Panetta says Israel could strike Iran in spring: report

[Dari]

The case for WMD in Iraq was fabricated by the Bush Administration. The world community was enraged by our behavior, and refused to go along.

There is no doubt, on the other hand, that Iran is enriching Uranium. Why are they enriching uranium? Why else would a well-armed nation up to a its eyeballs in oil enrich uranium. Why else would it persist after its centerfuges were wrecked by Stuxnet, it's scientists bombed, and crippling economic sanctions imposed? It makes no sense, it is completely obvious that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon as quickly as it can.

That's why the Western World is emphatic in their reponse here.

Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on earth. They want nuclear technology (for weapons and energy) and don't want to be dependent on anyone else. Nuclear energy would decrease the air pollution considerably. And nuclear weapons would keep hostile nations at bay. Considering their long history of persecution, I don't blame them one bit.

Also, it isn't surprising that Iran and Israel hate each other so much. Both people have a lot in common so natural competition is a given.

 

[chucky2]

No, I clearly linked to the death of OBL because his capture was made a priority by Obama, and it was Obama that overruled his advisors and ordered the mission to take down his compound. Whatever your feelings on Obama, that was an excellent example of leadership. If you disagreed with that you could have said why. Instead you quipped that it was actually the military that captured OBL, and I responded with my own quip, that technically, the president is the military.

Who knows what the story is regarding the priority, advisors, ect. I won't bash, nor give credit, either way. I do give Obama kudos for approving that mission, but at that point, he's out of it. I don't give Bush credit for taking over Iraq or Afghanistan, our military did that.

The president commands the military. When he starts doing HALO jumps and room clearing, then I'll consider him part of the military.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on earth. They want nuclear technology (for weapons and energy) and don't want to be dependent on anyone else. Nuclear energy would decrease the air pollution considerably. And nuclear weapons would keep hostile nations at bay. Considering their long history of persecution, I don't blame them one bit.

Also, it isn't surprising that Iran and Israel hate each other so much. Both people have a lot in common so natural competition is a given.

I totally agree with Iran having nukes for civilian purposes. If that's what they wanted however, then they would have taken Russia up on its offer.

They didn't.

 

[PokerGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Death

That's a good link to show our military and intelligence services. What does that have to do with leadership?

 

[kylebisme]

Leon Panetta on Iran:

Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.

 

[Dari]

I totally agree with Iran having nukes for civilian purposes. If that's what they wanted however, then they would have taken Russia up on its offer.

They didn't.

Why would they want to be dependent upon Russia for nuclear technology and parts? If you were the leader of a country, would you want to be dependent upon someone else? I wouldn't and I totally understand their logic. I'm surprised, if you took an impartial view, you don't either.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Considering their long history of persecution( as in ancient and I do mean ancient as way back in the time of the Pharoahs...etc..), I don't blame them one bit.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran

You did mean to say considering their long history of persecuting other non Muslim groups?
Such as people of the Bahai faith...and Christians...
http://iran.bahai.us/
http://news.bahai.org/story/882
http://www.persecution.org/2012/01/26/iranian-christians-tell-of-persecution
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/21/iranian-persecution-of-christians-grows/

 

[Dari]

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran

You did mean to say considering their long history of persecuting other non Muslim groups?
Such as people of the Bahai faith...and Christians...
http://iran.bahai.us/
http://news.bahai.org/story/882
http://www.persecution.org/2012/01/26/iranian-christians-tell-of-persecution
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/21/iranian-persecution-of-christians-grows/

Iran does not have a "long history of persecuting other non muslim groups." That's a fantasy that was concucted in your head. Iranians have been persecuted for their faith for at least 1000 years and political persecution has been rampant for the past 100 years. The allegations in your articles are recent. They are laughable and are no different than the persecution Israeli Jews dish out on Christians and Muslims on a daily basis.

 

[chucky2]

Why would they want to be dependent upon Russia for nuclear technology and parts? If you were the leader of a country, would you want to be dependent upon someone else? I wouldn't and I totally understand their logic. I'm surprised, if you took an impartial view, you don't either.

From what I remember, they weren't going to be dependent on Russia for anything but the fuel, they could have did the entire rest of the plant themselves. Since they'd have no need to process the fuel, they'd have no capability to make a bomb, but, would have their civilian use reactor. They didn't want that.

I'd agree I would want to be independent too, unless it was costing me so much in sanctions and international illwill that being independed at this point in time wasn't worth it.

Doesn't matter though. Iran will get a bomb, just like Saddam would have, it's just a matter of time. The Saudi's didn't just buy a bunch of new F-15SA's (with their existing F-15S's to be upfitted) for the F of it...

 

[Dari]

From what I remember, they weren't going to be dependent on Russia for anything but the fuel, they could have did the entire rest of the plant themselves. Since they'd have no need to process the fuel, they'd have no capability to make a bomb, but, would have their civilian use reactor. They didn't want that.

I'd agree I would want to be independent too, unless it was costing me so much in sanctions and international illwill that being independed at this point in time wasn't worth it.

Doesn't matter though. Iran will get a bomb, just like Saddam would have, it's just a matter of time. The Saudi's didn't just buy a bunch of new F-15SA's (with their existing F-15S's to be upfitted) for the F of it...

I would want to be regardless of the costs. As for SA, they are a pussy country. They couldn't save their country from invasion when Saddam came and they won't should Iran flexes (sic?) its muscle. They'll just run to America again. All that new hardware is worthless if the pilots are third-rate.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Iran does not have a "long history of persecuting other non muslim groups." That's a fantasy that was concucted in your head. Iranians have been persecuted for their faith for at least 1000 years and political persecution has been rampant for the past 100 years. The allegations in your articles are recent. They are laughable and are no different than the persecution Israeli Jews dish out on Christians and Muslims on a daily basis.-- and visa versa....

You use that to justify their behavior today?
Oh those poor Iranians....oh me oh my.....
Sorry it just does not hold water!!

 

[Fern]

Curious move by Panetta, very curious.

Why would he make this type of public statement?

- Is he trying to distance us from an Israeli strike?

- Is he giving Iran a 'heads up' to help them prepare?

- Does he hope to discourage Israel by tattling on them?

- Is he trying to force some other nations to join in stiffer sanctions (and throwing Israel under the bus in the process)?

Admittedly, I don't everything Panetta knows, but given what I do know this seems like very questionable judgement.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

I would want to be regardless of the costs. As for SA, they are a pussy country. They couldn't save their country from invasion when Saddam came and they won't should Iran flexes (sic?) its muscle. They'll just run to America again. All that new hardware is worthless if the pilots are third-rate.

If the pilots and/or Leadership is 3rd rate I agree...but I have no idea how good their current air force or Leadership is.

Personally if I was Iran, I'd have taken Russia up on its offer, got the plants up and running, thereby being far less dependent on gas, and then developed my nuke. Gets everything at - long term view - nearly the same time, much less world scrutiny, much more trust gained (even if it'll be violated later), etc. etc.

The way they've done it now, every other sh1thole country in the region that can afford it will be now going the same route. Awesome!

 

[DirkGently1]

http://thenextweb.com/me/2012/02/03...e-banned-in-iran-over-an-ad-it-didnt-produce/

Israeli advert showing Mossad agents blowing up Nuclear Facilities in Iran. Was this intended as a warning? 😀

 

[EagleKeeper]

Leon Panetta on Iran:

Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us

in other words:

N,o they are not trying to build a weapon (they are not there yet); but we know that if they have the ability, they will.


Seems like he is stating that there is concern that their nuclear capability will lead to weapons.

 

[Lemon law]

Taking down Ossama Bin Laden may or may not mean mission accomplished in Afghanistan, but the Taliban is stronger now than it was before Ossama was killed.

As we fail to note, someone like Ossama Bin Laden is the symptom of a problem but not the Problem itself. A military can kill people, but they can't kill ideas.

Meanwhile, back at the UN and its various member states. Per UN doctrine, any nation has a right to develop and use Nuclear power to generate electrical power. And Iran is doing exactly that, while working with IAEA unlike Israel that did it on the sneak.

Step one for any nation wishing to develop nuclear electric generating capacity through fission reactors is to purify enough Uranium to at least 10% or so U235 purity. To generate medical isotopes takes about 30% purity. To get to bomb grade material its got to be 96% pure U235. And Iran would be extremely foolish to dedicate all its centrifuges
to produce only one Bomb.

When the fast way to become a nuclear power lies in the reactor design options chosen. Israel choose a Very dangerous Chernobyl type breeder reactor that takes over 30% U235 enrichment levels, and every two years Israel gets enough plutonium off the spent fuel rods to produce quite a few plutonium powered nuclear weapons. On the other hand if the West forces Iran to choose reactors with much lower U235 enrichment rates, such nuclear reactors breed little or no plutonium while still being excellent for generating electricity. And are also far safer that Israel's one lone reactor at Dismona.

But then we must also look at the UN itself, as the majority of member states basically have an unequal vote or voice in the UN. And most of them question the whole idea of a security council that is a hold over from WW2 and no longer relevant today. Why should they accept domination by the USA and a handful of European countries who are now shadows of their former glory.

Iran may be a imaginary threat to the former domination, but if that domination can do it to Iran it will do it to them. Its why a Palestinian state is such a threat to the no longer relevant power structure, and why the former power structure is peeing their pants trying to prevent a vote on the Palestinian State question in the general assembly.

As it is, Western domination of the Arab oil supply has been going down down the toilet ever since Iran ejected its US installed turd of a Shah. And in the 30 years since, despite all efforts to get Iran back, now Iraq is totally wavering, and Saudi Arabia is far less stable than it appears, especially given the events of the Arab spring.

Now the USA and Israel are again pushing Iran into a very dangerous corner, while failing to learn their lessons of their past failures in the area. As US foreign policy has inevitable hurt the USA most.

Yep I am a US citizen too, and I am not a bit happy at our glorious leaders damage my country.

 

[Blackjack200]

Curious move by Panetta, very curious.

Why would he make this type of public statement?

- Is he trying to distance us from an Israeli strike?

- Is he giving Iran a 'heads up' to help them prepare?

- Does he hope to discourage Israel by tattling on them?

- Is he trying to force some other nations to join in stiffer sanctions (and throwing Israel under the bus in the process)?

Admittedly, I don't everything Panetta knows, but given what I do know this seems like very questionable judgement.

Fern

My guess is that he's trying to buy more time for negotiations. Israel might not trust the Obama Administration, so perhaps they've made it known that they will strike unilaterally. Panetta wants to make it clear to Israel that the US will not back a strike, and by making it public, it has much more force since it's now much more costly for the US to reverse itself. This doesn't tip Iran off, everyone and their grandmother knows Israel wants to attack Iran.

 

[Dari]

You use that to justify their behavior today?
Oh those poor Iranians....oh me oh my.....
Sorry it just does not hold water!!

I am definitely using that to justify their behavior, fool. They have been persecuted and have to look after themselves, irrespective of what others may think or do. Israel's reason for getting a nuke was so that it could defend the homeland against annihilation. Iranians feel the same way. If you don't like it go pound sand.

Also, don't edit my posts. It cheapens your response.

 

[JEDIYoda]

My guess is that he's trying to buy more time for negotiations. Israel might not trust the Obama Administration, so perhaps they've made it known that they will strike unilaterally. Panetta wants to make it clear to Israel that the US will not back a strike, and by making it public, it has much more force since it's now much more costly for the US to reverse itself. This doesn't tip Iran off, everyone and their grandmother knows Israel wants to attack Iran.

I have to concur with you. Also it will cost more for israel to go it alone. But I believe Israel understands the line it has to walk when it comes to US military involvement.
Let me just say for the record -- It is my opinion that if Israel did attack ands lets say worse case scenario all hell broke loose. I truly believe we would try of offer to help extract their pilots or whatever help we could lend short of involving groups troops.

Shalom!

 

[Dari]

If the pilots and/or Leadership is 3rd rate I agree...but I have no idea how good their current air force or Leadership is.

Personally if I was Iran, I'd have taken Russia up on its offer, got the plants up and running, thereby being far less dependent on gas, and then developed my nuke. Gets everything at - long term view - nearly the same time, much less world scrutiny, much more trust gained (even if it'll be violated later), etc. etc.

The way they've done it now, every other sh1thole country in the region that can afford it will be now going the same route. Awesome!

So? If other nations want nuclear weapons, that's their prerogative. I don't understand this arrogant mentality that only certain nations are supposed to have nuclear weapons. It's stupid, IMHO. If a nation wants it and can afford it then let them get it. That way, others will think twice before invading.

 

[kylebisme]

in other words:

N,o they are not trying to build a weapon (they are not there yet); but we know that if they have the ability, they will.

There's no "not there yet" with regard to "trying to build a weapon", as one can start from scratch with that goal. Our nation proved that by dropping nukes on Japan over a decade before opening our fist nuclear power plant. What Panetta actually said is, in other words:

Iran isn't trying to develop nuclear weapons, but they are trying to develop peaceful nuclear capabilities. That worries the establishment because such capabilities make it that much easier for a nation to develop nuclear weapons, so they want to limit Iran's development of peaceful nuclear capabilities.

So? If other nations want nuclear weapons, that's their prerogative.

Prerogative is a fickle thing. Others contend that its our prerogative to bomb the piss out of Iran simply for development of peaceful nuclear capabilities.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There's no "not there yet" with regard to "trying to build a weapon", as one can start from scratch with that goal. Our nation proved that by dropping nukes on Japan over a decade before opening our fist nuclear power plant. What Panetta actually said is, in other words:

Iran isn't trying to develop nuclear weapons, but they are trying to develop peaceful nuclear capabilities. That worries the establishment because such capabilities make it that much easier for a nation to develop nuclear weapons, so they want to limit Iran's development of peaceful nuclear capabilities.


Prerogative is a fickle thing. Others contend that its our prerogative to bomb the piss out of Iran simply for development of peaceful nuclear capabilities.

You in the business of bastardizing someones what Panetta says?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
This doesn't tip Iran off, everyone and their grandmother knows Israel wants to attack Iran.

He mentioned possible dates. (Months the attack was likely.)

Fern

 

[chucky2]

So? If other nations want nuclear weapons, that's their prerogative. I don't understand this arrogant mentality that only certain nations are supposed to have nuclear weapons. It's stupid, IMHO. If a nation wants it and can afford it then let them get it. That way, others will think twice before invading.

Nothing arrogant about not letting anymore genie out of the WMD bottle. We should do away with ours as well, they're horrible weapons.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't get why Lefties are so scared of someone going to war with Iran,

Its not "just" iran we are talking about.

china gets a good bit of its crude oil from iran. Any attack on iran might be seen as an attack on the national security of china.