Skybird
09-26-09, 05:51 AM
:doh:It has become known to the media that Iran not only has a facility for uranium enrichment somewhere on the huge perimeter known as "Natanz", but a second such facility near the city of Ghom, too.
This has become known to the media just days ago. western governments actually already knew it a bit longer.
Iran did not reveal it's existence before it was sure the West knew about it.
This illustrates some of the immense difficulties of dealing with Iran.
First it underlines the non-existent trustworthiness of Iranian diplomacy, and therefore the disillusionising lack of trustworthiness of overly idealistic hopes into diplomatic solutions as sought by the West. Iran will never negotiate its nuclear military prpgram. It will only diplomatically manouver in order to buy the time it needs to create facts that make it militarily immune to any threats of force.
that means the West's diplomatic goals for negotiations are unreal.
Second, it illustrates the problems with trying the military option. Such a facilities just don't grow over night, but obviously Iran was able to hide the existence of the second facility until just 6-8 weeks ago, at max. If even hole components and key sites could get hidden that easily, how could anyone assume that bombing for example "Natanz" would help, if you know that that is an area of almost 200 square-kilometers in size, with only non-vital building complexes standing an the gorund, but the installations you are looking for are deeply hidden under the earth, in strengthended bunker structures, and even their entrance coordinates unknown? How could you target something if you do not know where it exactly is?
the number of targets sites related in any way to the Iranian weapons program, is said by some to be around 150, by others around 300. Add to this the militarily relevant targets that must be dealt with in order to make the primary targets reachable with acceptable risks. Some say: 1000. Others say 2000. Now consider that the primary targets are often just a name describing a huge place with some administrative buildings, but the vital installations you want to destroy hidden and their target coordinates on most cases absolutely unknown. A place like Natanz you can cluster bomb with MOABs from eastern to christmas without being sure you actually hit what you want to hit.
Israeli intel and military authorities have, under the hand, said that Israel all by itself is in no way militarily capable to deal with the Iranian program. They can do some damage, and they assume minor damage only - that's it.
The US defence minister Gates has just expressed that he also is sceptical about the military option, and that even a military engagement of the US could only delay the Iranian program by some years, but could not stop and destroy it.
It goes without saying that these statements all base on military actions with convnetional (non-nuclear) weapons. A political willingness to use nuclear weapons in a first strike, can safely be assumed to be non-existent.
Obama's abandoning of the missiles shield in Eastern europe has already seen two positive reactions by the russians. First, they have stopped plans to modernise their existing and strengthen in numbers their missile base in Kaliningrad. Second, they have indicated that they may give up their blockade for tougher sanctions against Iran. In fact recent comments by Medwedew indiacte he agrees to tougher sanctions now. This sacrifices some financial income and economic revenues for Russia.
But as I just said, diplomatic efforts seem to be doomed, and sanctions will not help in that.
And finally, there is China. For China the pressuring of Iran falls under what it always calls illegitimate interference with internal affairs of a sovereign nation. This is an accuse they give for two reasons. First, they want to protect their own national situation, which they also defend against this illegtimite interference of foreign powers with internal sovereign china's affairs, criticism of any kind, for example. And second, the Chinese have dramatically increased diplomatic ties with Iran, and get plenty of oil from there. They deliver key technology, military goods, high tech and consumer goods in return. And China is really thirsty for plenty of oil now. Isolating or damaging Iran has big economic and strategic implications for them. Additonally, the weakness of the West deriving from it's helplessness on Iran, they can take as a free and welcomed bonus.
So in fact you are not only confronting Iran over it'S nuclear program, but you are facing an Iranian-Chinese alliance.
Halleluja.
I have already heared the first wellmeant comments on radio, by some surreal politicians saying that one has to negotiate with the Iranians over the second facility at Ghom.
That is very kind.
what options are left? Only two, one of which is not realistic currently.
the first option is to prepare a policy of repeatedly striking Iran every couple of years, by that delay it's program some years, and when they come back to business, strike them again.
This has three problems. First, the Chinese will be pissed. and when the Chiense start to react, no matter in what way, you can feel it in the economy around all the globe. second, it will radicalise the Iranians themselves (yes, that is possible, since their society has a wider spectrum of tempers than most of you Westerner not knowing the country can imagine). And third, the political nature of the Western nations themselves put a decades-lasting policy of repetitive warfare into high doubt, due to the inherent instability of political goal-setting in western governments, and the everchanging government constellations.
The second option, which is unrealistic, is to massively strike the critical reasearch and construction sites in Iran with nuclear weapons desinged to do a maximum of possible contamination, making the places unaccessable for decades to come. This would mean a passing of a thin red line, and increase the likelihood of nuclear terror strikes in revenge.
A bamboo flute without holes is not a flute, but a hole without a flute is somethign very different. :doh:
The most likely outcome of all this? A nuclear armed Iran in the future, an Iranian driven nuclear proliferation to anti-Western terror groups, and a nuclear arms race throughout the ME. Top candiates for participants are Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey.
Isn't this world wonderful.
The Indian Air Force currently is running a competition for western companies to modernise it'S Air Force. there are the SU-35, the F-16, the Rafael, the Typhoon, the Gripen. 125-150 fighters they want to buy.However, the problem with this kind of deal is they insist on only buying 25 fighters at max. The rest must be build in India. Which means they are not about the fighters, but about technology transfer.
Maybe the West would be well-advised to start seeing deals like this under this crucial perspective. India may not be the big problem for us, but many such major military and technolgy deals include this technology transfer. It gives rivaling and potentially or real hostile nations access to our weapons technology, and it gives economic rivals access to our production technology. Our policies are insane if we judge such deals only in terms of immediate finacial profit for a company, and shortsight-beenfits in jobs at home.
-----
So... Das tat mal wieder Not! :D
This has become known to the media just days ago. western governments actually already knew it a bit longer.
Iran did not reveal it's existence before it was sure the West knew about it.
This illustrates some of the immense difficulties of dealing with Iran.
First it underlines the non-existent trustworthiness of Iranian diplomacy, and therefore the disillusionising lack of trustworthiness of overly idealistic hopes into diplomatic solutions as sought by the West. Iran will never negotiate its nuclear military prpgram. It will only diplomatically manouver in order to buy the time it needs to create facts that make it militarily immune to any threats of force.
that means the West's diplomatic goals for negotiations are unreal.
Second, it illustrates the problems with trying the military option. Such a facilities just don't grow over night, but obviously Iran was able to hide the existence of the second facility until just 6-8 weeks ago, at max. If even hole components and key sites could get hidden that easily, how could anyone assume that bombing for example "Natanz" would help, if you know that that is an area of almost 200 square-kilometers in size, with only non-vital building complexes standing an the gorund, but the installations you are looking for are deeply hidden under the earth, in strengthended bunker structures, and even their entrance coordinates unknown? How could you target something if you do not know where it exactly is?
the number of targets sites related in any way to the Iranian weapons program, is said by some to be around 150, by others around 300. Add to this the militarily relevant targets that must be dealt with in order to make the primary targets reachable with acceptable risks. Some say: 1000. Others say 2000. Now consider that the primary targets are often just a name describing a huge place with some administrative buildings, but the vital installations you want to destroy hidden and their target coordinates on most cases absolutely unknown. A place like Natanz you can cluster bomb with MOABs from eastern to christmas without being sure you actually hit what you want to hit.
Israeli intel and military authorities have, under the hand, said that Israel all by itself is in no way militarily capable to deal with the Iranian program. They can do some damage, and they assume minor damage only - that's it.
The US defence minister Gates has just expressed that he also is sceptical about the military option, and that even a military engagement of the US could only delay the Iranian program by some years, but could not stop and destroy it.
It goes without saying that these statements all base on military actions with convnetional (non-nuclear) weapons. A political willingness to use nuclear weapons in a first strike, can safely be assumed to be non-existent.
Obama's abandoning of the missiles shield in Eastern europe has already seen two positive reactions by the russians. First, they have stopped plans to modernise their existing and strengthen in numbers their missile base in Kaliningrad. Second, they have indicated that they may give up their blockade for tougher sanctions against Iran. In fact recent comments by Medwedew indiacte he agrees to tougher sanctions now. This sacrifices some financial income and economic revenues for Russia.
But as I just said, diplomatic efforts seem to be doomed, and sanctions will not help in that.
And finally, there is China. For China the pressuring of Iran falls under what it always calls illegitimate interference with internal affairs of a sovereign nation. This is an accuse they give for two reasons. First, they want to protect their own national situation, which they also defend against this illegtimite interference of foreign powers with internal sovereign china's affairs, criticism of any kind, for example. And second, the Chinese have dramatically increased diplomatic ties with Iran, and get plenty of oil from there. They deliver key technology, military goods, high tech and consumer goods in return. And China is really thirsty for plenty of oil now. Isolating or damaging Iran has big economic and strategic implications for them. Additonally, the weakness of the West deriving from it's helplessness on Iran, they can take as a free and welcomed bonus.
So in fact you are not only confronting Iran over it'S nuclear program, but you are facing an Iranian-Chinese alliance.
Halleluja.
I have already heared the first wellmeant comments on radio, by some surreal politicians saying that one has to negotiate with the Iranians over the second facility at Ghom.
That is very kind.
what options are left? Only two, one of which is not realistic currently.
the first option is to prepare a policy of repeatedly striking Iran every couple of years, by that delay it's program some years, and when they come back to business, strike them again.
This has three problems. First, the Chinese will be pissed. and when the Chiense start to react, no matter in what way, you can feel it in the economy around all the globe. second, it will radicalise the Iranians themselves (yes, that is possible, since their society has a wider spectrum of tempers than most of you Westerner not knowing the country can imagine). And third, the political nature of the Western nations themselves put a decades-lasting policy of repetitive warfare into high doubt, due to the inherent instability of political goal-setting in western governments, and the everchanging government constellations.
The second option, which is unrealistic, is to massively strike the critical reasearch and construction sites in Iran with nuclear weapons desinged to do a maximum of possible contamination, making the places unaccessable for decades to come. This would mean a passing of a thin red line, and increase the likelihood of nuclear terror strikes in revenge.
A bamboo flute without holes is not a flute, but a hole without a flute is somethign very different. :doh:
The most likely outcome of all this? A nuclear armed Iran in the future, an Iranian driven nuclear proliferation to anti-Western terror groups, and a nuclear arms race throughout the ME. Top candiates for participants are Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey.
Isn't this world wonderful.
The Indian Air Force currently is running a competition for western companies to modernise it'S Air Force. there are the SU-35, the F-16, the Rafael, the Typhoon, the Gripen. 125-150 fighters they want to buy.However, the problem with this kind of deal is they insist on only buying 25 fighters at max. The rest must be build in India. Which means they are not about the fighters, but about technology transfer.
Maybe the West would be well-advised to start seeing deals like this under this crucial perspective. India may not be the big problem for us, but many such major military and technolgy deals include this technology transfer. It gives rivaling and potentially or real hostile nations access to our weapons technology, and it gives economic rivals access to our production technology. Our policies are insane if we judge such deals only in terms of immediate finacial profit for a company, and shortsight-beenfits in jobs at home.
-----
So... Das tat mal wieder Not! :D