It seems we're fully caught up with our quadrennial shindig, we're burned out from debating the many Iraq WMD threads that've sprung up over the years, or a little of both.

Last September the IAF blew up Syria's Al Kibar reactor and the House Intelligence Committee was treated to a slideshow of Israeli evidence two weeks ago. One week ago Ahmadinejad pays a public visit to Natanz and pictures make their way to the West.

No one can answer questions like why did Israel release information now? Why didn't they alert the IAEA, let international pressure bear down with the IAEA's support? If the IAEA couldn't convince Syria I think Israel could still have destroyed the sight, even if Syria was alerted. Two years ago the IAF buzzed Assad's summer house. Finally, Al Kibar is in the middle of nowhere. Harm from nuclear fallout could have been minimal.

Now Iran is in the news. The Mossad say they have a "breakthrough in intelligence-gathering in Iran", but the TimesOnline article, MI6 chief visits Mossad for talks on Iran's nuclear arsenal, doesn't spell out what the breakthrough is. Israel "expect[s] the Americans to amend their [NIE] report soon" as a result of their work. MI6's chief is Sir John Scarlett. He played a crucial role in last-minute revisions made to the September dossier supporting allegations that Saddam Hussein tried to get uranium from Niger.

To read up on Syria's Box of Doom in the dessert and Iran's capabilities in general I recommend ArmsControlWonk (tag: syria, iran). It's a good spot where wonky nuclear and arms specialists comment on evidence without regard for policy.

Is Iran trying to develop nuclear technology for non-peaceful means?


Are we being treated or will be treated to an Iraq-like PR campaign?


Will or can the U.S. or Israel attack Iran? If yes, if Iran retaliates should either/both sides escalate their response?

Yes and has been for a number of years. Iran and Iraq (under Saddam) were in a nuclear arms race – the 1991 invasion ended Iraq’s nuke active program.



“Israeli officials believe the US will revise its analysis of Iran’s program. “We expect the Americans to amend their report soon,” a high-ranking military officer said last week.
The “revision” would be, no doubt, based on info from Mossad and MI6. It will tell us imo that Iran may have suspended their program temporarily but they may have resumed it since then. In any case the hard part is making the highly enriched nuclear material, and there is no sign Iran will suspend nuclear enrichment anytime soon.



I believe Israel was correct in attacking the Syrian plant before it was fueled. To have waited and attacked after fuel was in place would have certainly released radioactive material and been a potential problem.

Israel imo will attack Iran before they are able to build nukes that can destroy them and I believe the US will stay well out of the way if it comes to that. If the IAEA and the international community can agree on tougher sanctions as Iran gets closer this can be avoided imo. If Iran attacks Israel we could be drawn into the conflict. Our presence in Iraq imo makes this unlikely.

Is Iran trying to develop nuclear technology for non-peaceful means?

Such a claim has yet to be proven, and by proven I mean something more tangible than an allegation. The briefing did not address the why no isotope residue was found after the bombing, the lack of large scale cooling facilities, the lack of adequate height stacks to vent up heat, a cooling pond too close to the building to operate safely and other design based questions. The questionable conclusions of the evidence presented so far are not enough to assert violation of sovereignty. The immediacy arguement simply isn't there. My suspicions point to Iranian Directorate for this particular tale.


Are we being treated or will be treated to an Iraq-like PR campaign?

On this point I completely agree. Except I think it will focus on supposed arms manufacturing. Adm. Mullen is the latest cheerleader in this respect. The moment Fallon left office there was a noticeable ratcheting up of the rhetoric.


Will or can the U.S. or Israel attack Iran? If yes, if Iran retaliates should either/both sides escalate their response?

Can they? Yes. Does it matter if there is evidence? No, evidence is more of semantic arguement at this point. Even Dr. Lewis theory on the Syrian reactor has not been completely accepted as the design was sunk too deep in the ground for effective reactor cooling. Keep in mind that any response on Iran's half will most likely be asymetric in nature. Despite what some analysts on Global Security think I predict Iran has been fast tracked into the SCO council. The council will come to another's aid if attacked. The question is more of a 'when' than an 'if' as far as I am concerned, hence the drive to nip it in the bud on behalf of the Veep.

Is Iran trying to develop nuclear technology for non-peaceful means?

Yes.

Earlier this year the IAEA announced it knows the Islamic Republic of Iran has scheduled explosives tests and is modifying its existing missile systems to fit a nuclear war head. The IAEA even knows the name of the man in charge of developing Irans nuclear arsenal.


Are we being treated or will be treated to an Iraq-like PR campaign?

No. Not like Iraq. The threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran is over a decade old now and predates the current Bush administration. I think the western nations have allowed the Islamic Republic of Iran to come this far for fear of over reacting, or at least over reaching, but as things stand now, the time for talk is fast running out. the Islamic Republic of Iran will soon have the capability of hitting targets in Europe and its president has vowed not only to destroy Israel but indeed all western powers which Iran considers corrupt.


Will or can the U.S. or Israel attack Iran?

Yes. The real question is, can they at this late stage actually stop the Islamic Republic of Iran from 'going nuclear'?


If yes, if Iran retaliates should either/both sides escalate their response?

That depends entirely on the situation at that time. If the US acts pre-emptively to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear weapons going online then the Islamic Republic of Iran's retaliation may not be immediately obvious. If the Islamic Republic of Iran test detonates a nuclear weapon first, then it will mean the USA has missed its opportunity to pre-empt Tehran and must rely on the dubious prospect of the Islamic Republic of Iran acting rational.

It would also prove to any one who currently believes diplomacy and the IAEA is an effective tool against proliferation, the stupidity of their reliance on wishful thinking.

If the Islamic Republic of Iran pre-emptively strikes Israel then I believe the Israeli's will retaliate as a matter of course and the USA will hesitate.

On my current knowlege, I would advocate a limited pre-emptive strike against the Islamic Republic of Iran and if that didn't work, I'd hit them harder. It would be unpopular, but I'd rather be unpopular than dead.

edited to fix link

Good points moif – and the other reason Iran gets so much slack in the EU and with Russia is that they are a big a customer and buyer . Economic considerations always play a part as they did with Iraq.

http://www.gab-bn.com/juin_06/Ru9-%20Russi...0Production.pdf

http://www.indexmundi.com/Iran/imports.html