Ahmadinejad speaks, and UN reps walk

Remove all ads!

Rags, I agree up to a point that Israel should be willing to enter into negotiations with their neighbours. But making a compromise with neighbours who have repeatedly and forcefully said that your country has no right to exist and should be blown off the map is a tricky business. Any negotiation can be perceived as an act of weakness and then the attacks re-intensify.

I believe that if Iran made one simple concession -- stating that Israel has the right to exist, and foreswearing efforts to destroy them -- they'd get some of that desired cooperation from Israel. But many Arab countries simply are not wiolling to make that concession, so I'm curious why you think Israel should bend over backwards for them.

 

That's a mistranslation: Ahmedinejad was quoting Khomeini

as translated by Juan Cole.

That means something very different. He encouraged Palestinian not give up hope, saying that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. That is something very much different than declaring an intent to destroy Israel or to attack it with nukes.

Whenever you find that as a quote in an article, write a letter to the editor. It is disinformation.

 

Fair enough -- but hasn't the Muslim world frequently denied Israel's right to exist? Hasn't Israel been attacked enough for it to feel some paranoia and lack of trust for its neighbours?

And to show that I am perfectly capable of seeing the other side, hasn't Israel contributed to the whole problem by acting pre-emptively at times in the past?

I know that Iran may not be the demons that they are portrayed as in the media, but they are sure as hell not choirboys. Many of my Iranian students tell me horror stories about their time there and how happy they were to get out of the place. Trusting Ahmadinejad is not something that wise people would do.

 

Ahmedinejad is not Iran.

 

Where did I err?

No, just Iran's chosen representative.

 

Chosen? Someone was apparently living under a rock during Iran's most recent election...

That aside Iranian elections don't work like US election in a lot of either ways, too. In the US, the winner usually gets a clear majority of the vote, since we have a bi-partisan system and no proportional representation. In Iran, multiple candidates run, and the victor often gets substantially less than half the votes. Ahmadinejad is not Iran. He isn't even half of Iran.

 

Proportional representation is used in lots of Western countries, all of which regard the winner as their leader. Regardless of the flaws of the last election Ahmadinejad unquestionably has the support of a massive percentage of the Iranian people, if possibly not quite 51%. This is a massive difference to Iraq and Afghanistan where the government's support was minimal. This makes military action a lot more tricky, the Iranian army won't give up as soon as they are attacked. A strike just against the facilities would result in terrorist reprisals like Lockerbie or helping the Iraq/Afghan terrorists.

I don't like the idea of just waiting as that just leaves a tougher decision down the line if nothing does change. I'm very uncomfortable about the fact that what they're allowed to do for civilian purposes could be quickly changed to military purposes at a later point. I'd like to see tougher sanctions but have these ever been effective? It doesn't look like Russia or China would go along with them either.

 

As a response, see Drew:

Regardless of what exactly happened durring their last 'election', Ahmadinejad was chosen by someone. Whether it's a sizable percentage of the population or just the religious leaders in Tehran hardly matters. He represents the Iranian government and it's resources.

This is something that's not really understood by most people in the US. Uranium is commonly found in 2 isotopes: 235 and 238. Moreover, they're found intermixed. On average, mined and processed uranium ore only contains something like 0.7% U-235 (the kind needed for fission). This is then put through a process called "Uranium Enrichment". There are a variety of methods to do this, but all use the same principle of using the different masses of the two isotopes to seperate them, such as with a centrifuge or gassification. Because the difference is so slight, it takes increadible precision, and usually massive amounts of power, to achieve even a slight seperation. For energy-grade uranium, only about 3-5% U-235 is needed, but for weapons-grade uranium 80%+ is needed. That's a massive difference in concentration and, while the technology is the same, the actual machinary generally has to be built specifically for weapons-grade enrichment (though those could also make energy-grade).

The worry arrises in that these numbers aren't hard-set. Anything above 20% U-235 is called 'weapons-capable', because you can make some very crude, but still effective weapons out of them. At the same time, though, the higher the concentration in civilian power plants, the more energy they can extract from it. On top of that, the more capable your enrichmet process is, the easier it is to make energy-grade uranium. The concern is that Iran may be building enrichment facilities capable of producing something like a low-weapons-capable uranium, but telling everyone it's strictly for energy-grade use. Thus the inspectors wanting to periodically inspect all the facilities. It's not as simple as flipping a switch and you're friendly neighborhood enrichment facility becomes a mass production facility for mass destruction, though.

 

That is a valid point on its own, but your statement:

was made in response to:

which was made in response to

Context is key. Seeing this in context, I simply cannot believe for a second that you were simply or innocently asserting that Ahmedinejad was the chosen leader of Iran. You were trying to make a point with your snarky little comment. Looking at the matter in context, it is obvious that your statement was being made in response to Ragusa's assertion that you cannot paint all Iranians with the same broad brush based solely on the fact that Ahmedinejad is their leader. Sorry, dude, but I'm not letting you tap dance out of this one.

 

Have you ever tried to enrich uranium to weapon's grade? It's not easy...I know, I've tried...I gave up when I couldn't find any uranium in my back yard...

Seriously though, enriching uranium isn't easy...it costs a lot of money, requires a lot of know-how, and is very risky.

 

Don't let arguments or facts come in the way of a good hysteria.

NOG, I have said that before, the IAEA continues to testify the non-diversion of Iranian nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes.

 

Actually, given LKD's obvious distinction between his Iranian students and the Iran of which they told horror stories, I took 'Iran' to refer to the Iranian ruling body. You know, like how people talking about the US in an international arena usually aren't talking about Ragusa, but about the President/Congress. In that case, Ahmadinejad is Iran's chosen representative.

That's why I said making the bomb isn't hard if you have the materials. That meant enriched uranium in my usage. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

You're right, though, that enriching uranium isn't easy by any means, as I discussed in response to Pplr.

Ragusa, the IAEA is anything but happy with Iran. This from September 7th:

According to a video on the same site, Iran has cooperated with declared uranium sources (they get some from a joint French project, I don't know what else is declared) and with confirmed enrichment and research facilities. Apparently, though, that's the only thing they're cooperating on. They aren't cooperating concerning heavy-water research, nor have they complied with the Additional Protocol, which is designed to allow for more comprehensive verification.

 

When did Rags move to the U.S.?

 

NOG,
I know all that and I am unimpressed by your efforts.

To complete your stance there is something woefully missing - why haven't you said that whatever the IAEA says only is about Iran's declared nuclear material and not about undeclared nuclear material? That would be so consequential a thing for you to say.

For all practical purposes you couldn't care less about the IAEA as long as it offers you something to misread and then selectively quote that appears to support your view. ElBaradei spoke of the need for Iranian cooperation that would enable the IAEA to disprove the existence an alleged Iranian military nuclear program. If you don't get the drift of that on your own, maybe someone here can help you with that. I have better things to do atm.

The next paragraph, that you chose to omit, (boldened) is in that light very interesting, both from its content, and because it suggests you didn't understand its pertinence (emphases mine):

Now I know who's playing political games at the IAEA towards what end and why. Do you? Who are those "some Member States" that El Baradei is speaking of? What is it that they have in mind? Nuance is something that one ignores at the expense of understanding what all the fuss on Iran is about.

 

Yup. Their first test fizzled. Obviously, building a bomb is child's play, it's only that the NOKs (and Indians) are dumber than the average child. Thus the thesis that building a bomb is easy survives.

 

Regardless of the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's leadership selection process, he is the political leader of the country, correct? I know he doesn't speak for all Iranians, just as Obama does not speak for all Americans and my idiot leader Harper doesn't speak for me. However, despite that, all three men are leaders of their countries. If Harper decided to declare war on Chile tomorrow, he has the authority to do that and there's very little that I could do about it right then and there. In a few weeks we might be able to oust him, but by then the damage would be done.

I was not trying to paint Ahmadinejad as all powerful, I'm not an idiot. But if he decided to drop some bombs on Israel tomorrow (non-nuke ones, that is) he could do it -- he has that power. And many (not all) Iranians would support him, as would many other Muslims countries in the area.

Bottom line, he's not the worst threat in the world right now, but he is a significant threat. As I asserted before, If I lived in Israel, I'd consider him a threat worth worrying about. No tap dancing there, I assure you.

 

...

Dagnabit! I did it again. I was thinking of Chandos, sorry.

... I do think that's the stupidest thing I've heard you say, Ragusa.

Obviously, we don't know anything about any undeclared materials because, well, they'd be undeclared (i.e. not revealed to the international community). Now, that doesn't mean there are any, but in combinaiton with their continued heavy-water program and their non-compliance with the Additional Protocol (designed to identify additional undeclared uranium supplies), it does raise questions.

I may not entirely agree with their optimistic assessment, but I haven't mis-read anything.

My point was to prove that the IAEA was not completely satisfied with Iran, not to prove that Iran was hiding vast stores of nuclear materials. My point in all this is that Iran hasn't cooperated sufficiently to dispel all fears (something I believe Australia has done, as has Pakistan. I don't know if Israel has or not, but considering some of the statements I've heard conocerning them (refering to 'suspected programs' and the like), I'm guessing they haven't.

Blackthorne, Ragusa, at the simplist, all you have to do is put sufficient mass of sufficient purity U-235 in close proximity. The simplist nuclear bomb imaginable has two slightly more than half-critical masses suspended at opposite ends of the bomb (one top, one bottom). When the bomb 'detonates', one half is fired toward the other (use whatever method of propulsion you want). When they come together: BOOM!. My guess is the North Koreans and Indians attempted a more complex method (involving neutron reflectors and likely implosion) than they needed to.

 

The decision is not his to make though. I doubt anyone but the commander-in-chief of the Iranian military has the right to make the decision about a military strike, and that would be Khamenei. Not that his opinion about Israel is much better.