Possible solution to Dr. Berman's Iranian Nuclear concerns

Well, there are two sets of heads that need to be cooled down - those in Iran and those in D.C. My suspicion is that the heads in D.C. are just using uranium enrichment as an excuse to push for regime change. (Remember, war is good for the war profiteers....) Time will tell.

 

It definitely sounds like a positive development. I think there's a lot that the US could do to help push this through. We just have to try to avoid pushing too hard for our own agenda, as some of the states in the area wouldn't like some of the things we could propose to go along with this...

At minimum, though, i hope this will lead to some serious talks. At least while they're talking about this, it'll be next to impossible for us to start another war - and if the talks last long enough, we'll have another president in control...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Nov 2 2007, 05:44 PM) [snapback]534092[/snapback]</div>

Excellent. They should stop immediately all their work on enrichment! And then they should do what they should have done all along if they wanted nuclear power plants - buy one from Toshiba or Siemans or GE. They even can find ways to help them get the material needed to power it.

As a sign of good faith, Iran should immediately open up all its nuclear facilities to Swiss and EU and UN nuclear officials for detailed inspection.

The question remains, why do they need to create again the production cycle for nuclear materials? There are lots of countries with nuclear power plants that do not make their own nuclear fuel.

It is my opinion that Iran is trying to obfuscate long enough to get to the next presidential election and they are praying for someone to get elected that will turn a blind eye towards them getting nukes. It is also my opinion that allowing iran to go nuclear would be one of the most tragic mistakes we could ever make.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 5 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]534948[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. Not that it would good for Iran to have nukes, but the threat simply isn't preventable. Pakistan has nukes and may be on the brink of becoming an Islamic state. And if Iran doesn't get nukes in the next 5 years then they will in 10, or 15. And if they don't get nukes, then Syria will, or Saudia Arabia, or Sudan, or Uzbekistan, or...

I think the far greater near term threat is Pakistan. I am not sure what the answer is, except that the Iraq war isn't the answer. Wars like Iraq will drain us dry. Another ewar in Iran would also be a tragic mistake and at best would only delay the inevitable.

Being the world's police force does not work. We need to find another way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 5 2007, 11:08 AM) [snapback]534948[/snapback]</div>

See, these are exactly the type of tactics i was saying the administration should avoid. Part of diplomacy is about not requesting that the other side give up everything just to please you. Wouldn't it be enough that we're moving in the right direction? Nuclear experts have stated that Iran won't be building a bomb in the next year - it's more like 5 years off from their current stage of nuclear development, even if they wanted to (which they still deny).

Bring them and the other states in the area to the table. Start discussions. but don't demand that they stop immediately. You'll get resistance. They might even walk away from the table because you're being too pigheaded to even try to meet them half way. A wise man once said that a compromise leaves both sides dissatisfied with the result. You aren't going to get everything you want, Berman, so stop trying. Aim for that which is attainable, then move on from there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 5 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]534990[/snapback]</div>

I agree with your threat assessment. Even france has a chance given the demographic shifts taking place to become an islamic country in the next 40-50 years.

That being said, you can slow the process of iran obtaining nukes if not stop it dead by destroying their facilities like was done in Syria Sept 6 this year. It is very difficult for a country to develop from scratch a nuclear program. There are choke points along the processing and manufacturing cycle that can be taken care of without invading iran or killing lots of people.

I would also posit that the world has to become the worlds police force - it is unacceptable for countries like iran who call for the destruction of other countries, who support terror to become nuclear powers. I, at the least, would be proactive about it and not accept it as a done deal.

the world bank just ok's nearly 1 billion $ for iran over the next three years! the world has to get together and shut down iran as long as they seek to become a nuclear power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 5 2007, 01:30 PM) [snapback]535007[/snapback]</div>

I think you need to look at each individual country on a case to case basis. With Iran you have a country that:

1. has called for the destruction of a sovereign nation
2. that actively supports well documented terror organizations around the world
3. is actively involved in the war in iraq in aiding and abetting forces that attack and kill American soldiers
4. that denies its own people basic rights and liberties

It would be a mistake to categorize Iran as a nation with peaceful intentions and turn a blind eye towards its nuclear program.

I would love for them to open their entire program to independent inspectors - we know where their facilities are - let them be inspected. If they are indeed designed for peaceful purposes they have nothing to fear.

There is little room for compromise with nuclear weapons, especially when those seeking them have yet to act in a basic and decent way in terms of human rights for others.

Stopping their program is attainable - fairly easily too - with little or no risk to American or even Iranian life.

No one knows how far they are from developing nukes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 5 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]535036[/snapback]</div>

Irans nuclear facilities have been and are currently being inspected.They are a member of the IAEA and are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Dr Berman,How many times does this need to be repeated before you stop spewing nonsense ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 5 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]535036[/snapback]</div>

my good doctor, do you really think we can go in and tell Iran "stop everything you're doing and do things our way" and they'll listen?

It's called diplomacy. I'm not saying turn a blind eye on them. What i am saying is that we need to do things the right way, and the right way isn't to act like the big bully on the playground.

Also, to your points:
1. So have we when we've called for regime changes in Iraq and Iran, which is all they're calling for in Israel.
2. What about our "friends" in Saudi Arabia?
3. What about our "friends" in Saudi Arabia?
4. The same could be said about any number of different countries. It's not our place to dictate to the world how they should treat their own citizens.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 5 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]535040[/snapback]</div>

They have been less than forthcoming and have kicked the inspectors out too. They have numerous violation including if i remember correctly the presence of certain isotopes that would not normally be found in peaceful nuclear programs.

an article where iran let the inspectors back in:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2125811,00.html

one were they blocked them:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

how do we even know if they have notified the UN of all of its sites? Why build some of them underground????

and of course, how do we explain the presence of the Syrian nuclear facility that the UN did know about that Israel destroyed two months ago - do you think that iran could pull the same trick?

again, if you honestly think that iran is developing a peaceful nuclear program to generate electricity - fine - we disagree. i say, why not buy a nuclear power plant from toshiba or siemans or ge and save billions and get it online much quicker?

i would be far less concerned if iran acted in a manner that exemplified a belief in human rights, in human life and did not support terrorism around the world, and it did not deny the Holocaust, and it did not call for the destruction of a sovereign country numerous times - a nation founded from the ashes of the Holocaust.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 5 2007, 04:47 PM) [snapback]535048[/snapback]</div>

1. Israel is a democracy that has had peaceful elections since its inception and has changed governments numerous times peacefully. they dont have regimes. they have had peace governments like this one and others, and they have had other more realistic leaderships during tougher times. either way i ask you to name a country in the middle east where the individual citizen has the same rights and liberties as israelis do?
2. i am lost about your saudia arabia point - although they for sure dont want a nuclear armed iran
4. it is our place to do our best to spread democracy and freedom and liberty as far as possible. hence our standing up to the soviet union and the freeing of the eastern european countries - we not be able to free the iranians yet - but we for sure should not let the current dictators there get their hands on nukes - my opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 5 2007, 04:05 PM) [snapback]535056[/snapback]</div>

Syria was not a member of the IAEA and was not inspected.BUT the IAEA says there is no clear evidence of any Syrian nuclear program and is still studying the matter.Israel hasnt provided any evidence.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 5 2007, 04:05 PM) [snapback]535056[/snapback]</div>

Except for when Rabin was assassinated by the right wing after signing the Oslo Accords and winning the Nobel Peace prize.No wonder you have so much disdain for the Nobel Peace prize.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 5 2007, 04:05 PM) [snapback]535056[/snapback]</div>

Well its certainly not the Palestinians.

 

All of that is from your point of view. Is it at all remotely possible that from their point of view things look differently? Seriously...

As for Saudi Arabia, take a look at this thread:
http://priuschat.com/Saudi-Arabia-and-Terrorism-t40489.html
"the Saudis make up 55% of foreign fighters in Iraq. They are also among the most uncompromising and militant."

We stood up to the Soviets not because we wanted to spread Democracy, but because we wanted to spread our influence - we didn't want them to develop a global support network stronger than ours.

This whole concept of Manifest Destiny that you seem to be pushing is really pure rubbish. It's not our place to force governments on other people - If they want a different form of government, let them rise up against it themselves. why should we sacrifice our service men to give them something they might not even want?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 5 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]535048[/snapback]</div>

Excuse me, Ahmadinejad did not call for a regime change, i.e., change of government. He advocated the elimination of a sovereign nation and its replacement by a Palestinian state. In my mind this is no different from the Arab leaders who called for throwing the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea in the fifties and sixties. I remember it well, it made quite an impression on me as I was growing up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 5 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]535040[/snapback]</div>

Umm. Yes and no. The facilities that are being inspected are the ones that have been published/declared and are above ground. There are likely other facilities that are 'black' - undeclared and underground where the enrichment is occurring. There is a very good reason why Iran will not consent to inspection of the undeclared facilities - the U.S. will have agents on the inspection teams and the agents will have GPS devices to register the precise location of each facility. Then when the need arises, the facilities will be taken out with an enhanced (30,000 lb) deep ground penetrating bomb that will be delivered by B-2 Spirit bombers. This has happened once before - during Bill Clinton's tenure, when inspectors were blocked from Iraq. The U.N. inspectors were blocked from inspecting/looking for WMD and Bill Clinton ordered a series of air strikes that precisely targeted each and every facility that had been previously visited. The only thing that would be different is the 30,000 lb deep penetrating bomb delivered by the B-2 Spirit bombers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 5 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]535156[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps you misunderstood them. What if instead of going to war with them, Israel had welcomed their armies? They may have found out that they were merely wanting to help the Jews learn to swim and enjoy the warm waters of the Mediterranean, and the talk about annihilation was simply the Arab way of speaking. There is so much we don't understand about them! "Drive them into the sea" probably means the same as when I say I will "drive my neighbors to the sea shore". Doesn't that make you feel better?

After all, everyone is really just like us, and if you reason with them, you can come to a diplomatic solution without, as the subtitle to this thread says, spilling a "drop of blood". I have never had to bludgeon my neighbor to get his dog from pooping on my lawn, and boy, I have to tell you I was testy about that! But our neighborhood council met and we came to a decision and have stationed little poop-bag dispensers around the neighborhood now. Since everyone the world over is really just like us, we should just get together, and figure out what kind of "poop bag dispenser" we need to solve the middle east problems. Its all so simple, really. And remember, this solution doesn't cost a single "drop of blood".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 5 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]535093[/snapback]</div>

first things first - the palestinians in israel have more rights and a better quality of life than palestinians living within the PA - aint that ironic?

still not sure about what assasinations have to do about free elections. they happen even in israel and here is the US.

still waiting for you to name one Democracy outside of israel in the middle east?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 5 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]535099[/snapback]</div>

so we were wrong in declaring war on germany to force that change in government? and we were wrong to fight the soviets to change that form of government. and poland? and on and on.

it is our place in the world to do our best to make sure each and every human being is treated fairly and has basic human rights - like liberty and freedom and a free judiciary. if you dont share that point of view - fine.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 5 2007, 08:03 PM) [snapback]535156[/snapback]</div>

what is your opinion of the current iranian nuclear program and what the free world and specifically the US should do?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Nov 5 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]535200[/snapback]</div>

i would hope our current level of technoloy allows us to know precisely where there facilities are both above and below ground. there should be no need for humans with gps devices on the ground in iran identifying them for us.

 

You don't have this point of view Doctor B, have you seen the tread on waterboarding?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 6 2007, 03:43 AM) [snapback]535391[/snapback]</div>

Iran occupies a rather large land mass. Even with narrowing down to likely locations based on proximity to electrical resources and the like, there would need to be daily overflights to be able to map suspect locations based on radioactive emissions. We don't have the ability to check containers that are inbound aboard ships to the U.S. for radioactive content (and we know where the containers are physically located). What makes you think there is some technology that enables us to map radioactive sources precisely enough to be able to use for targeting in a bombing run?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 6 2007, 05:43 AM) [snapback]535391[/snapback]</div>

Is it really all just that simple to you? Every time we've gone to war it's because we wanted to change the other side?

Germany:
WW I - We went to war because they attacked us.
WW II - Germany declared war on us first.

Soviets: We never fought them directly. The cold war wasn't about one form of government against another, it was about distrust and massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

What does Poland have to do with anything? They were just another front in the cold war, as already explained.

Sometimes regime changes are a result of war, but in most cases we haven't gone to war with the specific intention of changing a regime.

Let me ask you something, Dr. B. If some other country with some other form of government came and invaded America because they thought that they had a superior form of government and were "helping" us, would you welcome them with open arms? After all, they have good intentions, and things might be better after thousands or millions are killed.

Thats what we did in Iraq. Thats what some people seem to want to do in Iran. Did the Iraqi citizenry ask for our help before we invaded? What about those in Iran? They have a different way of life over there, one that has worked for them for hundreds of years. If they want to change it, i'm all for that, and might even support aiding them. But to impose a change on them because we think its better for them is wrong, and it will only make them angry and force them to lash out at us, like we're seeing in Iraq.