This sounds like a good plan to me. What do you think?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-cordesman-criteria/2012/08/23/b0a618b6-ed45-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html

He may have found his exception. “There are times when the best way to prevent war is to clearly communicate that it is possible,” he argues. Today, the threat of a U.S. attack is not taken seriously. Not by the region. Not by Iran. Not by the Israelis, who therefore increasingly feel forced to act before Israel’s more limited munitions — far less powerful and effective than those in the U.S. arsenal — can no longer penetrate Iran’s ever-hardening facilities.

Cordesman therefore proposes threefold action.

^{Of course it is for real and I almost always agree with Krauthammer.}

I agree with that analysis. Furthermore I suspect an Obama administration can live with a nuclear Iran and should they be re-elected then any unilateral action by Israel would not be willingly supported by Washington, hence an Israeli strike before the November election is possibly the best way of ensuring U.S support as it would then be a major election issue.

Of course had Washington not dithered and appeased the genocidal maniacs in Tehran we would probably never have reached this situation.

Cordesman envisages at least some negotiation. To negotiate, you have to find someone to negotiate with... not someone who just makes provocative statements (like the Ayatollah and Ahmedinajab).

Even if the US sets a Red Line beyond which it asserts it will attack Iran... would it really follow through if Iran went beyond the Red Line?

I think the threat is real; I think Netanyahu's threats are real. And while Cordesman's proposal is as good as any I've seen, I don't think it would work.

Krauthammer is indeed a genius with foresight.

Krauthammer in 2003 noted that the reconstruction of Iraq would provide many benefits for the Iraqi people, once the political and economic infrastructure destroyed by Saddam was restored:

"With its oil, its urbanized middle class, its educated population, its essential modernity, Iraq has a future. In two decades Saddam Hussein reduced its GDP by 75 percent. Once its political and industrial infrastructures are reestablished, Iraq's potential for rebound, indeed for explosive growth, is unlimited."

Krauthammer is indeed a genius with foresight.

Krauthammer in 2003 noted that the reconstruction of Iraq would provide many benefits for the Iraqi people, once the political and economic infrastructure destroyed by Saddam was restored:

"With its oil, its urbanized middle class, its educated population, its essential modernity, Iraq has a future. In two decades Saddam Hussein reduced its GDP by 75 percent. Once its political and industrial infrastructures are reestablished, Iraq's potential for rebound, indeed for explosive growth, is unlimited."

Yep, Krauthammer was right again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi Oil Exports To Rise To Highest In Over Two Decades

By Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk - Aug 23, 2012 11:15 PM GMT+0700

Iraq’s crude exports are set to rise to an average of 2.6 million barrels a day this month, the highest level in more than two decades, said Asim Jihad, a spokesman for the Oil Ministry.

The August tally includes some oil from the self-governing Kurdish region in the north of Iraq, he said. Shipments of one of Iraq’s export grades, Kirkuk, will increase in September from this month, according to a loading program obtained by Bloomberg News today.

“This record figure will be unprecedented since the 1980s, and is due to the increase in production and export capacities, especially from the southern terminals,” Jihad said by phone from Baghdad. “The increase is also due to the limited quantities of crude oil that Kurdistan has pumped since the beginning of the month.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/iraqi-oil-exports-to-rise-to-highest-in-over-two-decades.html

As I have previously tried to explain in other threads, the enrichment of uranium does not constitute any threat to world peace, the integrity of any country or the current political stability of the Middle East.

Uranium has to be enriched to be useful in nuclear power stations. In it's natural state less than three-quarters of one percent of uranium mined and marketed is of the 235 isotope. The rest is 238.

To be useful in a power plant the rods need to contain between 5% and 8% of 235 (if I remember my lecturers correctly).

To be useful in a nuclear weapon the enrichment needs to be nearer to 80% of 235 isotope. (Again, my memory does not go to exact figures). Therefore it should be easy to agree to a figure of say 20-25% enrichment as being the limit beyond which no nation or independent organisation should go. This should be easy to monitor as the higher the enrichment goes, the more difficult it is to achieve - on a more than geometric scale.

However, this begs the question of plutonium, which is produced during the process of operating a present-day nuclear plant. This can be extracted and set aside, but needs complicated and expensive extraction and storage/disposal. So there should be an international disposal body (such as the UAEA) which handles all used material from all nuclear power plants.

Or we could do things the easy way and use a thorium-hot salt process, which is inherently safe and does not produce fissile material.

As I have previously tried to explain in other threads, the enrichment of uranium does not constitute any threat to world peace, the integrity of any country or the current political stability of the Middle East.

Uranium has to be enriched to be useful in nuclear power stations. In it's natural state less than three-quarters of one percent of uranium mined and marketed is of the 235 isotope. The rest is 238.

To be useful in a power plant the rods need to contain between 5% and 8% of 235 (if I remember my lecturers correctly).

To be useful in a nuclear weapon the enrichment needs to be nearer to 80% of 235 isotope. (Again, my memory does not go to exact figures). Therefore it should be easy to agree to a figure of say 20-25% enrichment as being the limit beyond which no nation or independent organisation should go. This should be easy to monitor as the higher the enrichment goes, the more difficult it is to achieve - on a more than geometric scale.

However, this begs the question of plutonium, which is produced during the process of operating a present-day nuclear plant. This can be extracted and set aside, but needs complicated and expensive extraction and storage/disposal. So there should be an international disposal body (such as the UAEA) which handles all used material from all nuclear power plants.

Or we could do things the easy way and use a thorium-hot salt process, which is inherently safe and does not produce fissile material.

Your figures sound about right to me. The problem as I see it is the method used in enriching to the 20% for their research reactor. The usual, universal in fact, method used to enrich uranium to the level needed for rod production can also be used to take it above the level needed for their research reactor but not much further than that. There is no way it can reach the level needed for weapons. However, sometime in 2010 it was announced that a new cascade in Natanz was to start production of 20% enriched uranium but this cascade was of the 'upmarket' type which is only used for the production of highly enriched uranium. Whilst it is perfectly true that 20% enriched uranium can also be produced it is overkill to use this method and the only remaining 'step' required to produce weapons grade uranium is time, the ability is already there. At the very least, Iran is baiting the world and looking for a fight.

Or we could do things the easy way and use a thorium-hot salt process, which is inherently safe and does not produce fissile material.

Only if the Iranian government agree to it and they won't. The only interest they have in enriching uranium is to use as a weapon or getting so close that they can't be stopped when they are ready to produce one.

They are experts on stalling the international community. Allowing these hateful loons to get anywhere close to producing a nuclear weapon would be insane.

Or we could do things the easy way and use a thorium-hot salt process, which is inherently safe and does not produce fissile material.

Only if the Iranian government agree to it and they won't. The only interest they have in enriching uranium is to use as a weapon or getting so close that they can't be stopped when they are ready to produce one.

They are experts on stalling the international community. Allowing these hateful loons to get anywhere close to producing a nuclear weapon would be insane.

Fully agree.

Not saying enough is enough when Natanz was announced was, and still is, quite some gamble but it will pay off IMO. When it all kicks off it is going to be a cluster fuc_k, sometimes there is no good option, this way I think it is going to be the least bad.

Or we could do things the easy way and use a thorium-hot salt process, which is inherently safe and does not produce fissile material.

Only if the Iranian government agree to it and they won't. The only interest they have in enriching uranium is to use as a weapon or getting so close that they can't be stopped when they are ready to produce one.

They are experts on stalling the international community. Allowing these hateful loons to get anywhere close to producing a nuclear weapon would be insane.

Fully agree.

Not saying enough is enough when Natanz was announced was, and still is, quite some gamble but it will pay off IMO. When it all kicks off it is going to be a cluster fuc_k, sometimes there is no good option, this way I think it is going to be the least bad.

clusterfàck or not, short of bombing the whole country back to stone age it's only a matter of time till Iran will have, perhaps not a sophisticated, but a functional nuclear weapon. i'm also convinced that enough material is already today available to produce a simple "dirty" device.

If Namm on Thai Visa says so, it must be true.

If Namm on Thai Visa says so, it must be true.

it's not Namm but Naam and it is not necessarily true but merely an assumption from somebody who has studied relevant subjects.

p.s. i hope that my assumption is wrong.

I hope you're wrong, Naam, but I suspect you're right. It is very difficult to know what is going on inside Iran, and all our predictions are merely guesses.

My feeling is that Iran and Israel are both ratchetting up the situation... and eventually one or the other will launch a pre-emptive strike. I don't for a moment think Israel wants a war, but then who in their right senses does?

I hope you're wrong, Naam, but I suspect you're right. It is very difficult to know what is going on inside Iran, and all our predictions are merely guesses.

My feeling is that Iran and Israel are both ratchetting up the situation... and eventually one or the other will launch a pre-emptive strike. I don't for a moment think Israel wants a war, but then who in their right senses does?

Iran is not capable to launch a decisive pre-emptive strike and even if they were it would be a suicidal move. that the crazy Shias are prepared to commit suicide is in my [not so] humble view nothing but blah-blah.

by the way, i fully agree with you that Israel does not want a war no matter how much Bibi Netanyahu or the front running hardliners like Evet Lvovich Liberman (aka Avigdor Lieberman) are frothing around their mouths. dangerous is the fact that Israel is capable to cause havoc on Iran with its superb and sophisticated military might (secretly assisted by its mother hen the U.S. of A.).

I hope you're wrong, Naam, but I suspect you're right. It is very difficult to know what is going on inside Iran, and all our predictions are merely guesses.

My feeling is that Iran and Israel are both ratchetting up the situation... and eventually one or the other will launch a pre-emptive strike. I don't for a moment think Israel wants a war, but then who in their right senses does?

Iran is not capable to launch a decisive pre-emptive strike and even if they were it would be a suicidal move. that the crazy Shias are prepared to commit suicide is in my [not so] humble view nothing but blah-blah.

by the way, i fully agree with you that Israel does not want a war no matter how much Bibi Netanyahu or the front running hardliners like Evet Lvovich Liberman (aka Avigdor Lieberman) are frothing around their mouths. dangerous is the fact that Israel is capable to cause havoc on Iran with its superb and sophisticated military might (secretly assisted by its mother hen the U.S. of A.).

Some of us are not happy to sit by when a major power is developing that is on the record of wanting to destroy the nation of the Jews. We've seen this kind of thing before. This time there will be more resistance. Guaranteed.

IMHO the threat of a nuclear equipped Iran (at some likely stage in the not too distant future) is not primarily an Israeli concern as their nuclear arsenal means that a nuclear stalemate is the likely outcome in that relationship. The current Iranian regime is many things but dumb isnot one of them.

Provocative speeches are fine and dandy and play well with domestic and international audiences. Actually pulling the trigger against an opponent with a more extensive range of nuclear weaponry is unlikely.

So who is threatened by a nuclear Iran? Basically we have a rerun of a situation last seen under the Shah. A well armed and inclined Iran throwing it's weight around and imposing it's will in the Gulf region. Saudi, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman have far more to fear than Israel.

Likely outcome? Either the Sunni autocracies come under a nuclear umbrella provided by the USA or they in turn go nuclear in a repeat of the Cold War arms race.

Some of us are not happy to sit by when a major power is developing that is on the record of wanting to destroy the nation of the Jews.

yes JT

Some of us are not happy to sit by when a major power is developing that is on the record of wanting to destroy the nation of the Jews.

yes JT

yes what?

Some of us are not happy to sit by when a major power is developing that is on the record of wanting to destroy the nation of the Jews.

yes JT

yes what?

yes means "i agree" but i consider repetitions over and over again quite boring.

The current Iranian regime is many things but dumb is not one of them.

the resident experts on Iran, especially on Shia belief, beg to disagree

Well, considering that they are letting their economy be totally destroyed and are about to get bombed into the stone age in order to do something that they have agreed not to do and claim they are not doing, I could go along with that.

considering that bombing Iran back to stone age would push not only some countries but a globally tight interwoven economy to the brink of another "age" i am not exactly in favour of bombing even though i have prepared for the worst. but then, talk is cheap no matter which side is talking. i remember not only stratfor.com but half a dozen "intelligence" sources talking about an imminent attack and that goes on since several years.

No more BS. Iran admits that they have gone to war to support the butchers in Syria.

Iran, in continuing to support the Syrian government’s crackdown against protestors, publicly stated that it is sending military personnel from its elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to Syria.

“Today, we are involved in fighting every aspect of a war, a military -- one in Syria, and a cultural one as well,” Gen. Salar Abnoush, a Revolutionary Guard commander said in addressing a group of volunteer trainees Monday, as reported by Daneshjoo News Agency, an online pro-regime student-run media platform.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/08/28/iranian-general-admits-fighting-every-aspect-war-in-defending-syria-assad/#ixzz24ti8OtS8

No more BS. Iran admits that they have gone to war to support the butchers in Syria.

Iran, in continuing to support the Syrian government’s crackdown against protestors, publicly stated that it is sending military personnel from its elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to Syria.

“Today, we are involved in fighting every aspect of a war, a military -- one in Syria, and a cultural one as well,” Gen. Salar Abnoush, a Revolutionary Guard commander said in addressing a group of volunteer trainees Monday, as reported by Daneshjoo News Agency, an online pro-regime student-run media platform.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz24ti8OtS8

FoxNews... one worse than the Daily Mail, and only a shade above the Huffington Post. And who or which or what is the Daneshjoo News Agency?

That Iran is supporting the Syrian regime is well known. It's a way of maximising disturbance in the area without getting too directly involved. The difference between that and an attack on Israel is immense.

No more BS. Iran admits that they have gone to war to support the butchers in Syria.

Iran, in continuing to support the Syrian government’s crackdown against protestors, publicly stated that it is sending military personnel from its elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to Syria.

“Today, we are involved in fighting every aspect of a war, a military -- one in Syria, and a cultural one as well,” Gen. Salar Abnoush, a Revolutionary Guard commander said in addressing a group of volunteer trainees Monday, as reported by Daneshjoo News Agency, an online pro-regime student-run media platform.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz24ti8OtS8

FoxNews... one worse than the Daily Mail, and only a shade above the Huffington Post. And who or which or what is the Daneshjoo News Agency?

That Iran is supporting the Syrian regime is well known. It's a way of maximising disturbance in the area without getting too directly involved. The difference between that and an attack on Israel is immense.

interesting is also the fact that the "rebels" in Syria are not supported with weaponry, intelligence and advice from any western nation with an agenda. they rely solely on Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy

That Iran is supporting the Syrian regime is well known. It's a way of maximising disturbance in the area without getting too directly involved. The difference between that and an attack on Israel is immense.

The reasons for Iran to support Bashir Assad and his Alawi sect are fairly simple.

The current trouble in Syria is being fomented by Sunni moslems, funded from Saudi Arabia and involving the Iraqi Sunni factions who were the backbone of Saddam Hussein's regime (as Baathists). Many of the foot soldiers on the ground in Syria are Iraqi military trained soldiers, from the Saddam era.

If they succeed, there will be a Sunni state, hosting Al Quaeda and other terrorist organisations, on the borders of Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. That will be a dam_n sight worse than having Hezbollah (Shia / Iran) sitting in the Beka'a Valley running drugs for Iran.

I've not mentioned Turkey, because they are astute enough to look after themselves. I think that, if it appears that Bashir will be defeated, the Turkish military will intervene to prevent the wild men of Iraq from taking over.

FoxNews... one worse than the Daily Mail, and only a shade above the Huffington Post. And who or which or what is the Daneshjoo News Agency?

That Iran is supporting the Syrian regime is well known. It's a way of maximising disturbance in the area without getting too directly involved. The difference between that and an attack on Israel is immense.

Correction. Hard news from Fox is normally the same as other mainstream sources. It is the opinion stuff that the left are always criticizing as it contradicts their opinions. The story comes from the Wall Street journal originally and is accurate.

How can Iran not "get too directly involved." when an Iranian general admits that "Today, we are involved in fighting every aspect of a war"?

No more BS. Iran admits that they have gone to war to support the butchers in Syria.

Iran, in continuing to support the Syrian government’s crackdown against protestors, publicly stated that it is sending military personnel from its elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to Syria.

“Today, we are involved in fighting every aspect of a war, a military -- one in Syria, and a cultural one as well,” Gen. Salar Abnoush, a Revolutionary Guard commander said in addressing a group of volunteer trainees Monday, as reported by Daneshjoo News Agency, an online pro-regime student-run media platform.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz24ti8OtS8

FoxNews... one worse than the Daily Mail, and only a shade above the Huffington Post. And who or which or what is the Daneshjoo News Agency?

That Iran is supporting the Syrian regime is well known. It's a way of maximising disturbance in the area without getting too directly involved. The difference between that and an attack on Israel is immense.

"The comments, reported by the Daneshjoo news agency, which is run by regime-aligned students, couldn't be independently verified. Top Iranian officials had previously said the country isn't involved in the conflict."

Lifted from this article, which is NOT Fox News.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran sending troops to aid Syria's embattled leader Bashar al-Assad

BY: FARNAZ FASSIHI From: The Wall Street Journal August 29, 2012 8:36AM

IRAN is sending commanders from its elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and hundreds of foot soldiers to Syria, according to current and former members of the corps.

The personnel moves come on top of what these people say are Tehran's stepped-up efforts to aid the military of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with cash and arms.

That would indicate that regional capitals are being drawn deeper into Syria's conflict and undergird a growing perception among Mr Assad's opponents that the regime's military is increasingly strained.

A commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, appeared to offer Iran's first open acknowledgment of its military involvement in Syria.

http://www.theaustra...o-1226460451676

The reasons for Iran to support Bashir Assad and his Alawi sect are fairly simple.

The current trouble in Syria is being fomented by Sunni moslems, funded from Saudi Arabia and involving the Iraqi Sunni factions who were the backbone of Saddam Hussein's regime (as Baathists). Many of the foot soldiers on the ground in Syria are Iraqi military trained soldiers, from the Saddam era.

If they succeed, there will be a Sunni state, hosting Al Quaeda and other terrorist organisations, on the borders of Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. That will be a dam_n sight worse than having Hezbollah (Shia / Iran) sitting in the Beka'a Valley running drugs for Iran.

I've not mentioned Turkey, because they are astute enough to look after themselves. I think that, if it appears that Bashir will be defeated, the Turkish military will intervene to prevent the wild men of Iraq from taking over.

The reasons for Iran to support Bashir Assad and his Alawi sect are fairly simple.

it's not that simple Humph. there was a time, a year or two after Khomenei came into power, that the Alawis in Iran feared the same fate (persecution) as other "heretical" Shia offspring sects. but then a 'majlis' of Mullahs decided to drop any "charges" as the Alawis follow the "five pillars of Islam" to the dot. insiders claim that this decision was mainly based on the fact that Iran has only a tiny minority of Alawi inhabitants.

p.s. i think the present situation is also based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."