IAEA report on Iran due 9 replies

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,814 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#1 6 years ago

Tomorrow the IAEA will publish a new report on Iran's nuclear program. There have been some rumors that the report will contain evidence that suggests that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Supposedly there is evidence that Iran has been working on computer simulations and experiments involving explosives necessary for nuclear weapons. The Washington Post also reports that Iran received help from Korean, Pakistani and Russian nuclear weapon scientists and has all the information necessary to assemble a nuclear weapon. However, as the IAEA has limited access to Iran, the evidence may come from foreign intelligence agencies. And those lost much of their credibility after 9/11 and the Iraq war.

While Israel ratches up war rhetoric ("a military solution is now more likely than a diplomatic one") Russia has stated that an attack on Iran would be a grave mistake.

If Iran is working on a nuclear weapon then time is running out for Israel and the US to do something about it. With the Libya campaign ending and military forces being withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan the US could now concentrate on a new target. However, anything except for air strikes, which will most likely only delay a program, is unlikely given the economic situation.

My guess is that the US isn't interested in military action at this time but would like to seem as menacing as possible to get international support for meaningful sanctions. Israel, however, seems to be more than happy to send some bombs Iran's way and I doubt that the US could stay out of that conflict. So if the US fails to intimidate Iran sufficiently (and that doesn't usually work so well) it may be time to buy stocks of cruise missile producing companies.

Another aspect to consider is that an attack on Iran's enrichment facilities may lead to significant nuclear fallout. I can't find any good information on this, but mixing gaseous uranium and bombs can't be good.

BBC News - Russia: Israeli threat of strikes on Iran 'a mistake'




CKY2K

Mark it Zero, Dude...

50 XP

31st October 2005

0 Uploads

2,237 Posts

0 Threads

#2 6 years ago

Looks like this Gringo's movin' to Mexico...




Asheekay

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

20th August 2008

0 Uploads

1,377 Posts

0 Threads

#3 6 years ago

If Israel makes the first move, US would have to step in for their interests would be severely damaged in case Israel suffers heavy losses in the onslaught. A ruin of Israel will not mark a military threat to USA but obviously it will cause a massive blow on the economic and political balance of the country.

And if Israel is serious about taking the irrevocable step then the more late they make, the more time they are giving Iran to prepare for it. Furthermore, the balance of pressure in south-asia will terribly be disrupted with a war, if one does happen. Pakistan and China will face increasing military pressure (in case Iran ends up like Afghanistan) and India will determine the balance in favor of USA or China with its political (and trade/military) alliance. But Pakistan and China would definitely not be letting this happen. In case of an Israel-Iran war, there will inevitably follow another war in the zone in which India will be one partner. Doubtless to say, it will have USA and Israel's military and political support. Whether Pakistan and China unite forces on this front is a matter than only time will determine.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,814 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#4 6 years ago

I don't really see the connection to India. Even Pakistan is somewhat removed from this. You'd get some sort of third-order effects from Iran on Afghanistan on Pakistan on India, but that probably won't amount to much.

As for Israel, I don't think they would suffer many casualties in an attack on Iran. What will hurt them is Iran's response through Syria and Lebanon. And there is nothing the US can do about that. So Israel just has to look at the costs (increased terror from neighbouring countries) vs. the benefits (delay to Iranian nuclear weapon).




Asheekay

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

20th August 2008

0 Uploads

1,377 Posts

0 Threads

#5 6 years ago

Wait ... you say there will be a third-order effect on China and Pakistan? Lets assess.

First off, Pakistan and Iran are planning gas pipelines and large scale electricity supply projects. In case Iran gets hits after the laying out of the pipelines and electrical infrastructure, Pakistan would suffer a direct dependence on USA for its most vital resources.

As of China, Gawadar (Pakistan's recently developed naval port) is going to serve as the gateway for Chinese products into the wester world. This trade route is shorter and cheaper than China's own eastern naval route for goods export. And Gawadar lies to the very south of Pakistan, very close to Iran. So in case Iran falls to America, will China and Pakistan not suffer a permanent economic threat?




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,814 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#6 6 years ago

Asheekay;5582941Wait ... you say there will be a third-order effect on China and Pakistan? Lets assess.

First off, Pakistan and Iran are planning gas pipelines and large scale electricity supply projects. In case Iran gets hits after the laying out of the pipelines and electrical infrastructure, Pakistan would suffer a direct dependence on USA for its most vital resources.

As of China, Gawadar (Pakistan's recently developed naval port) is going to serve as the gateway for Chinese products into the wester world. This trade route is shorter and cheaper than China's own eastern naval route for goods export. And Gawadar lies to the very south of Pakistan, very close to Iran. So in case Iran falls to America, will China and Pakistan not suffer a permanent economic threat?

An air attack on nuclear facilities wouldn't necessarily involve oil pipelines. That might happen as answer to Iranian retaliation though. In that case some places may have to pay more for oil for a while, but so what? Chances are that everyone is going to have to pay more for oil whenever there is a war in the Middle East. That is hardly going to cause a war anywhere else.

The same is true for any Pakistani trading hubs, they simply won't be affected as Iran won't just cease to exist (well, hopefully) or annexed by th US. The strongest consequence might be a regime change (unlikely) and that might be beneficial to pretty much everyone except for Syria as numerous sanctions on a resource-rich country would then be lifted.

Besides, its not like the Chinese have any trouble selling their goods all over the world as it is. If the West wanted to threaten the Chinese export market they wouldn't have to go to the length of wagign war on other countries. They could just sink the Chinese freighters in front of their own shores.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago

Well, the IAEA report did go on and declare that Iran does have the material and signs of building a bomb.

I guess that'll pile more pressure onto Iran now, what with the accusations from the US regarding the alleged assassination plot of the Saudi ambassador. It'll probably further isolate it too. At least put the parts into place to continue the further isolation of Iran.

Israel can bomb all it wants, but you can't effect something like a regime change solely from the air. Iran's not simply going to go 'lol ok' and back off like Iraq did when they got their reactor bombed (then again, it was in the beginning months of war with Iran and couldn't risk getting into another one) in such an act of aggression. Considering the tensions as they are there's going to be some bad consequences if it does blow up.

Plus I suppose this also brings up the question of how Israel can do what it desires. It's doubtful that Iraq or Jordan would be willing to allow their airspace to be violated in that matter to carry out the strike.

As for the potential effects of a war that may lead to some collapse in government and/or regime change? There's a lot that can happen. Iran has a strong position in Asian markets and enjoys reasonably strong border trade as well as agreements with other nations. Iran has put its trade with its neighbors in South Asia as well as growing trade with Middle-Eastern nations. Turkey has built up reasonably good trade ties too.

Personally I'm rather worried at the implications of what instability might occur in Iran if a genuine war happens. It'll remove an economic powerhouse for some time, even if sanctions are gone, considering the amount of restructuring it'll have to do. Never mind the crazy corruption and thievery we'll see when some Iranian ex-pats return with nothing on their mind but making a quick buck, like we saw in Iraq. It'll be corruption central and the people of Iran are going to go even deeper into a hole as a result. Plus the different groups that desire the power of a nation with potential like Iran will fight on the streets, like they did after 1979.

Then there's the other issues with the borders. Kurds in the northwest are going to get restive and demand some level of autonomy from any new order in Tehran like their counterparts did in Iraq, and there's a good chance that Turkey will get itself involved in this respect. Pressure'll then be on a new Tehran- risk angering a partner in Turkey and worsening its credibility by recognizing the Kurdish demands, or get the Kurds angry and cause an insurrection? Then there's the Balochi's on the border regions between Iran and Pakistan that'll no doubt see this as an opportunity to breathe life back into their movement. Never mind that you already got the instability of Afghanistan now given a possibility to spread out.

With the political instabilities as they are in the Middle-East with discontent from the populace and the ongoing economic down turn, the fact that they're focusing on war plans and such is rather baffling to me. I'm sure Israel of all nations has thought this through and come to the realization that such a confrontation may not go over too well in the long run.

But in the mean time we'll see more flexing and war exercises. Who knows where it'll go.




Asheekay

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

20th August 2008

0 Uploads

1,377 Posts

0 Threads

#8 6 years ago

MrFancypants;5582983An air attack on nuclear facilities wouldn't necessarily involve oil pipelines.[/QUOTE]

Correct. It can, however make the project delayed by decades.

MrFancypants;5582983 The same is true for any Pakistani trading hubs, they simply won't be affected as Iran won't just cease to exist (well, hopefully) or annexed by th US. The strongest consequence might be a regime change (unlikely) and that might be beneficial to pretty much everyone except for Syria as numerous sanctions on a resource-rich country would then be lifted.

Can you say the same for Afghanistan and Iraq? They don't cease to exist now, but there's nothing left of the people's will anymore. Things are never the same again for a war-stricken country.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5582983]Besides, its not like the Chinese have any trouble selling their goods all over the world as it is. If the West wanted to threaten the Chinese export market they wouldn't have to go to the length of wagign war on other countries. They could just sink the Chinese freighters in front of their own shores.

Like that? Think again. Maybe ... its even a bit hard to think about doing it rather than practically doing it. China might prove different than Iraq and Afghanistan. No?




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,814 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#9 6 years ago
Asheekay;5583517 Can you say the same for Afghanistan and Iraq? They don't cease to exist now, but there's nothing left of the people's will anymore. Things are never the same again for a war-stricken country.

Considering that both Iraq and Afghanistan were ruled by a radical minority I'd say that the will of their people is, if anything, more prevalent than before the wars.

Like that? Think again. Maybe ... its even a bit hard to think about doing it rather than practically doing it. China might prove different than Iraq and Afghanistan. No?

Obviously there is no reason to do, I'm just saying that if they wanted to do it they wouldn't have to go and invade Iran first.




Asheekay

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

20th August 2008

0 Uploads

1,377 Posts

0 Threads

#10 6 years ago

@Mr F Pants:

It would be too subjective to say that wrt the reaction of their public after their countries were taken over.

And when you target a dragon like China, you don't confront it simple like that. You try undermining tactics first ... like ... disrupting their trade routes and choking their economy.