http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2212071,00.html [rquoter] Decision time for US over Iran threat UN nuclear report heightens tension Julian Borger, diplomatic editor Friday November 16, 2007 The Guardian Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, the UN's nuclear watchdog reported last night. The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will intensify US and European pressure for tighter sanctions and increase speculation of a potential military conflict. The installation of 3,000 fully-functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is a "red line" drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they are capable of producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium (enriched to over 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year. The IAEA says the uranium being produced is only fuel grade (enriched to 4%) but the confirmation that Iran has reached the 3,000 centrifuge benchmark brings closer a moment of truth for the Bush administration, when it will have to choose between taking military action or abandoning its red line, and accepting Iran's technical mastery of uranium enrichment. US generals are reported to have warned the White House that military action would trigger a devastating Iranian backlash in the Middle East and beyond. Russian officials yesterday called for patience, insisting Iran could still clinch a deal with the international community in the next few weeks. They pointed to other parts of the IAEA report showing Tehran had been cooperating with the agency's inspectors on other nuclear issues. "We are most concerned to prevent Iran being cornered so that they walk out of the Non Proliferation Treaty, and break relations with the IAEA," one Russian source said. He said Chinese officials were stepping up diplomatic pressure on Iran, with Moscow, to avert a collision. "They are on high alert that something has to be done quickly," the source said. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also seized on positive parts of the IAEA report, noting increased Iranian cooperation with inspectors, as vindication for Tehran. He said: "The world will see that the Iranian nation has been right and the resistance of our nation has been correct." Last night, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "If Iran wants to restore trust in its programme it must come clean on all outstanding issues without delay." Gordon Brown has called for increased pressure on Tehran, including an international ban on investment in the Iranian oil and gas industry. But UK officials are nervous about pressure from the US vice president Dick Cheney and other hawks for military action against Iran before a new administration takes office in January 2009. They emphasise that Iranian scientists could be months if not years away from getting the 3,000 centrifuges to function properly, at top speed, for a sustained period, and insist there is no imminent pressure for military intervention. However, they also point out that Israel's red lines for military action are unclear. Against the fraught backdrop, a meeting of senior officials from the UN security council's five permanent members and Germany to decide on sanctions, planned for Monday, was put off after the Chinese delegation said it could not attend. The critical meeting has been pushed back to later this month, giving time for the six-nation group's negotiator, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, to hold last-ditch talks with Iranian officials. The ElBaradei report gave a mixed account of Iran's cooperation with inspectors looking into Tehran's nuclear activity in the two decades before it declared its enrichment programme. "Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions," it said, but added that "cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive". David Albright, a former UN inspector and now an independent nuclear expert in Washington, said ElBaradei appeared to be trying to put "a happy face" on a worsening situation. "The main issue is that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges," he said. "The report doesn't even judge the quality of the information being offered, but it's clear it is giving minimal answers."[/rquoter]
Unfortunately, one not only has to look at the disposition of Iran, but the disposition of the USA. Our chin is exposed in Iraq. It would be self-destructive to hit them while this is the case. They could hit us back harder. You have to think more than one step into the future. Every action has repercussions which need to be charted. Also, if you hope for an eventual overthrow of the mullahs by the people of Iran, such an attack would set that plan back quite a bit by rallying the people around the flag.
we're stretched too thin. russia and china would get involved. we've lost international credibility to gain support.
We made the decision years ago when we decided to go to unending perpetual war in Iraq. The decision was no. This was what people warned about at the time. Close the thread.
I don't think there is or was any chance that the USA would go to war with Iran. It is all just pomp and circumstance. Sort of like how India and Pakistan pretend to go to war once every few years.
Not that I agree with your statement, but could you please point out where the word "democracy" or any related concepts appeared in my post?
India and Pakistan did go to real war once in a while. I guess the scale of those wars were not big enough for you?
Ahh! the ignorant many... On topic... It's interesting how the U.S. and its allies are hell-bent of further sanctions against Iran despite reports by the IAEA itself that progress is being made. Moreover, this is all coming amid news (and confirmation by U.S. officials) that Iran has made good on its promise to work to stop the flow of deadly weapons into Iraq. As I've said in the past: this administration is determined to remain on a 'crash course' with Iran, regardless of what they do (anything less than complete capitulation to American demands to establish foreign control of Iran's nuclear energy supplies won't do). Iran, for its part, seems to understand it, and is proceeding accordingly. I would even go a step further and argue that short of regime change, U.S.-Iranian relations will continue along the same path. I don't believe there are any steps the Iranian regime can take to end the 'cold war' with the U.S. that has lasted since the Revolution. Each side has its reasons, and in the end neither will budge. It remains to be seen if this policy will ever achieve its intended outcome...
Yeah, Iranians have made the veiled threats that the weapons the insurgents are magically receiving could be far worse if current formalities were severed. Stuff like stinger missiles for our blackhawks and advanced explosives mechanisms. The potential for worldwide terrorism is also unimaginable. More excuses for them to recruit and unite with.
This is what everyone should keep in mind. Seems like many want to keep their head in the sand and ignore very severe consequences. Thanks to a disaster of a President! Thank you. Attack Iran, then officially kiss Iraq goodbye! As you say, it would also end any hope for Iran's future.
Dear God, I hope we don't attack Iran. We don't have a single combat ready brigade right now. Well... there might be one in South Korea, but it's hard to find out for sure. If something happened somewhere else in the world, we'd have to pull troops out of Iraq to do something about it. The brigades that are not deployed are facing severe equipment shortages, are not being trained in traditional war fighting scenarios (like artillery units that have never fired artillery) because we are so focused on Iraq. You know, I don't care about Iraq anymore... everyone yells "support the troops" while these deployments are grinding them into paste. It's obscene. If we go to war with Iran, there will be a draft.
The youth of Iran is very friendly toward western culture and western ideas. Iran will sort itself out if allowed to do so. If you force the issue militarily, you will artificially destroy that process.
thats the idea! the current regime is about as popular in iran as bush is here. attacking iran would be the best thing for them politically to rally the masses behind them.
I wrote the following in a different forum because someone claimed Iran was a terrorist nation. I think it applies here as well. ____ Iran has nothing on what the CIA has done in the past. The majority of terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, a country we support, in which a woman is punishable by death for being raped. It is a opressive nation in which the U.S. has bases on, and the people there resent that. Lets look at Pakistan. We continue to funnel this dictator 10 billion dollars, because we are afraid that a democratically elected president might not let the U.S. have their way there. So now lets turn to Iran. We overthrow the elected government officials because they wanted to nationalize the oil. We than plant the autocratic shah that silenced all political opposition. Eventually the Iranian Revolution came and overthrew the shah. We then give money to Suddam Hussein money and weapons in which he used to invade Iran. It's ironic because the chemical weapons we helped supplied him was one of the reasons we chose to invade Iraq. Yet somehow despite all this, they are now labeled as terrorists. Never mind the fact that the true terrorists came from nations we support. Never mind the fact the terrorists come from mostly arab nations. Never mind the fact Al Qaeda targets Shia muslims and the fact that Iran is a shia nation. Sooo where did all this hostility come from? It is their dislike of the zionist regime. It's funny how most people interpret his words to say "wipe Israel from the map" even though a closer translation from farsi is ""The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Many Iranians I know have no hatred towards Jewish people. In fact, a lot of them seem to dislike arabs more than jewish people. Iran poses no threat to us or to Israel. They also are not committed in fighting Israel. After all, what do they have to gain from it? It's more of a talking point. They support Palestine the same way we support Taiwan...from a distance.
