BTW, there's no evidence that Israel is threatening Iran with nukes. (That's just something that you and your source have made up). Israel is building a 2nd strike capability to neutralize the Iranian threat.

BTW, the guy who wrote the opinion piece is Seyed Hossein Mousavian. He is the former spokesperson for Iran’s nuclear negotiating team and had served the country since shortly after the revolution.

Ray Jay wrote:BTW, there's no evidence that Israel is threatening Iran with nukes. (That's just something that you and your source have made up). Israel is building a 2nd strike capability to neutralize the Iranian threat.

So what capacity does Israel have for nukes now? We know that it has had them for 30 years or so, and has delivery systems such as the Jericho II which has a range been tested at 1,400km and can probably go further.

No, Israel is not directly threatening anyone with nuclear weapons (it consistently denies having any, but it's pretty well known that it does, thanks to Vanunu and others), but it does have the capacity to launch a first strike. It refuses to join the NPT.

Israel's defence policy doctrine includes the concept of pre-emption (as demonstrated in 1956 and 1967). While it is likely that Israel has indeed planned to use nuclear weapons as a response to a lost war, or WMD attack, that doesn't mean that there are not plans that could be put into operation to react to less existential threats, or pre-emptively.

Sure, the level of secrecy and denial means there is little evidence.

Is there some substantiation that Israel has threatened Iran with annihilation?

I can produce links where the leader of Iran has done just that.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:BTW, there's no evidence that Israel is threatening Iran with nukes. (That's just something that you and your source have made up). Israel is building a 2nd strike capability to neutralize the Iranian threat.

So what capacity does Israel have for nukes now? We know that it has had them for 30 years or so, and has delivery systems such as the Jericho II which has a range been tested at 1,400km and can probably go further.

No, Israel is not directly threatening anyone with nuclear weapons (it consistently denies having any, but it's pretty well known that it does, thanks to Vanunu and others), but it does have the capacity to launch a first strike. It refuses to join the NPT.

Israel's defence policy doctrine includes the concept of pre-emption (as demonstrated in 1956 and 1967). While it is likely that Israel has indeed planned to use nuclear weapons as a response to a lost war, or WMD attack, that doesn't mean that there are not plans that could be put into operation to react to less existential threats, or pre-emptively.

Sure, the level of secrecy and denial means there is little evidence.

I do hear a tone that you generally don't trust Israel, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that Israel may preemptively use nukes against Iran (because there is no evidence that they won't)? Are you saying that Iran should be allowed to develop nukes because Israel has them anyway (and because you are morally opposed to Israel having them)? Or are you saying that any country that has in the past used a preempt strategy should not be allowed to develop nukes?

ray

I do hear a tone that you generally don't trust Israel,

I suspect Danivon is simply seeing the situation from Irans point of view.
Why should they entirely trust Israel? Why wouldn't they feel threatrened by Israel's possesssion of nuclear weapons.

I note well that you point to a contradiction in the reasons that Iran's former nuclear negotiator offered for why Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons, and my reason why they might..
But please note that the difference. one came from an Iranian source, and one was my rhetorical position..

I admit that the whole notion of mutually assured destruction seems contradictory and self defeating. And yet some how it was deemed appropriate for Russia and the USA.... Some how the notion that any use of first strike potential by either party would ensure their own destruction managed to keep the peace.
With this example, why wouldn't Iran want nuclear weapons since Israel has them?

Ricky:

I suspect Danivon is simply seeing the situation from Irans point of view.

Agreed.

Ricky:

ray, there are lots of reasons why iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. here's ten.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... -bomb-7802

Ricky:

With this example, why wouldn't Iran want nuclear weapons since Israel has them?

Which is it? Pause so Ricky can feel some sort of embarrassment over his shifting position.

I'll tell you: yes, they do want nuclear weapons. They want them because they have learned that if you have them your regime is very secure. The supreme leader of the "somewhat Democratic" regime of Iran has noticed that the supreme leader of North Korea has more leverage. They also want them so that they can push around their Sunni neighbors. They want them so much that they are willing to strangle their economy for them.

(Incidentally, Ukraine gave up their nukes as part of their independence. Perhaps they are questioning that decision, or at least the western promises that went into it.)

But the question isn't why shouldn't Iran want nukes. The question is whether you want Iran to have nukes. Do you?

ray

I'll tell you: yes, they do want nuclear weapons

If they sign a deal in the next months will your certainty be dissolved?

ray

But the question isn't why shouldn't Iran want nukes. The question is whether you want Iran to have nukes. Do you

I'd rather have no one with nuclear weapons.
But I don't have a problem with Iran having nuclear powered generators that abide by the non-proliferation treaties.

Why should they entirely trust Israel? Why wouldn't they feel threatrened by Israel's possesssion of nuclear weapons.

Well I guess this question can be justifiably be answered with another question. Does Eritrea or Kenya or the Maldives or Malta feel threatened by Israel's nukes ? They're all well within range of them after all. The reason Iran might feel threatened is because Iran chooses to be an enemy of Israel.

Ricky:

ray

I'll tell you: yes, they do want nuclear weapons

If they sign a deal in the next months will your certainty be dissolved?

Well, of course they want nuclear weapons. A deal doesn't change that. At issue is how much they want them and what are they willing to sacrifice.

Frankly, and this is where we started on this tangent, I believe that the US (and western Europe) continue to telegraph weakness both as it relates to Ukraine and Iran. US Presidents and their behavior are extensively studied and I think they conclude that Obama is not really a fighter. He is cautious. He is cerebral. His political career is partially based on voting against the Iraq authorization and pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not getting involved in other wars. He won't necessarily follow through on his red lines.

I'm not optimistic that any deal, if there is a deal, will have sufficient teeth to curb Iranian ambitions. I am also not optimistic that Iran would follow through on any deal.

Ricky:

But I don't have a problem with Iran having nuclear powered generators

Do you really think that is what's it's about?

I read through the ten reasons Iran does not want a nuclear weapon. That was a good for a chuckle--sure a country with large oil reserves so needs nuclear power that it would endure severe sanctions for a small amount of nuclear energy...Do I think it is fair that Iran is not being allowed to build nuclear weapons when the US and Israel has them? No it's not fair. Too bad, it would be harmful to our interests and we have the power to stop it. I don't think Iran would use nuclear weapons, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would change the balance of power on the Middle East, make it more likely to sponsor terrorism and/or intervene in other neighboring states , more likely to be aggressive against Israel, etc...ultimately, I do believe the development of the weapon is directed in some sense against Israel. They smile and say what idiot would think of using one weapon against 5,000? Of course because they have a deeper plan and they smile because they think we're idiots. But we're not idiots.
The only thing that matters is this analysis:

(1) Does Iran need nuclear power? No. They have large oil reserves and they can use natural gas for electricity.
(2) Even if nuclear power would help a little with their energy needs, would that be worth the sanctions if their only goal was developing nuclear energy? I think the clear answer is no.
(3) Given the above, what is their real purpose in developing nuclear power? To develop a weapon, since other reasons have been excluded.

sass

Does Eritrea or Kenya or the Maldives or Malta feel threatened by Israel's nukes ? They're all well within range of them after all.

Also in range are the KSA, Qatar, Egypt, Iraq etc.
If what your saying is that neighbors of Israel should be cowed into behaving as Israel would wish them, or as benign minnow states .... you are making the case for Iran's wanting nuclear weapons.A needed balance, from the Arab's/Iranian point of view...

If Israel didn't possess nuclear weapons would Iran want them so much?

ray

Do you really think that is what's it's about?

I think Iran does want to build nuclear power reactors.
I think some in Iran want nuclear weapons. Mostly because they fear Israel and the projection of power by Israel. And the US. From Whence extreme politicians have threatened Iran.
I think the moderates in Iran who are willing to get by without the weapons will persevere.

Since Iran is providing the most effective fighting forces against ISIS, and are allied against ISIS, the dynamic in the region has changed as well....
You'll notice that the White House is shutting out the Israelis from any knowledge of the state of talks with Iran on the matter.... A trust issue...

freeman

(1) Does Iran need nuclear power? No. They have large oil reserves and they can use natural gas for electricity

its actually more complex than that.
Nuclear energy production could actually take less money to develop and require fewer changes to the way Iran operates its economy. Which is why some conservative Iranians are interested in nuclear. Gas and Oil will require an opening up of the Iranian economy, the influences of which which some fear.
Plus nuclear is pushed as a clean fuel, and Iran is already trying to produce clean energy.

http://www.energypost.eu/outcome-nuclea ... le-energy/

Also in range are the KSA, Qatar, Egypt, Iraq etc.
If what your saying is that neighbors of Israel should be cowed into behaving as Israel would wish them, or as benign minnow states .... you are making the case for Iran's wanting nuclear weapons.A needed balance, from the Arab's/Iranian point of view...

KSA, Qatar, Egypt and Iraq don't really fear Israeli nukes either. Or if they do they don't fear that Israel will use them pre-emptively. The difference with Iran is that the Iranians are actively sponsoring violence against Israel.

It's ludicrous to suggest that Iran needs nukes to protect against Israel when they wouldn't need any such protection were it not for their own actions.

Ricky:

Since Iran is providing the most effective fighting forces against ISIS, and are allied against ISIS, the dynamic in the region has changed as well....
You'll notice that the White House is shutting out the Israelis from any knowledge of the state of talks with Iran on the matter.... A trust issue...

I agree. Another way to put that is Obama is afraid that the Israelis will dissect the deal and explain why they believe it is insufficient to stop Iran from developing nukes; the Israelis will appeal to the American people and the US Congress, and Obama will feel challenged in explaining why it is a good deal and how he saved the day.

ray

I agree. Another way to put that is Obama is afraid that the Israelis will dissect the deal and explain why they believe it is insufficient to stop Iran from developing nukes; the Israelis will appeal to the American people and the US Congress, and Obama will feel challenged in explaining why it is a good deal and how he saved the day.

Recent polls in the US have shown that this might not be the out come. In the short term the upcoming address to Congress will provide an indication of who has more support on this matter. Obama or Netanahyu.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... s-get-lost

This is an interesting poll on Israel public opinion about nuclear weapons by the way.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... ra/695.php

sass

The difference with Iran is that the Iranians are actively sponsoring violence against Israel.

And Israel and the US have sponsored groups in Iran like MEK.
Plus Israel has promoted heavy media discussions over the strategic bombing of certain Iranian installations.
There's no saints here.
When you minimize Iranian concerns over Israel's nukes, i think you simply fail to objectively consider the situation. You may not be able to imagine that Israel might use a nuclear weapon in a strategic fashion. But its really not hard to imagine it from an Iranians point of view.
And frankly, i don't think its entirely out of the realm of possibility with the current Israelis government.
I'd be much more comfortable if Israel were willing to come clean on its weapons and offer to give them up. Not likely is it?