Biden: New Israel would be 'ill-advised' to attack Iran

[Count Iblis]

That is also not how the NPT works. You're just making this stuff up as you go along!

You should read the text of the treaty to see what it actually says, rather than just saying what you think it should say! http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

It is exactly how it works. Article X from the treaty says it all:

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

So, you don't have to split hairs over the small details in the treaty to see that what the bottom line is. Countries have not given up any rights at all by signing this treaty. The details in the treaty regulate the transfer of nuclear technology in such a way that it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

The whole idea that Iran has somehow "forfeited" the right to enrich uranium (under the usual IEAE inspections regime) because of procedural violations, is thus nonsense. At least, even if one could somehow argue that, trying to use that to ban Iran from enriching its own uranium doesn't make any sense, given Article X.

Iran could simply (legally) withdraw from the NPT and enrich its own uranium in its own centrifuges for use in its own nuclear powerplants. After withdrawing from the NPT they would not even be required to let the whole process be monitored.

When Dr. Rice was arguing: "Iran cannot be trusted to enrich uranium", I was thinking, "what the hell is she talking about"? The NPT never gave the US sovereignity over Iran.

 

[russ_watters]

It is exactly how it works. Article X from the treaty says it all:

Oh, I see - you are combining the two issues. Well if that was the intent, then the NPT wouldn't have much of a point, since non-signatories could just get together and develop nukes as a group (which they kinda do anyway). Obviously, we'd never share our technology with a country unless we could be sure of how they would use it anyway. The purpose is not about control over the technology or economics of selling materials, it is about trying to entice and guilt countries into not developing weapons.

 

[WhoWee]

One last thing, to do anything Israel HAS to take permission from the US. To me the US is the vassal of Israel, it gave it everything it needs. Now how can such country NOT follow orders from big daddy? (already there is a discussion of lowering aids to Israel)

The Obama administration already told Israel not to attack.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-biden-israel-iran8-2009apr08,0,2388127.story

If you're right, there's nothing else to discuss...correct?

 

[AhmedEzz]

If it is a big and mouthful NO , then yes, there is nothing else to discuss indeed.

 

[Count Iblis]

Well, the problem with Iran isn't anything like: "Hmmmm, we the West want to honour our commitment to the NPT and sell Iran 10,000 centrifuges, but we don't trust that Iran is not going to use with what we have to offer for a weapons program."

The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichement facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

 

[Count Iblis]

About the original issue under discussion: A possible Israeli attrack and the US opposition to that, you can see why, from the perspective of the West, an Israeli attack would be the worst possible move.


An Israeli attack must be, sort of, a surprise attack. So, there can be no huge buildup of US military forces in advance. Israel can only do a limited number of bombings, by far not enough to do significant damage to the Iranian military. Also the amount of destruction to the nuclear installation won't be very large. Even if it were, Iran could simply rebuild it over time as most of the equipment was made in Iran, albeit from blueprints obtained from Dr. Khan.


Then, after such an Israeli attack, you have an Iran that will leave the NPT for sure. They'll change their attitude toward nuclear weapons and will go ahead with producing them. The number of centrifuges they need for a weapons program is a small fraction of what they need for keeping a few 1000 megawatt nuclear plants running. They can then easily keep such a program hidden.


On the military side, after an Israeli attack, Iran has the West checkmate. Iran can declare war on the West, saying that the West allowed Israel to atack. It doesn't matter if that's really true or not. Iran can claim it and then declare war, just like the US claimed Saddam was not disarming its WMDs and declared war on Iraq.


Then Iran will demand that the Gulf States stop supplying the aggressor (= the West) with oil or have their oil installations destroyed. Since they are unlikely to comply, Iran will start military actions. Because the US has not had time to mobilize its army, Iran could actually simply go into Iraq, take thousands of US POWs and move them to Teheran.


ALso, instead of destroying the oil installations, Iran could take control of the Iraqi oil fields and invade Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia and take control of oil installations there too.


Then the negotations with the West will start.

 

[AhmedEzz]

You are taking the Iranian military to be too strong and the US + Israeli military being very weak. The US has strong bases in the Gulf states, let alone a strong naval force ready to intercept at any time to secure strategic sites such as oil fields. Moreover, long and medium range strategic missiles could be rained on Iranian soil. This would actually be a 40/60 war with Iran being the underdog. The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

 

[Count Iblis]

You are taking the Iranian military to be too strong and the US + Israeli military being very weak. The US has strong bases in the Gulf states, let alone a strong naval force ready to intercept at any time to secure strategic sites such as oil fields. Moreover, long and medium range strategic missiles could be rained on Iranian soil. This would actually be a 40/60 war with Iran being the underdog. The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

I'm not sure that Iran could not take control of, say, Basra in a surprise attack. It is just over the Iranian border and the US would have to get their forces from further away. The US forces in Iraq are in no position to take on an offensive army.

So, if Israel performs a surprise attack, then the US won't have brought in extra forces. Of course, if the US were planning something, it would take then necesary measures to deny such oportunities for Iran.

Of course, it would still be a risky strategy for Iran to do anything with its conventional army or navy. The missiles strikes are less risky. In the Lebanon war, Israel could not stop Hezbollah from firing missiles. This despite the fact that since the mid 1990s, Israel has invested many billions in anti-missile defense systems. The problem with anti-missile defense systems is that they work best for long range missiles. Many of the oil installations are just over the border with Iran, well in the range of the Iranian short range missiles.

Even if you would try to defend oil installations using the Partriot system, that defense wouldn't last long. Iran has far more short range missiles than the number of patriot missiles the US could deploy, so you would run out of the Patriot missiles very soon.

 

[russ_watters]

The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichement facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

As was already pointed out, this came after violatoins, but even if it hadn't, Iran has shown itself in the past to be a non-trustworty country. The NPT talks about "good faith" negotiations - since the west knows that Iran does not undertake "good faith" negotiations, the west needs a burden of proof from Iran that may exceed the burden of proof they require of others. There is nothing wrong with that - it is just prudent and necessarily to ensure complaince with the NPT.

 

[russ_watters]

An Israeli attack must be, sort of, a surprise attack. So, there can be no huge buildup of US military forces in advance. Israel can only do a limited number of bombings, by far not enough to do significant damage to the Iranian military. Also the amount of destruction to the nuclear installation won't be very large. Even if it were, Iran could simply rebuild it over time as most of the equipment was made in Iran, albeit from blueprints obtained from Dr. Khan.

Again, we should use the Osirak attack as a model: Iraq's nuclear program never really recovered from it. Iran's is more decentralized, but there are still some key locations that if attacked would be major setbacks. This isn't about "the Iranian military", it is about a limited, precision strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel is not going to start a war with Iran (it didn't happen with Iraq and it wouldn't happen with Iran either).

Then, after such an Israeli attack, you have an Iran that will leave the NPT for sure. They'll change their attitude toward nuclear weapons and will go ahead with producing them.

Actually, I'd say if their progress has gone far enough that the attack is deemed necessary, then they are so far outside the treaty already that to formally withdraw would just be a confirmation of reality, not a change in it.

The number of centrifuges they need for a weapons program is a small fraction of what they need for keeping a few 1000 megawatt nuclear plants running. They can then easily keep such a program hidden.

You have that backwards. Weapons require more enrichment and therefore more centrifuges.

On the military side, after an Israeli attack, Iran has the West checkmate. Iran can declare war on the West, saying that the West allowed Israel to atack. It doesn't matter if that's really true or not. Iran can claim it and then declare war, just like the US claimed Saddam was not disarming its WMDs and declared war on Iraq.

I guess they could, but since they don't have the capacity to launch a real attack, much less win, and they know it, they wouldn't. Again: see the Osirak attack and its aftermath.

Then Iran will demand that the Gulf States stop supplying the aggressor (= the West) with oil or have their oil installations destroyed. Since they are unlikely to comply, Iran will start military actions. Because the US has not had time to mobilize its army, Iran could actually simply go into Iraq, take thousands of US POWs and move them to Teheran.

It takes Iran time to mobilize too and we could stop them with a relatively small force if we have good air power in the region (and we will). See Iraq, 1991 for another example. Iraq was intending to take over much of the Arabian peninsula, but it wasn't as easy as you are making it sound.

Again, you are laying out a scenario for a gulf war that is very unrealistic. There is historical precedent here that you are ignorning.

ALso, instead of destroying the oil installations, Iran could take control of the Iraqi oil fields and invade Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia and take control of oil installations there too.


Then the negotations with the West will start.

That is exactly what Saddam tried in 1990, and with a better military than Iran has. How'd that work out for him?

 

[russ_watters]

The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

Well we had two wars with Iraq and the key to an easy exit strategy is obvious from the historical precedent: destroy their military and push them out of the country they invaded, then stop. That's what made the 1991 war so easy.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure that Iran could not take control of, say, Basra in a surprise attack. It is just over the Iranian border and the US would have to get their forces from further away. The US forces in Iraq are in no position to take on an offensive army.

If the US Army were still in Iraq when it happened, Iran would not even get a mile across the border. But even if the US Army were in Texas when it happened, what you are describing is simply the scenario from 1991.

Tom Clancy actually wrote a book in 1996 (Executive Orders) that has a reasonable scenario for an Iranian attampe to do what Iraq failed to do (take over Saudia Arabia). Part of it is that they would go for a more blitzkreig like attack and they'd have a better chance of taking over more of the peninsula before substantial American forces arrived, but the end result would be the same: annihilation of their military.

The missiles strikes are less risky. In the Lebanon war, Israel could not stop Hezbollah from firing missiles. This despite the fact that since the mid 1990s, Israel has invested many billions in anti-missile defense systems. The problem with anti-missile defense systems is that they work best for long range missiles. Many of the oil installations are just over the border with Iran, well in the range of the Iranian short range missiles.

Even if you would try to defend oil installations using the Partriot system, that defense wouldn't last long. Iran has far more short range missiles than the number of patriot missiles the US could deploy, so you would run out of the Patriot missiles very soon.

You can't hit an oil well with an unguided missile - we would not bother trying to defend them.

 

[Count Iblis]

You have that backwards. Weapons require more enrichment and therefore more centrifuges.

Suppose Iran wants to make a few 15 kiloton nuclear weapons. They don't really have a strict time limit, so they can continue to run their centrifuges for a few years to get the highly enriched uranium they need for that.


Suppose, on the other hand, that Iran has a few 1000 megawatt powerplants running. Then, they would need to be able to enrich uranium at a faster rate than is used by the powerplants. This means that the amount of uranium in a 15 kiloton device would have to be enriched (to low level) in just half a day or so.


So, you need to have a far greater number of centrifuges to supply powerplants than if you just want to make a few nuclear bombs.

 

[Count Iblis]

Actually, I'd say if their progress has gone far enough that the attack is deemed necessary, then they are so far outside the treaty already that to formally withdraw would just be a confirmation of reality, not a change in it.

But El Baradei, not Israel, is the boss of the IAEA and he never suggested that military attacks are a good way to deal with Iran.

 

[Count Iblis]

As was already pointed out, this came after violatoins, but even if it hadn't, Iran has shown itself in the past to be a non-trustworty country. The NPT talks about "good faith" negotiations - since the west knows that Iran does not undertake "good faith" negotiations, the west needs a burden of proof from Iran that may exceed the burden of proof they require of others. There is nothing wrong with that - it is just prudent and necessarily to ensure complaince with the NPT.

Iran did not violate any agreements since negotiations started in 2003. The West wanted Iran to stop enriching pending negotiations, and Iran did exactly that. Then, when the negotiations ended, Iran continued with enrichment activities (under IAEA inspections), and the West said that that was a breach of the agreement.


That is nonsense as that would suggest that Iran had already agreed to permanently stop enriching (or only do so if the West would approve of it), but that would mean that the problem had already been solved, which clearly was not the case.


So, it is the West who was dealing with Iran in bad faith by misrepresenting signed agreements.

 

[Count Iblis]

Again, we should use the Osirak attack as a model: Iraq's nuclear program never really recovered from it. Iran's is more decentralized, but there are still some key locations that if attacked would be major setbacks. This isn't about "the Iranian military", it is about a limited, precision strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel is not going to start a war with Iran (it didn't happen with Iraq and it wouldn't happen with Iran either).

I think that this is why Biden is so worried. I think he understands that Iran will hit back. Iran has publically said so many times. If Israel thinks they can just do some precision strikes, then they will have attacked Iran while leaving their military more or less intact (Israel coiuld not do very serious damage anyway).

So, that's like sneaking up to a lion and biting in his tail. Sure, some damage to the tail will be done, but what will happen next?

 

[Count Iblis]

You can't hit an oil well with an unguided missile - we would not bother trying to defend them.

That would be a mistake. See the Lebanon war of 2006. Iran has far better quality missiles than Hezbollah has.

 

[mheslep]

...The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichment facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

Iran violated the NPT, while being a signatory to the NPT. Iran had not withdrawn the NPT before hand. In response, the UN security council imposed sanctions, demanding Iran stop _all_ enrichment. This is not an issue of sovereignty.

 

[Count Iblis]

Iran violated the NPT, while being a signatory to the NPT. Iran had not withdrawn the NPT before hand. In response, the UN security council imposed sanctions, demanding Iran stop _all_ enrichment. This is not an issue of sovereignty.

Of course it is. Iran may have violated the NPT, but on a purely procedural point. It wasn't like that Iran obtained nuclear materials from, say, the US and had diverted that to secretly produce nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran could not obtain nuclear technology because the US was blocking that, which is in fact a violation of the NPT by the US. Then Iran obtained the nuclear technology to the black market.


When all this was uncovered and the IAEA checked out what Iran had obtained and what Iran had done, no evidence of a weapons program was found, which is very strong evidence against Iran having the intention to produce nuclear weapons.


Anyway, since Iran is enriching its own uranium using materials not obtained via the NPT mechanisms, Iran can continue to do that after leaving the NPT. So, the NPT violation of Iran is a red herring when used to argue that Iran must stop enriching uranium because they violated the NPT.


What is really going on here is that the West is trying to force Iran to stop enriching uranium for reasons that have nothing to do with any violations of the NPT on Iran's part. The West simply is not comfortable with Iran having the technology to make nuclear weapons, period. To make sure Iran doesn't get this technology, the West is going to use whatever it can.


To justify this, the West makes propaganda, it exaggerates the intelligence against Iran in a similar way as was done to exaggerate the intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Procedural violations are misrepresented, just like in case of Iraq.


The West knew in 2003 when they found out about the enrichment facility in Natanz that Iran was not obliged to notify the IAEA about it, because that only has to be done a certain time before it is supposed to go online.


The West misrepresented Iran's non-tranparancy as being a violation of the NPT. It clearly isn't, so there you have it: a lie told by the West to win points against Iran.


The reason why the West found it necessary to act in this way is, of courrse, that they did not expect to find any real evidence of an Iranian weapons program. Indeed, if they had expected that Iran would not notify the IAEA ever about the existence of the enrichment facility at Natanz and that Iran would produce highly enriched uranium there, then the smart thing to do for the West was not to notify the IAEA at all and wait until Iran had made some highly enriched uranium. Then they would have informed El Baradei and Iran would have been caught.

So, the fact that this did not happen is again evidence for the weakness of the case the West is making. It is all based on what in the opinion of the West Iran will do.


Anyway, Iran being barred from putting its own uranium in its own centrifuges to produce fuel for its own nuclear powerplants, just because Israel doesn't like this idea, surely is a violation of Iran's sovereign rights. The NPT only gives the West leverage about what Iran is allowed to do using nuclear materials and technology it got by virtue of being part of the NPT.

And if Iran's NPT membership is judged to be incompatible with Iran's enrichment activities, then Iran should be kicked out of the NPT and thus barred from getting any assistance on nuclear matters. However, that is precisely not what the West would want. The West wants Iran to stay in the NPT and then on the basis of the alleged incompatibility of Iran's NPT membership and its enrichment activities, they want to ban Iran from enriching uranium.

So, this is, sort of, the West holding Iran hostage.

 

[mheslep]

... The Israeli planes need to be refueled. This has to be done somewhere near Iran and then the issue of US control of airspace of the region again comes up.

Israel has some aerial refuelling capability. Boeing 707s. So does Iran for that matter.

 

[Count Iblis]

Israel has some aerial refuelling capability. Boeing 707s. So does Iran for that matter.

Israel would not want to do the refueling over Iranian air space, or for that matter any other airspace of unfriendly countries. That severely constrains how Israel can deploy its air force.

 

[WhoWee]

If it is a big and mouthful NO , then yes, there is nothing else to discuss indeed.

No means no and besides...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nobody-messes-with-joe-ob_n_169685.html

This thread was started to discuss Bidens comments.

The real question might be what would Obama do if Israel ignored warnings...flew through US controlled airspace and attacked.

http://money.aol.com/article/cautious-response-is-quintessential/420108?flv=1

It's doubtful Iran would first retaliate against US forces...they'll focus on Israel.

As for Obama, I don't think scolding rhetoric in a press conference or a stern letter will do much. Then, after the fact (of an attact) he can attempt to make peace offerings (or throw money at the problem)?

Talk won't stop a war between Iran and Israel, if an attack plays out, Obama/Biden will need to make some very difficult decisions...support Israel or turn their back...

 

[Count Iblis]

James Baker told in an interview by Wolf Blitzer last week on CNN that Bush had refused to give Israel the codes it needs to safely overfly Iraq.

The US air defense system in Iraq will automatically shoot down Israeli planes with deadly efficiency. It is in fact quite a tour de force to make sure the Patriot system does not accidentally target friendly planes.

 

[Count Iblis]

And it looks like Iran's response to any attack will be automatically triggered.:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHu-qXce9oBU3TnywR1HYt5LiEZw

 

[AhmedEzz]

No means no and besides...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nobody-messes-with-joe-ob_n_169685.html

This thread was started to discuss Bidens comments.

The real question might be what would Obama do if Israel ignored warnings...flew through US controlled airspace and attacked.

http://money.aol.com/article/cautious-response-is-quintessential/420108?flv=1

It's doubtful Iran would first retaliate against US forces...they'll focus on Israel.

As for Obama, I don't think scolding rhetoric in a press conference or a stern letter will do much. Then, after the fact (of an attact) he can attempt to make peace offerings (or throw money at the problem)?

Talk won't stop a war between Iran and Israel, if an attack plays out, Obama/Biden will need to make some very difficult decisions...support Israel or turn their back...

Iran is not Iraq. That's all I could further say.

 

[russ_watters]

But El Baradei, not Israel, is the boss of the IAEA and he never suggested that military attacks are a good way to deal with Iran.

They have separate ways of going after the same goal: The goal of the IAEA is to keep Iran from getting weapons via the treaty. It isn't like they'd be kicked-out of the treaty for violating it. Israel just wants to keep them from getting the weapons, irrespective of whether they are in the treaty or not.

 

[russ_watters]

I think that this is why Biden is so worried. I think he understands that Iran will hit back. Iran has publically said so many times. If Israel thinks they can just do some precision strikes, then they will have attacked Iran while leaving their military more or less intact (Israel coiuld not do very serious damage anyway).

So, that's like sneaking up to a lion and biting in his tail. Sure, some damage to the tail will be done, but what will happen next?

Iran says a lot of things and it is often useful to make such threats. Don't mistake threats for real intent.

 

[russ_watters]

Iran did not violate any agreements since negotiations started in 2003.

That's not the way the history reads to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#2002.E2.80.932006

The IAEA reported breaches in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, culminating with referral to the UNSC. During what span of time was there compliance?

 

[OmCheeto]

Iran is not Iraq. That's all I could further say.

Do you think Iran would supply Hezbollah and Hamas with mini-nukes? Iran has a recent history of non-aggression, but their current dictator seems to be playing a mind game. Although I've defended Iran in the past, their apparent aloofness to the west has even me worried. I for one do not much care for these international poker games, and this one could end very badly if their ultimate intentions are not known. Some might naively say it is obvious; the removal of the Israeli government. But I think it is much more complicated, and much simpler, than that.

Obama is my age, and seems to be doing everything I would if I were in the position, and I would not hesitate to level Tehran if push came to shove. And this time, unlike Iraq, it would have nothing to do with oil.

 

[Count Iblis]

That's not the way the history reads to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#2002.E2.80.932006

The IAEA reported breaches in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, culminating with referral to the UNSC. During what span of time was there compliance?

Except for the minor issue of failing to report the uranium from China and the plutonium extraction, there were no violations at all. So, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Count Iblis]

Do you think Iran would supply Hezbollah and Hamas with mini-nukes? Iran has a recent history of non-aggression, but their current dictator seems to be playing a mind game. Although I've defended Iran in the past, their apparent aloofness to the west has even me worried. I for one do not much care for these international poker games, and this one could end very badly if their ultimate intentions are not known. Some might naively say it is obvious; the removal of the Israeli government. But I think it is much more complicated, and much simpler, than that.

Obama is my age, and seems to be doing everything I would if I were in the position, and I would not hesitate to level Tehran if push came to shove. And this time, unlike Iraq, it would have nothing to do with oil.

Why not simply consider two hypothetical Irans:

1) Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons.

2) Iran does not want to produce nuclear weapons, it wants to be able to produce fuel for nuclear powerplants.

and analyze what the best strategy for both Irans would be. In case of 1) Iran would paradoxically be better off agreeing to the incentives deal. Just sign the deal, close down Natanz, get sanctions lifted. Then build a small enrichment facility in a secret location and produce the small amount of highly enriched uranium needed for a bomb over the course of several years.


In case of 2) Iran wants to be able to generate the fuel in needs for a few 1000 megawatt powerplants that it intends to build in the future. It intends to do that within the NPT framework, so it will allow for inspections of the facility at Natanz. The number of centrifuges Iran needs is far larger than if they just wanted to make few bombs. To make sure Iran doesn't diver uranium for a weapons program and becase of general suspicions, Iran is willing to gree to iuntrusive inspections, provided, of course, the objections to Iran's enrichment program are dropped.


Because of these more intrusive inspections in case of 2) the hypothetical Iran that wants to make bombs in 1) would prefer not go go this route and do as I suggested above: Accept the incentives deal and then secretely violate that deal.


To see the difference between the necessary enrichment capacity needed to make a nuclear device and the capacity you need to produce fuel, consider this calculation.


A 15 kiloton nuclear bomb contains an amount of fissionable energy of about 6.3×10^13 joules. A 1000 megawatt nuclear powerplant will use this in a time of:


6.3×10^13 joules/(1000 megawatt)= 17.5 hours


So, Iran would need to be able to produce this amount of enriched uranium (to low levels) in less than 17.5 hours to power just a single 1000 megawatt powerplant.


Iran has, in fact produced the amount of enriched uranium necessary to produce a bomb, but this has only been enriched to low levels. But it took them more than a year to do that. So, Iran continuing to expand their enrichment capacity under IAEA inspections despite sanctions points to their intentions being peaceful.


The reason the West doesn't want Iran to have the capacity to make fuel for their powerplants is because they are afraid that Iran could leave the NPT and make nuclear weapons very fast. So, the West seeks to gain a tactical advantage over Iran in the case of a hypothetical conflict in the future.


But this is not how the Western governments explain it to their own people. They suggest that Iran's activities are more consistent with Iran intending to make bombs instead of nuclear fuel, while the opposite is true.

 

[OmCheeto]

The reason the West doesn't want Iran to have the capacity to make fuel for their powerplants is because they are afraid that Iran could leave the NPT and make nuclear weapons very fast. So, the West seeks to gain a tactical advantage over Iran in the case of a hypothetical conflict in the future.


But this is not how the Western governments explain it to their own people. They suggest that Iran's activities are more consistent with Iran intending to make bombs instead of nuclear fuel, while the opposite is true.

Ah ha! I knew it was more complicated and simpler than anyone thought possible.

 

[WhoWee]

Why doesn't Obama explain the benefits of Green energy...Iran is ideal for solar and wind power...or even a clean oil burner?

 

[Count Iblis]

Why doesn't Obama explain the benefits of Green energy...Iran is ideal for solar and wind power...or even a clean oil burner?

Because he doesn't want to make a fool of himself. Solar and wind power

 

[Count Iblis]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/12/Peres-threatens-action-against-Iran/UPI-60741239548239/"

Peres declined to go into detail, saying only that a strike against Iran could not happen without support from the United States.

"We certainly cannot go it alone without the U.S., and we definitely can't go against the U.S. This would be unnecessary," Peres said.