Game, set and match Iran?

[Skybird]

While Iran just has announced it's "willingness" to let enrichment of uranium being done in foreign nations (lets believe it when it is happening and control of the process is a complete one - they already have set up new demands and conditions while I write this), and has surprisingly joined the security conference in Munich, this may have a different reason than just the naturally suspected buiyng of time and dividing the choir of western powers.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/45/502281/text/

German newspaper Süeddeutsche Zeitung, and extremely left-leaning and Islam-friendly paper with a known strong bias for that, claims it has obtained official secret documents by the IAEA that reveal that Western diplomats and intelligence services know for sure that Iran already has a functional, operative design for a nuclear warhead. It is what they call a two-point implosion design, which was completed already several years ago by assistance and help of a Russian nuclear scientist without whom, so they say, the project probably could not have been finished by now. Süddeutsche Zeitung claims they also are in knowledge of the identity of that mysterious Russian. The design they have chosen allows them to reduce the size that much so that it can be fitted to their Shabbah-3 missile. The ignition mechanism, so the IAEA paper says, also has been successfully tested.

There is obviously the desire of Western politicians to keep this information hidden from the wide public. The officials have not commented so far, and ignored the report on the leaked IAEA documents, but it was picked up by several of the major news outlets in Germany, amongst them N-TV.

Meanwhile Russia and China today have indicated they will reject sanctions against Iran being tigthened. I wonder if it really is only their close economic ties with Teheran making them lining up with Teheran.

If the authenticity of these documents should be verified, they can be understood to be the smoking gun that sceptics, endless-talkers and Gutmenschen were asking for since so long.

Developing such design plans, takes time. Turning the plans into a material reality, does not. By now we must assume that the warhead already is preproduced and just awaits being filled with the critical substance that makes it a nuclear weapon. In other words - they just wait to fit together the pieces.

Halleluja. In 2005 or 2006 I argued that it was too early to start considering war in all seriousness. But now it is 2010 and the situation is much more advanced, while diplomacy and sanctions have not shown any effect at all, and promise to never have any effect in the future. It gets time to start turning the military option into reality, by preparing it. Since this effort will need much more ressources and preparation and time than Iraq or Afghanistan, this has to be started early enough in advance. To claim that there still is enough time, is no reasonably guess anymore, but just hope that cannot be based on substantial argument anymore. It becomes a riskier gamble with every month passing by now. And what for? For what...? With China and Russia raising increasing difficulties, the risk we take by waiting while doing nothing can no longer be calculated. Or in short: we are about to lose contrl completely.

Do we accept that? We enter the final stage of the show where we cannot evade anymore to answer with a simple "Yes" or "No" without any "but" or "eventually" and "if" and "maybe". We may have hoped that it would not get so far, but it has.

[Skybird]

the IAEA today again has published new concerns that Iran already is close to cojnstructing a nuclear warhead. This month is the first time ever that the agency, which is often criticised for it's attempts to nice-talk things and ignore unwanted realities, speaks out against Iran in such openess and mentions the Iranian weapon construction with such certainty.

If they are right, then all the "diplomacy" of past years has been shown to be a fraud by the Iranians, and their intention not to get talked out of their weapon program is proven beyond doubt. Which means further "negotiations" are totally and completely pointless. They are determined to lie about their weapin prgram, sow why keeping on talking to them?

Iran is almost unvulnerable to sanctions. They would only the population, but would not weaken the regime.

It's becoming time to face realsing the unwanted, tough scenarios.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61H4EH20100218


VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog fears Iran may be working now to develop a nuclear-armed missile, the agency said on Thursday, throwing independent weight behind Western suspicions of an active Iranian weapons program.

In unusually blunt language surfacing under new chief Yukiya Amano, an International Atomic Energy Agency report for the first time suggested Iran was actively chasing nuclear weapons capability rather than merely having done so in the past.

The IAEA seemed to be cautiously going public with suspicions arising from a classified agency analysis leaked in part last year which concluded that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon.

The report also confirmed Iran had produced its first, small batch of uranium enriched to a higher purity -- 20 percent.

Both developments will intensify pressure on Iran to prove it is not covertly bent on "weaponising" enrichment by allowing unfettered access for IAEA inspectors and investigators, something it rejects in protest at U.N. sanctions.

The United States is already leading a push for the U.N. Security Council to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran because of suspicions that it may be developing nuclear weapons, and has received declarations of support from Russia, which has until now been reluctant to expand sanctions.
Tehran says its nuclear program is meant only to yield electricity or radio-isotopes for agriculture or medicine. It took a diametrically opposing view of the report's conclusions.

"The IAEA's new report confirmed Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and the country's non-deviation toward military purposes," Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the state news agency IRNA.

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the United States did not understand why Iran had refused to "come to the table and engage constructively" over its nuclear program, adding: "You have to draw some conclusions from that."

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS

The IAEA has been investigating for several years Western intelligence reports indicating Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives at high altitude and revamp a ballistic missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.

In 2007 the United States issued an assessment saying Iran had halted such research in 2003 and probably not resumed it.

But its key Western allies believe Iran continued the program -- and the IAEA report offered independent support for that perception for the first time.

"The information available to the agency is extensive, ... broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," the report said.

"Altogether this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Amano is seen as more inclined to confront Iran than his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, who retired on December 1.

"Now we see from (available intelligence) that certain activities may have continued after 2004," said a senior official close to the IAEA. "We want to find out from Iran what they've had to do with these nuclear explosive related activities."

The U.S. director of National Intelligence concluded last year that Iran would not be technically able to devise a nuclear weapon before 2013. But a new intelligence estimate is due soon.
Iran has dismissed the intelligence reports cited by the IAEA as fabrication, but failed to provide its own evidence. It has boycotted contact with the IAEA on the matter for 18 months.

The report, to be considered at a March 1-5 meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board, said it was vital for Iran to cooperate with IAEA investigators "without further delay."

HIGHER ENRICHMENT

Last week, Iran announced a start to higher-scale enrichment, saying it was frustrated at the collapse of an IAEA-backed plan for big powers to provide it with fuel rods for nuclear medicine made from uranium refined to 20 percent purity.

The IAEA report complained that Iran had begun feeding LEU into centrifuges for higher refinement before inspectors could get to the scene in the Natanz pilot enrichment facility.

"We have expressed our dissatisfaction (about this)," said the senior official. "It is of paramount importance to have this information in a timely way to make sure there are no undeclared activities or facilities in Iran."

The powers accused Iran of reneging on an agreement to ship out two-thirds of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) reserve to be turned into fuel rods for the medical reactor. This would have prevented Iran retaining enough of the material to fuel a nuclear weapon, if it were refined to about 90 percent purity.

Only France, one party to the U.N. draft deal, and Argentina are known to possess the technology. So analysts ask why Iran would enrich uranium well above its needs, except to lay the groundwork for producing bomb-grade uranium.

The report further said that Iran had increased its LEU stockpile by some 300 kg to 2.06 tons since November -- enough for one or two nuclear bombs if enriched to 90 percent purity.

It said over nine-tenths of the LEU stockpile had been earmarked for enrichment up to 20 percent, a significant mark as further enrichment up to 90 percent may need only a few months.

But the report also attested to stagnating capacity at Natanz. It said the number of operating centrifuges had dropped to 3,772 from nearly 4,000, a fall of 25 percent over a year.

This was well under half of all the machines installed in Natanz, the report indicated. Analysts and diplomats close to the IAEA say Iran may be having serious mechanical problems in keeping thousands of antiquated centrifuges running in unison.

But the senior official said Iran appeared to be shifting focus to a second enrichment site at Fordow near Qom, which Iran has said will preserve the program if foes bomb Natanz.
(Editing by Kevin Liffey)


Iranian nukes should be prevented at all costs. This should be priority, overruling any other. Any military effort acchieveing this, will need maximum firepower, most likely beyond conventional means (as long as that earthquake weapon is not real...). such an operation will need plenty of preparation in advance to minimise the direct fallout to western people in the Orient, and to Israel. The economic blow (oil) most likely will be needed to be taken, since it is certain that the Saudis will not oppose the prospect to crush their Shia rival, but the Saudi'S attitude is uncertain once you start nuking Iran's hidden, hardened key facilities - which probably is necessary.

I wonder if the Israeli Mossad operation that went so bad for them was part of already ongoing preparations of the kind I outlined.

Tighten your seatbelts, gentlemen. Something tells me that the Iranian match has been played tame for the longest time. The next small handful of years could become very - stressful.

[Oberon]

Hmmm....crap, if they're that far ahead then Opera 2 could only be a matter of weeks away not months as I had thought, but now that the assassin op was bungled Irans air defences are going to be at red alert.

Skybird, what do you think the likelihood of Israel going official with its nuclear deterrent and promoting detente with Iran as opposed to a preemptive conventional strike, obviously the preemptive strike would be the preferred option for Israel but their hand might now be forced due to the counting clock and the bungled MOSSAD job?

One thing is certain though, it's going to be an interesting future with a nuclear armed Iran which I'd say unless Israel intervenes is now pretty inevitable.

[Skybird]

I do not feel comfortable with predicting Israel's action, for that I am to confused about their political course in the past months since Netanyahu took over. I also cannot judge what effect the party of Lieberman will have.

let me put it this way. Israeli intel and military insiders have said they are certain that Israel has not the conventional air power to take out the Iranian program by themselves, it simply is too small. That leaves them with either depending on American assistance, or using nukes in the first strike scenario. Both outlooks imo makes it unlikely that Israel will act on its own. But who can read Israeli politicians' mind, they are thinking on a basis of bad historic experience with relying on western people, and I cannot blame them for that. Much of what the EU throws at them, under the surface is a continuation of that old European hobby, that is underrating the value of Jewish lives. We do it every time we demand them to not defend themselves against Muslim terror. So they really would be badly advised to trust the EU.

And America? I think Obama can eventually act much tougher than many trust him to do, but whether or not he can really be that tough by character that he goes to war with Iran, I do not know for sure, but I tend to say that the chances he is not up to it are slightly bigger than the chances that he could show to be that tough. Maybe he surpsies me on this one, though.

However, my priority is to prevent at all cost a second chaotic Muslim country like Pakistan getting nukes. We pay bitterly for letting Pakistan getting that far, so do the people in the region who are immediate victims of the strategic troubles Pakistan is causing. Plus the Saudi-Iranian rivaly. Plus this traditional thing of Muslim hate for anything Jewish, claims founded on the Quran which Iran has not been shy to once again fill with life.

then there is China, and, less important, Russia. China will react, and not on behalf of the West. They will not react militarily (only indirectly, by weapon deliveries), but with soft power. And America is highly vulnerable now to this kind of power.

I'm willing to accept maximum means to enforce Iran not getting nuclear wepaons. Note that on this, in the past four years or so I have changed my former opinion completely. Nuclear weapons in Iranian possession for me is totally unacceptable.

I have been in Iran some longer time, and of all Muslims countries I have stayed in, this was the relatively best experience, I learned to know many polite, educated, moderate people with sympathy for Western civilisational gains and values (but also many freaks, too - admitted). I hold both extreme, bad experiences regarding Iran, but also many good, friendely ones. I do not like what I say here on war against Iran, not at all.

But wishes are one thing - needs are another. Iran shall not have nuclear weapons. If that means to hit it as hard as needed, even destroying it - so be it.

I am determined on this. But I do not feel triumphant, or easy. In fact my head is clear, while my heart is heavy. Maybe like it should be if you talk of war, and nukes.

[krashkart]

Hope you won't mind if I put in here. :)


And America? I think Obama can eventually act much tougher than many trust him to do, but whether or not he can really be that tough by character that he goes to war with Iran, I do not know for sure, but I tend to say that the chances he is not up to it are slightly bigger than the chances that he could show to be that tough.


At this point, American military involvement in a conflict with Iran would open a third front for the U.S.; although, we do still have forces just across the border into the next couple of years. The ultimate goal right now is to hand the reins back over to Iraq, and consolidate some of those freed resources into Afghanistan.

I trust our President to do what is right, however, I think that our military is stretched a bit right now. It's a coin toss to me. *shrug*

[Oberon]

It seems incredible to talk of nuclear attacks post-Cold war but you are right, going solo Israel has little other choice. It could conduct a limited strike but that would only leave it open to counter-strikes from a now-nuclear armed Iran.

I know your strong opinion on this Skybird, and I do not question this, however you speak very much in facts as opposed to opinions ("Iran shall not have nuclear weapons") and I doubt that the leaders of the nations involved in this theatre are thinking along the same lines (with the possible exception of Israel).

However, on those lines, and on the assumption that Iran has at least one nuclear armed missile ready, would you still press for a first-strike in the knowledge that a counterstrike would be inevitable? If Iran had an equal number of weapons to Israel (unlikely now, but possible in the long run), would a first-strike still be a option?

Furthermore, a US nuclear strike is, I would say, pretty much completely off the cards, because if they go hot, then Russia and China will go to DEFCON 2 and the entire world will condemn the US and its international prestige will be down the toilet completely, opening the path for Chinese and Russian dominance. Israel on the other hand is enough of a pariah state to be able to go it alone and weather the international condemnation.

[Oberon]

Hope you won't mind if I put in here. :)



At this point, American military involvement in a conflict with Iran would open a third front for the U.S.; although, we do still have forces just across the border into the next couple of years. The ultimate goal right now is to hand the reins back over to Iraq, and consolidate some of those freed resources into Afghanistan.

I trust our President to do what is right, however, I think that our military is stretched a bit right now. It's a coin toss to me. *shrug*

I'd say that any limited strike action against Iran (Operation Opera style) the US involvement would be primarily intel services, confirmation and the like.

Any major term operations would most likely involve two or three carrier groups worth of fighter bombers with a saturation of B-52s, and B-2s to pulverize the Iranian command and control ability and enable the Iranian democratic movement to take control. (Best case scenario).

I should imagine that a shed-load of Tico boats would also position themselves in the Gulf and off the coast of Israel to help beef up Israels SAM and ABM defences against the inevitable Shabab-3 mass launch.

An actual invasion of Iran would be suicide for the US army as it currently stands. Well, mortal wounding perhaps rather than suicide. It'd be possible, do-able, but create more of a mess than the US could deal with in the long run.

[Skybird]

I think that our military is stretched a bit right now.

Oh yessss...!!! And very much so. and on veraious levels, not just the material, numerical dimension.

I sometimes wondered if maybe this was the deeper strategy behind Moscos willingess to accept, even invite NATO operation being widened in and around Afghanistan, in 2002 - to make the USA overstretching. The Us has estaslbihed a huge number of bases, some ofnthem just beign tripwires, at Russia'S south, and around china. Many of these bases, however, are no match for a local major power going after them with determination.

And survival maybe also is not their primary purpose. However, I do not think that the Chinese are overly impressed anymore. Annoyed, at best, due to their ELINT capacities. Capacities they sure as hell as adapted to.

[Skybird]

I'd say that any limited strike action against Iran (Operation Opera style) the US involvement would be primarily intel services, confirmation and the like.

Any major term operations would most likely involve two or three carrier groups worth of fighter bombers with a saturation of B-52s, and B-2s to pulverize the Iranian command and control ability and enable the Iranian democratic movement to take control. (Best case scenario).
The revolutonary guards are the key player, being in command of key nexus in the military. And they still are trained to not only operate as regular troops, but in guerilla style too. That democratic movement you put so much trust into might have a tough time holding out against them.

I should imagine that a shed-load of Tico boats would also position themselves in the Gulf
If they get through the hormuz strait, which I do not take as a certainty. the risk to bring major warships thorught he strait in times of war means to enter a missile- and mine-infested environment of limtied size, with reduced space for hiding and mavouvering. Ideal hunting ground for Kilos.


and off the coast of Israel to help beef up Israels SAM and ABM defences against the inevitable Shabab-3 mass launch.
I would send them to the Mediterranean coast. Not into the Gulf.

But that is an armchair admiral's concerns.



An actual invasion of Iran would be suicide for the US army as it currently stands. Well, mortal wounding perhaps rather than suicide. It'd be possible, do-able, but create more of a mess than the US could deal with in the long run.

No it is not doable, not on a nation-wide level. Local drops of spec ops, yes. Maybe a cavalry landing at one side, seizing it and securing it until it gets destroyed from within, and then getting out after two hours again, but already that is a high risk operation with liekly very high casualties. But a land invasion like Iraq or Afghanistan? Forget it. The country is bigger, as rugged and often: more rugged than Iraq or Afghanistan, the population is bigger and easily as nationalistic and patriotic as the americans or the French, and you have the complete population (including the "democracy" movement) against you.

Iraq and Afghanistan are simple afternoon games, compared to Iran ground war. Forget it. you do not want occupatipon or land campaigns. You only need to want destruction of the concered defence imnstallations, and the wepaon construction facilities and the scientific research sites, which already is difficult enough. Before and afterwards you also want a massive, lasting intel operation to take out their nuclear and missile-related intelligentia head by head.

The losses on Western side, however, will be much higher than in Iraq 91 and 03, or Afghanistan. Many planes will be lost. Also, I expect a hurting number of warships taking fire, if they are send into the Gulf or the Hormuz Strait. I still see little reason to expose them there. To deny them the Gulf, air power seems to be a better option. I am also hesitent about US submarines operating in the Gulf in a war scenario. Limited depth, shallow waters = less space to hide in, higher vulnerability.

[FIREWALL]

So Iran has a nuclear weapon. It's not like they have an arsenal of them.

If they use it, the response will be harsh and final.
And don't for a minute think they don't know it.


Sadly alot of innocent Iranians will pay the price for what their Masters did THE STUPID THING.

[HunterICX]

Sadly alot of innocent Iranians will pay the price for what their Masters did THE STUPID THING.

The few that rule a nation decide the faith of millions....

HunterICX

[Skybird]

So Iran has a nuclear weapon. It's not like they have an arsenal of them.

And you trust in that they stay with just one? And will not proliferate their knowledge, and capabilties?

I said it often: Iran launching a nuclear attack by it self - is the last of my worries. Nuclear terror, nuclear blackmailing, proliferation - that is the name of the game.

Nuclear ICBMs of theirs will not hurt their causes, though...

[Oberon]

Oh, I'm not putting as much faith in them as you might think, like I said, it was a best case scenario, with the removal of the Revolutionary Guard from the picture, or at least, enough disruption to enable pro-democratic movements with weapons to remove them by force. Difficult yes, but with massive strokes of luck perhaps do-able.
Most likely the result would likely be a brief moment of success followed by a massacre the likes of which haven't been seen in a while as the government regains control.
Good points on the Ticos, although IIRC the serviceability of the three Kilos Iran has has been called into question a fair amount of times, however is that worth a Tico boat? Perhaps not and even if the Kilos don't leave Bandar Abbas you've still got a hornets nest of ASMs, Houts and mines to negotiate.

But we're definitely agreed on the impossibility of a successful ground campaign. However, even a co-ordinated strike on the scattered NBC facilities of Iran will not remove the problem but merely put it back by another decade or so until Iran gets more scientists to put together another bomb and the process begins again. Even with spec-ops within Iran, knowledge cannot be destroyed, and as has been seen in the DPRK, if you dig underground deep enough and put enough concrete over it then you can do anything without a spy-sat picking it up. China and Russia would be only too happy to provide men and technology, particularly in the diplomatic fallout after the strike where China and Russia will lap up the sympathies for Iran and press home the accusations against the 'renegade' and 'irresponsible' United States and build up their international prestige.

It's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Oberon]

So Iran has a nuclear weapon. It's not like they have an arsenal of them.

If they use it, the response will be harsh and final.
And don't for a minute think they don't know it.


Sadly alot of innocent Iranians will pay the price for what their Masters did THE STUPID THING.

I think the idea would be that the Ayatollah and his bunch of merry men would be safe in a lead lined concrete bunker under the radioactive smoking crater of Tehran whilst the people of Iran dig around for scraps up above, and then when the radiation has diminished enough, up pops the Revolutionary Guard with its armaments and life continues as normal for the government. Besides, they won't use it while they have only one, they'll wait until they have enough to guarantee overwhelming Israels Patriot systems and scoring a hit. They only have to be lucky once after all.

If this all falls out (pardon the pun) the bad way, then A LOT of innocent people are going to die, I think that is pretty inevitable, and chances are, the guilty ones will be the ones sitting in bunkers twiddling their thumbs. :damn:

[Skybird]

I fear you have a wrong impression of the "democracy" movement, Oberon.

there was a youth movement comoaravle to the present one in the early and mid 90s. and this one I have experienced at location. See, they wanted more freedoms, more access to media, and less lecturing of everyday life by the clerics. but "democracy" in Wetsern understanbding? Sorry, this I heared only very, very rarely.

Possible that ther eis some more demand for it today, 15 years later, andnwith internet, however, the young ones and the "democrats" also remain to be strictly Muslim. This will limit most of them to really go for soemthing that compares Western understandings of democracy and legislation. they want things becoming different than they are now. But if you think that means they think what you think they should want, then you most liekly think wrong.

Also, back then many of these oyung people told me that no matter how much they fight for free press or oppose the clerics - if a foreign power (guess whom they meant) would attack Iran, they all would rally and stand united against any enemy from the outside. Bush told Americans in 2003 that Iraquis would be all-ambracing and all-welcoming and just uncritically take over American democracy. Do not repeat that mistake by assuming the same for the Iranians!

Also, Iranian society has much lesser ethnic and inner-Muslim tensions, than it is the case with Kurdish-Sunni-Shia Iraq, or the rivaling tribes and ethnicities in Afghanistan, and much fewer inner conflicts due to open bills. You have to deal with a people facing you much more united than you have seen it in Iraq or Afghanistan.

---

On the difficulty to destroy their program, you are right. With conventional weapons, this war probably is limited so much in what it can accieve that even starting it probably cannot be justified in the face of the to be expected losses and Iranian civilian destruction. I am not willing to accept or support such a acale of destruction ebign done for just buying five years of time. I will only support a war whose goal is to destroy the program, no matter what. and this is, what makes this thing so tragic, and cynic. In order to prevent Iran getting nukes you probabyl have to use nukes yourself on certain key facilities that are hidden and hardened.

If that is not willed, I see no reason in starting a war that will cause at least as much death and destruction, but is doomed to fail it's purpose from the beginning on. But if it gets willed, the economic and politic fallout will be enormous, surpassing any global crisis there has been since WWII.

Adds a new dimension to "damned if you do and damned if you don't", eh...? Now you understand the scale of dilemma that I do see indeed. But I am not willing to accept being paralysed and sentenced to inaction. Iran will not stop moving on, you see. And that comes at the cost of a whole rat-tail of problems that could easily bring nuclear disaster to the whole region, not just iran, actually to the whole world. Syria, Turkey, Saudi arabaia becoming nuclear. Unstable failed states with hysteric religious sentiments and an unsurpassed sense of supremacism and martial missionary spirit. Thousand years of inn er-Islamic civil war.

The mixture is pure horror.

[FIREWALL]

When someone irresponsibly waves a Sword long enough at someone.

Inevitably the other Stabs first

[Oberon]

True, but I don't think that you could bring Western democracy to anywhere outside of the West. Which leaves you with a less radical Muslim government which is the only real positive outcome that can be achieved with what is at hand. If you can get a Muslim government which is not openly defiant towards the UN, and is less likely to push to develop nuclear weapons or support insurgencies in Iraq then its a positive outcome.

Of course, you make a good point in my estimates of their strengths, and my approach from a Western viewpoint which I am, by birth, doomed to view nations from, and it is likely that unless substantial backing was given any 'democratic' (and I use the term democratic in its closest regional term) movement would be doomed from the start.

Which puts us back at square one.

[CaptainHaplo]

If you think that Israel will publicly admit to having nukes, you need to put down the crack pipe. Israel MIGHT publicly admit to having nukes about 30 minutes after the detonation of such a nuke. Even that isn't a guarantee.