Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal?
#25
(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Iran's support of Hezbollah is no secret. How does that relate to Iran's nuclear capabilities? It doesn't.

Oh it doesn't? You don't think Iran would share some of its nukey goodness with their proxies in Hezbollah? It relates directly to why Israel continues to be so concerned about the Iranian nuclear capability. Not to mention the fact that they are already in range of the Iranian ballistic missile technology.


(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Exactly. So, you have no basis to speak for the White House and proclaim that "they know he's right". What you mean is "I, Jimbone, am convinced that he's right and I think the White House thinks he's right too". Big difference. In any case, I personally do not believe that the White House shares your view.


No, what I mean is simple: "I, Jimbone, have just read that the White House (the administration) has now admitted the timeline Israel claimed was the same timeline they had. Therefore, I used a statement proclaiming 'they know he is right', because they just conceded he was".

No one has to believe Secretary Moniz or the now declassified information...the White House doesn't have to believe or have the same view either... except now it appears they do because they are saying so.

If you don't want to believe what they are saying now either, that's your choice as well. I'm just repeating what they've said.


(04-22-2015, 09:45 AM)Jimbone Wrote: "Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: "Oh quite some time." He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward. That's the 2-3 months.

Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement. "


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/20...e-a-secret


(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: However, I addressed Netanyahu's claims regarding Iran's nuclear bombing readiness made over the last 2+ decades. If you're contending that the White House believes that Netanyahu is magic and has been accurately making the same time-immune claims all along, then Netanyahu and the White House believe that Iran has had the ability to launch a nuclear attack since the mid 90s. I don't think the White House believes that Netanyahu has been accurate every time he's made the same claim though -- that defies logic and common sense. One thing's for certain however, both Netanyahu and the White House know for a fact that Iran has never launched such an attack.


I don't believe Israel has any magic, but I think you're misrepresenting the past few decades worth of argument a bit. In the 90's Israel wasn't claiming Iran was 2-3 months from a bomb. They were warning that allowing their nuclear ambitions to succeed would keep them on the path toward the ability to make their material weaponized. In the 00's it wasn't a bomb in 2-3 months, it was about the increase in the number of centrifuges keeping them on that same path. Now it is about how close they are to development of a weapon, and the administration has admitted to concurring with the assessment of the Israeli timeline.

All that said, it is true that Netanyahu has always been an alarmist. I guess I would be too if someone not too far away from me - who has sworn the destruction of my entire culture - was endeavoring to build weapons that would do exactly that in a few seconds.


(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: And now, with the ability to control their nuclear progress and with increased global visibility via inspections and monitoring, we'll have much better data for assessing Iran's abilities and intentions to do so in the future.


Yes, just like it was in North Korea. Iran has been skirting inspections and not declaring activities in its nuclear program since the 90's. Forgive me for not trusting that it's going to work out this time either, or that they are going to change their ways.

We're not going to agree on this, but it's all good.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Iran and the day they married the bomb. - by Jimbone - 04-22-2015, 12:55 PM
Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal? - by Carsman - 07-29-2015, 08:40 AM