US, World Ignoring Israel on Iran Issues.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

what's in open source and what's classified may be two different stories. i'll let you figure out why.

Not much stays truly secret. Most items that are classified, with the exception of ciphers, and similar, are usually "unverified" public information within hours, or at most days, after the fact. Even before the internet, you could go to the shelves in most large university libraries and find out anything you wanted to know about classified government activities that happened only a few years earlier. Before 9-11, security was based on a need to know basis - if you don't need to know, nobody is supposed to tell you -- however, that didn't stop anybody from doing a little bit of research. After 9-11, the push was on to disperse information as widely as possible, and avoid compartmentalizing data. In effect, tell anybody that might have some use for the data. With the internet, and so many sources available via search engines, there isn't really anything anybody couldn't find out with a few mouse clicks that stays secret for very long.

When I was around that environment in a civilian mode, the confidentiality agreement I signed was meant solely to avoid embarrassing the powers that be, not about divulging anything classified that I might have overheard, observed, or been briefed on.

Edited May 12, 2012 by ☼

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Considering the history of Israel's clandestine nuclear program, it is really the height of hypocrisy for Netanyahu etc. to throw tantrums about Iran.

The U.S. had made it clear that it didn't want Israel to develop nuclear weapons. Israel initially lied to the U.S. about its nuclear program - Ben Gurion actually stated that the purpose of its nuclear plant was for "research in problems of arid zones and desert flora and fauna." He later told U.S. President John F. Kennedy that Dimona was being developed for "desalinization" and other peaceful purposes.

JFK didn't believe him. In 1963, he stated that American support for Israel could be jeopardized if Israel proceeded with a nuclear weapons program, and demanded that Israel regularly allow American inspectors into its nuclear facility at Dimona to ensure that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons.

Ben Gurion repeatedly denied to the U.S. government that Dimona was developing anything except for peaceful purposes, and refused to open its facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Parts of Dimona were actually shut down to mislead American scientists when they visited.

By 1965, the U.S. determined that Israel was indeed developing nuclear weapons, and was producing 2 nuclear bombs a year by 1968.

Israel has refused to place its nuclear weapons program under IAEA safeguards, and has refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The rest of the world has not forgotten all this.

Edited May 13, 2012 by wife_of_mahmoud

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

One has to wonder, how much of Israel's research, and how many of Israeli made nuclear devices, have already made their way into the Islamic world. Pakistan, for sure, is one we know about, and the Taliban are merely a heartbeat away from acquiring those nukes. One wonders, how many devices are carefully hidden away in other Muslim countries thanks to these deals made with the devil?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Top U.S. think tank warns against Israeli, American strike on Iran

RAND Corporation sides with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin, openly disagreeing with Netanyahu and Barak's belligerent stance on Iran.

The RAND Corporation, a think tank which advises the Pentagon, warned on Tuesday against an Israeli or American attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, and recommended the Obama administration try to "quietly influence the internal Israeli discussion over the use of military force."

In a document published in the think tank's periodical, Rand Review, RAND openly disagreed with the belligerent stance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, which are set to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other high-ranking officials over the next several days. In doing so, and without naming names, RAND sided with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former head of the Shin Bet Yuval Diskin.

RAND's call to prevent an Israeli strike and to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, on the condition that it does not test or deploy nuclear weapons, was published a week before the second round of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Baghdad, with a clear intention of influencing the Western position during the talks.

RAND, which has come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran and the inability of preventing it from enriching uranium, as most of its citizens support such a program, believes that Netanyahu and Barak's approach "rests on a faulty assumption that a future, post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, a post-attack Middle East may result in the worst of both worlds: a nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to doing so."

The document further stated that "U.S. intelligence officials should support the assessments of former and current Israeli officials who have argued against a military option."

"U.S.-sponsored seminars outlining U.S. concerns and risk assessments for the Israeli intelligence and military community could also help shape the internal debate… U.S. public pressure on Israel will likely backfire given Israel’s sense of isolation, turning Israeli popular opinion, which is divided on the question of a military strike option, against the United States and allowing for more defiant positions among Israeli leaders… Encouraging Israeli leaders and journalists to report more to the public about security cooperation efforts could be helpful… War games now taking place at nongovernmental institutions in the United States and Israel explore conflict scenarios involving Israel and Iran. Such games clarify how an Israeli-Iranian deterrence relationship might evolve and what military or political steps could heighten or diminish conflict."

The document was spearheaded by former ambassador and head of international and security policy for the RAND Corporation James Dobbins. RAND, which is based in Santa Monica, California, is one of the most well-respected think tanks dealing with American foreign policy and security and specializing in operations research, in systems analysis, and in forecasting the tendencies of the U.S. Air Force, and other governmental branches.

...

According to RAND, the "proximate objective of Western policy must be to dissuade Iran from testing and deploying nuclear weapons," warning that crossing the nuclear weapons threshold will "only increase Iran’s isolation, reduce its influence, and increase the regime’s vulnerability to internally driven change."

Furthermore, in order to prevent the Israel-Iran rivalry from escalating to a military campaign, the United States should "continue to discourage an Israeli military strike while strengthening Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future in which Iran may have managed to acquire nuclear weapons… The potential emergence of a more democratic Iran or of more moderate leadership may diminish Iran’s hostility toward Israel as well as Israel’s heightened threat perceptions of Iran."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/top-u-s-think-tank-warns-against-israeli-american-strike-on-iran.premium-1.430697

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Sounds like the RAND report sharply disagrees with your claim earlier in this thread Iran wasn't seeking nuclear weapons...

[Neonred 3,446]

Sounds like the RAND report sharply disagrees with your claim earlier in this thread Iran wasn't seeking nuclear weapons...

Wife is so blind with bias she can't even think clearly.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Sounds like the RAND report sharply disagrees with your claim earlier in this thread Iran wasn't seeking nuclear weapons...

You (and apparently Neonred as well) need to read more carefully.

The report does not say Iran is seeking nuclear weapons; it says trying to stop it via a military strike would ensure that Iran goes nuclear and would make it more determined to strike back. It also says it's impossible to prevent Iran from enriching uranium (which is used for many modern medical purposes,) and that the focus should be dissuading Iran from testing and deploying nuclear weapons:

RAND's call to prevent an Israeli strike and to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, on the condition that it does not test or deploy nuclear weapons, was published a week before the second round of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Baghdad, with a clear intention of influencing the Western position during the talks.

RAND, which has come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran and the inability of preventing it from enriching uranium, as most of its citizens support such a program, believes that Netanyahu and Barak's approach "rests on a faulty assumption that a future, post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, a post-attack Middle East may result in the worst of both worlds: a nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to doing so."

The document further stated that "U.S. intelligence officials should support the assessments of former and current Israeli officials who have argued against a military option."

Israel developed its own secret nuclear program in direct opposition to U.S. demands that it not do so. Screaming for World War III if anyone else in the area enriches uranium is all too typical of its hypocrisy.

If Iran did develop nuclear weapons (which some analysts such as RAND say is inevitable, eventually) MAD would preclude either Israel or Iran from using them - this is actually a good thing, but Israel of course is furious about any leveling of the playing field.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

By the way, the OP article is a news article about the report, not the report itself. You can read the RAND report in full here:

http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/2012/spring/iran.html

The opening paragraph sums up its points succinctly:

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran has stoked tensions around the world. We argue that diplomacy and economic sanctions are better suited than military action to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, that Israeli security will be best served by military restraint combined with greater U.S.-Israeli cooperation, and that the Iranian people offer the surest hope for a future Iran that is more amenable to U.S. interests.

An Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence.

Wife is so blind with bias she can't even think clearly.

At least I'm not so blind that I don't even bother to read the report before firing off some lame insults.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I read the first post wife, and only a fool thinks Iran will be pursuaded to never attain nuclear weapons. I am not screaming to start WWIII, and I sincerely doubt mere limited attacks will do more than slow Iran down, but there is little basis to believe the good people of Iran will be free of their nutjob leadership anytime soon. Diplomacy and sanctions are as likely to fail as well.

Irans nutjob leaders want nukes. Have worked to get nukes, and IF they have currently discontinued their program are very unlikely to not resume it in the future.

Unlike every other country in the world that has nukes Iran is much more likely to use them even if convinced they would be destroyed in retaliation. Having nukes is a deterant for their use in normal government mindsets, Iran is NOT a normal government.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I read the first post wife, and only a fool thinks Iran will be pursuaded to never attain nuclear weapons. I am not screaming to start WWIII, and I sincerely doubt mere limited attacks will do more than slow Iran down, but there is little basis to believe the good people of Iran will be free of their nutjob leadership anytime soon. Diplomacy and sanctions are as likely to fail as well.

Irans nutjob leaders want nukes. Have worked to get nukes, and IF they have currently discontinued their program are very unlikely to not resume it in the future.

Unlike every other country in the world that has nukes Iran is much more likely to use them even if convinced they would be destroyed in retaliation. Having nukes is a deterant for their use in normal government mindsets, Iran is NOT a normal government.

I didn't accuse you of screaming for WWIII; I said Israel is (via Netanyahu.)

Despite the rhetoric from Bibi and AIPAC and their various mouth-pieces (and I realize that's where you get these ideas,) most of the professional military intelligence community says Iran's leaders are *not* "nutjobs":

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to build an atomic bomb and called its leaders "very rational" - comments that clashed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assessment.

...

"I think the Iranian leadership is comprised of very rational people"

...

Gantz's assessment appeared to be in step with the view of the top U.S. military officer, General Martin Dempsey. He said in a CNN interview in February he believed Iran was a "rational actor" and it would be premature to take military action against it.

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE83O0XJ20120425

You may well believe that U.S. military intelligence and Israeli military intelligence are all "fools," and only Netanyahu is telling you the truth.

However, the constant hysterical accusations coming out of Tel Aviv about "maniacs in Iran" serve one and only one purpose - to get a war on Iran no matter what:

The portrayal of Iran as irrational - willing to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon even if it means the destruction of the Islamic Republic in retaliatory strikes - could bolster a case for pre-emptive bombing to take out its atomic facilities.

U.S. military intelligence as well as Israel's military intelligence are well aware of this. It's why they're speaking out so loudly now.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The worse possible outcome for the hardliners in Israel, would be for the Iran-Powers talks to continue with the next meeting in Iraq on May 23. So, expect the war drums to get even louder this weekend, and starting into next week, while reasonable minds sit at the table, and discuss the issues, rationally.

Baghdad Talks

This week’s meeting in Vienna will be followed by a round of talks between Iranian diplomats and their counterparts from China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. on May 23 in Baghdad.

“Any miscalculation by the West will prevent the negotiations from being successful,” the state-run Mehr news agency cited Iran’s chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, as saying yesterday in Tehran. “In Baghdad we will wait for a measure that will win the confidence of the Iranian nation.”

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak criticized what he called the “minimalist” demands being made of Iran by the six nations, saying the Persian Gulf nation must stop all uranium enrichment.

“The current requirements for entering into the talks with the West are so minimalist, that even if Iran accepts them it will still be able to advance its nuclear program,” Barak said today in an interview with Israel’s Army Radio. “There is a need to completely halt all uranium enrichment in Iran.”

IAEA inspectors verified in February that Iran continued to produce low-enriched uranium in contravention to UN Security Council demands that the country suspend its nuclear work. Uranium enriched to low levels can power atomic-energy plants and create medical isotopes. When highly enriched to weapons grade, uranium can be used to make the core of a nuclear bomb.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/iran-s-parchin-site-may-top-un-inspectors-meeting-agenda.html

How will Netanyahu sabotage these talks?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Meanwhile...

U.S. Senate Republicans block new Iran sanctions bill

By Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON | Thu May 17, 2012 1:24pm EDT

(Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans said on Thursday they needed more time to examine a revised packaged of new economic sanctions on Iran's oil sector on Thursday, a surprise move that drew anger from Senate Democrats, who had expected a unanimous Senate vote of approval ahead of Iran talks on May 23.

"I feel I've been jerked around," Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor after the Republican objection.

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said his staff did not receive a draft of the bill until late on Wednesday night, and needed more time to review it.

"There is no reason in the world why we can't resolve whatever differences we have and move forward. We certainly don't want to take a step backward, and there are members on my side of the aisle who are concerned that the way the measure is currently crafted could actually be a step in the wrong direction," McConnell said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-iran-sanctions-delay-idUSBRE84G11C20120517

[Confused 2 94]

Yeah, the 'world' 'knows' Irans government is the finest group of ultra-humanitarian softies that wouldn't harm a fly and have no nuclear weapons ambitions.

+10

Although it is useless to explain this to certain people who will not see it no matter what.

[Confused 2 94]

There is no reason in the world why we can't resolve whatever differences we have and move forward.

About 50% of the world's population does believe that and can co-exist. Unfortunately, the differences can only be resolved if the other 50% come on board with that. We all know the likelyhood of that

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

+10

Although it is useless to explain this to certain people who will not see it no matter what.

You mean "certain people" like the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, or the Israeli Army's Chief of Staff Benny Gantz ?

I'm sure they would be "all ears" to hear your debriefing about what you know and they don't.

ETA: Never mind. I'm pretty sure you will ignore all the references posted in this thread (avoid them like the plague, that is) and continue to focus on trying to smear me.

Edited May 18, 2012 by wife_of_mahmoud