President Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

[Omnis]

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Iran is enriching Uranium for weapons use.

It's a shame that Israeli and American intelligence is riddled with confirmation bias.

 

[Touring Mars]

Nuclear weapons are all that's being discussed here, and they do not have a right to have those. Iran is making clear overtures to indicate that they're breaching the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Both Israel and the US are making clear overtures that we're willing to enforce that treaty. The rest of the civilized world should be as well. If Iran is developing nuclear arms (something they're NOT allowed to do based on their own agreements), the parties on the other side of that treaty should be prepared to either negotiate new terms (won't happen from the US or Israel), strike the offending facilities (most likely), or invalidate the treaty by refusing to take action. That last approach weakens those nations' entire foreign policy.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Iran are perceived to be breaching the treaty, which wouldn't be allowed because they signed it... but there's no evidence that Iran are even close to having any nuclear weapons whatsoever. Israel are not breaching the treaty because they refused to sign the treaty in the first place... but they do have nuclear weapons! So Iran are the bad guys here?

What is confusing the issue is that Iran do have the right to a nuclear programme - for producing energy. They are also making belligerent noises about flattening Israel, but then again, Israel is threatening to attack Iran and potentially knock out their nuclear energy programme completely, so is it any wonder Iran would respond with a similar threat of military action?

I say the onus is well and truly on Israel to prove beyond doubt (and not just assume) that Iran are not only developing weapons, but are planning to use them too...

I don't know what gives Israel (a non-signatory of the treaty) the right to enforce the rules of that treaty on a country that doesn't (as far as the evidence shows anyway) isn't even breaking the rules...!

 

[Danoff]

but there's no evidence that Iran are even close to having any nuclear weapons whatsoever.

Close to having weapons isn't required (or desirable) - developing them is sufficient.

Israel are not breaching the treaty because they refused to sign the treaty in the first place... but they do have nuclear weapons! So Iran are the bad guys here?

Kinda, yea. Better to not sign an agreement than to sign it and break it. Perhaps if the Israeli government waxed poetic about how wondrous it would be to commit mass genocide and basically finish off Hitler-esque ethnic cleansing I'd have a different view of them.

What is confusing the issue is that Iran do have the right to a nuclear programme - for producing energy.

Yea, surrounded by a sea of oil but dependent on nuclear power for... energy, yea, we'll say it's energy.

They are also making belligerent noises about flattening Israel

As always.

but then again, Israel is threatening to attack Iran and potentially knock out their nuclear energy programme completely

As always.

so is it any wonder Iran would respond with a similar threat of military action?

No, it's no wonder. Is it justified? I don't think so. If someone threatens to blow up facilities you're not even supposed to have after you've basically claimed you're going to use those facilities to wipe them off the face of the earth I think maybe getting pissed off isn't justifiable position.

I say the onus is well and truly on Israel to prove beyond doubt (and not just assume) that Iran are not only developing weapons

There does need to be proof - but beyond doubt is an impossible standard.

but are planning to use them too...

Well... that's not necessary according to the NPT, but I suppose if someone enforces the NPT you think it should be the US. So perhaps Israel should be giving us the "amber" light to drop some bombs.

I don't know what gives Israel (a non-signatory of the treaty) the right to enforce the rules of that treaty on a country that doesn't (as far as the evidence shows anyway) isn't even breaking the rules...!

a) They're almost certainly breaking the rules (note that I still think real evidence is needed)
b) Would you be happier if it were the US?

Israel is the most interested party in this situation. Is it ok if we hire them cheap to do our dirty work? Because that's kinda what we're doing.

 

[Joey D]

Yea, surrounded by a sea of oil but dependent on nuclear power for... energy, yea, we'll say it's energy.

Oil isn't going to last forever and I get the feeling it would be more economical viable for a middle eastern nation to sell the oil instead of using it for their own energy. I'm not sure how the sale of oil works, but it seems like someone is making out pretty good on the whole thing judging by the price per barrel of the stuff.

 

[Danoff]

Oil isn't going to last forever and I get the feeling it would be more economical viable for a middle eastern nation to sell the oil instead of using it for their own energy. I'm not sure how the sale of oil works, but it seems like someone is making out pretty good on the whole thing judging by the price per barrel of the stuff.

That argument works for you? Because it seems painfully obvious why they're so attached to their nuclear program.

 

[Joey D]

That argument works for you? Because it seems painfully obvious why they're so attached to their nuclear program.

Until they state making weapons and waving them around we have no proof to say the only reason they are developing nuclear energy is to make WMD's. You need proof and evidence before you go flying in and blowing up facilities.

Honestly I don't know why they would be developing the programme, but I'm not going to automatically assume they are making weapons. Think about the oil sheiks, wouldn't they want to sell it to the outside world (probably for a greater profit) than burn it in their own country? Oil is the hottest commodity right now, why not sell it and make truck loads of money and just develop nuclear power instead?

Could they be making weapons? Sure I don't want to discount that, but like I said unless we have concrete evidence they have they I don't think we should take action. If we do get evidence though I think diplomatic means would be in order before we start shooting.

 

[Danoff]

Until they state making weapons and waving them around we have no proof to say the only reason they are developing nuclear energy is to make WMD's.

I'm not sure we'd need to wait THAT long. And I don't think we have NO evidence. But the declassified evidence doesn't seem sufficient to convict.

There does need to be proof... note that I still think real evidence is needed

That being said, it's pretty clear that it's what they're up to. Not actionably clear, but clear enough for internet discussion purposes.

Oil is the hottest commodity right now, why not sell it and make truck loads of money and just develop nuclear power instead?

Perhaps if they weren't making the same argument when oil was dirt cheap you'd have something here. Nuclear weapons are the goal, and Israel is the target. They've pretty much stated it.

If we do get evidence though I think diplomatic means would be in order before we start shooting.

Depends on how far along they are and how much diplomatic pressure we can apply.

 

[Kylehnat]

There does need to be proof - but beyond doubt is an impossible standard.
...
They're almost certainly breaking the rules (note that I still think real evidence is needed)

I think there has been some pretty conclusive proof that they're up to no good. I seem to remember a story from a couple years ago where they were caught enriching uranium well beyond the 3-4% necessary for energy production, and that their nuclear facilities are far more advanced than Mr. Burns' atom-smashing mill. If these two things are true, they're guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even if they haven't made a single weapon yet. If the cops find your suitcase full of ingredients for meth, they're going to bust you for meth distribution, even though you don't technically have any.

Both Israel and the US are making clear overtures that we're willing to enforce that treaty. The rest of the civilized world should be as well.

That caught my eye. If this were the rest of the world telling Iran to back off, there would be a much different reaction. However, since our current leaders have no tact or diplomacy skills, it just looks like the U.S. is antagonizing another country again.

 

[Omnis]

Kinda, yea. Better to not sign an agreement than to sign it and break it. Perhaps if the Israeli government waxed poetic about how wondrous it would be to commit mass genocide and basically finish off Hitler-esque ethnic cleansing I'd have a different view of them.

Has the Israeli state not had the same attitude toward the Palestinians since displacing them?

 

[Danoff]

Has the Israeli state not had the same attitude toward the Palestinians since displacing them?

No

 

[Omnis]

No

Are you mistaking Ahmedinejad's "zionism" comment, then?