidentily pulling the trigger (Probably pushing the button is a more apt statement)

What "race" are you referring to? Iran is racing alone to develop a bomb so they can use it on Israel. Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, it's no secret. That they have shown restraint in using them on their hostile, genocidal terrorist enemies is impressive, but one can only be pushed so far, right?

[deziloooooo]

Jun 9, 2011 15:06:05 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jun 9, 2011 14:19:53 GMT -5 wyouser said:

I stand by my earlier comment...this is not the most stable place on the planet for a nuclear arms race.........way too much risk of someone intentionally...or accidentally pulling the trigger (Probably pushing the button is a more apt statement)

What "race" are you referring to? Iran is racing alone to develop a bomb so they can use it on Israel. Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, it's no secret. That they have shown restraint in using them on their hostile, genocidal terrorist enemies is impressive, but one can only be pushed so far, right?

So you are saying that because of the threat the US or Israel should do a preemptive strike on Iran? I ask you then, where do they strike, whoever, and what kind of weapons.
It seems that from what I have read there is no out in the open facilities here, it seems the Iranians have taken care of that by going deep into the mountains and have surrounded the sites with Anti air craft batteries gotten from the Russians, state of the art types.

While they , Iran, look at the US as the "Great Satan " and possible worse toward Israel, to gain say even four weapons, though that can increase over the years, to think that they would then just attack Israel, with what the Israeli's are presumed to have, is not a slam duck.
They, leadership, may not be the type you would want to invite home to meet the folks , family, have dinner with, I don't think they are completely off the wall either, and would accept the destruction of their country as a fair exchange to get Israel gone.

I do think that we might see the Saud's go about acquiring these weapons as a deterrent toward Iran, they have the resources, they have a big interest in acquiring Nuclear energy plants and I am sure are full of Nuclear scientists who with the right financial backing, be able to construct such a weapon if wanted.

[ed1066]

So you are saying that because of the threat the US or Israel should do a preemptive strike on Iran?

Yes, dezi, that's what I'm saying. I know most liberals would rather wait for Iran to destroy Israel, then strike (thus achieving one of the left's and Iran's long time mutual goals), but I am not among those people...

[deziloooooo]

Jun 9, 2011 15:30:18 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

So you are saying that because of the threat the US or Israel should do a preemptive strike on Iran?

Yes, dezi, that's what I'm saying. I know most liberals would rather wait for Iran to destroy Israel, then strike (thus achieving one of the left's and Iran's long time mutual goals), but I am not among those people...

Ok, you do know there will be fallout, condemnation, more people being up set with us if that happens...but ok,

Just curious, if the current POTUS does as you would like, you ready to change your tune, support him and hope he gets reelected?Even volunteer in his campaign for reelection? Just asking....

[NoMoreLunacy]

I couldn't care less if Iran were to take out Israel. In fact, I would stop US foreign aid to Israel tomorrow if I could. Who pays for those foreign aids? Why, it is the US taxpayer. I am sick and tired of high taxes to fund countries like Israel who are quite rich and should be able to fund themselves. Ok, I am sick and tired of funding poor countries like Afghanistan too. However I would still vote for nuking Teheran as neutralizing Iran via a Iraq like intervention would cost much, much more. And left to its own devices for sure Iran will nuke innocent civilians one day.

[ed1066]

I couldn't care less if Iran were to take out Israel. In fact, I would stop US foreign aid to Israel tomorrow if I could. Who pays for those foreign aids?

Why do anti-Semites always bitch about the foreign aid to Israel, when we give almost the same amount to the Palestinians, who then use it to fund suicide attacks on Israeli civilians?

Oh, I think I answered my own question...

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 15:44:19 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

I couldn't care less if Iran were to take out Israel. In fact, I would stop US foreign aid to Israel tomorrow if I could. Who pays for those foreign aids?

Why do anti-Semites always bitch about the foreign aid to Israel, when we give almost the same amount to the Palestinians, who then use it to fund suicide attacks on Israeli civilians?

Oh, I think I answered my own question...

Stop all foreign aid - period. Nice name calling by the way.

Any American who wants to make a contribution to a foreign country can do so through charities. Leave my tax dollars alone.

[wyouser]

If ,or more likely ,"when" Iran gets the bomb...do you believe it will end there? It isnt only Israel who is nervous about Iran. What will the Kingdoms in the area do? Do we have a nuclear Saudi Arabia? A nuclear Bahrain? A nuclear Emirates? A nuclear Kuwait? There has been a fair amount of criticism coming out of Saudi Arabia against Iran. The Kingdom has sent forces to Bahrain to prop up the monarchy there. Saudi Arabia has proposed a mobile joint strike force and the kingdom has suggested a regional defense arrangement that might include nuclear weapons to counter Iran

[deziloooooo]

Jun 9, 2011 16:20:13 GMT -5 wyouser said:

If ,or more likely ,"when" Iran gets the bomb...do you believe it will end there? It isnt only Israel who is nervous about Iran. What will the Kingdoms in the area do? Do we have a nuclear Saudi Arabia? A nuclear Bahrain? A nuclear Emirates? A nuclear Kuwait? There has been a fair amount of criticism coming out of Saudi Arabia against Iran. The Kingdom has sent forces to Bahrain to prop up the monarchy there. Saudi Arabia has proposed a mobile joint strike force and the kingdom has suggested a regional defense arrangement that might include nuclear weapons to counter Iran

The emirates no...as well as Kuwait..but I expect a alliance with the Saudis as it is now, I do believe the Saudis are exploring that option and has been as I speak..

Actually if they are, possible to cement the relationship, make nice again, we sell them a dz already....why not. If they want to get them they will get them...so sooner then later.

[ed1066]

It's well known in intelligence circles that Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons. Whether they would choose to use them against Iran is an open question, but I believe they would protect their economic interests over all others...draw your own conclusions...