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

Agreed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-19424097

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, says Iran has doubled production capacity at the Fordo nuclear site.

The latest IAEA quarterly report also said Iran had "significantly hampered" the agency's ability to inspect the Parchin military site.

Except to the incurably left field it should be obvious what Iran are doing despite the protestations of Khamenei. Of course the threat is real.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-19424097

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, says Iran has doubled production capacity at the Fordo nuclear site.

The latest IAEA quarterly report also said Iran had "significantly hampered" the agency's ability to inspect the Parchin military site.

Except to the incurably left field it should be obvious what Iran are doing despite the protestations of Khamenei. Of course the threat is real.

Production of one gram of U235 is insignificant. Production of larger quantities increases the significance, agreed.

But, as I have previously stated, it is the proportion of U235 mixed into the U238 (with a smidgen of U239) that is significant. For fuel rods it is a 5% proportion. For weapons grade it is greater than 80%. This is beyond the capabilities of the current Iranian programme and any projected improvements to that programme.

This is solely scare-mongering by certain interested parties - Israel to get more military hardware from the US, the American government to spend more tax dollars on arms manufacture and the UK government because they (of whichever party) want to lick the US's backside.

Iran has holocaust denialists.

Europe has Iranian nuclear program denialists.

And so it goes.

Iran has holocaust denialists.

Europe has Iranian nuclear program denialists.

And so it goes.

And Israel denies having a WMD programme.

The fact that Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960's is well founded and today Israel has approx. 200 such weapons capable of being air launched (Popeye cruise missiles from F15/16s), sub launched ( enhanced Popeyes with 1500+Kms range from its 6 German Dolphin subs), via ICBMs (the latest Jericho III has a range of up to 10,000kms), artillery delivered (low yield tactical weapons out to 80-90 Kms), and even possibly hand delivered in "suitcase" style. They probably possess ERW (neutron devices), EMP weapons , and there is the possibility that Israel has both chemical and offensive biological weapons.

All in all a deliberately daunting arsenal that is hardened to ensure a second strike capability and delivered by a range of platforms to ensure that a nuclear exchange is a guarantee. Classic MAD (mutually assured destruction) situation.

Even a fully fledged nut job regime like N. Korea's, whose frothing rhetoric make the Iranians look like vestal virgins by comparison, has never pulled the trigger. Like Iran it has instead engaged in conflict via proxies and in an asymmetric fashion.

As earlier stated because of Israel's deterrent capability the countries with most to fear are the Sunni autocracies of the Gulf who have always feared an over- mighty neighbour across the Gulf.

Israel has every right to exist ( as does a viable Palestinian state), and has every right to defend itself. Possession of nuclear weapons helps ensure both these stances and is also the reason why N.Korea and Iran have gone down a similar route. All ( rightly or wrongly) fear invasion and an existential threat to either nation or existing regime.

Mercifully nuclear weapons have gone unused for 67 years, though we got fairly close to an exchange between India & Pakistan in 2002, if and when Iran does complete its nuclear programme IMHO this situation will not change due to the sobering effect of a MAD scenario, at least in respect to Israel.

Iran has holocaust denialists.

Europe has Iranian nuclear program denialists.

And so it goes.

And Israel denies having a WMD programme.

Incorrect. Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons, but no one is afraid of them using one that is not someone that means their people extreme harm.

Mercifully nuclear weapons have gone unused for 67 years, though we got fairly close to an exchange between India & Pakistan in 2002, if and when Iran does complete its nuclear programme IMHO this situation will not change due to the sobering effect of a MAD scenario, at least in respect to Israel.

If it were not for the mad Mullahs running Iran, their rabid determination to possess nuclear weapons and weekly threats to annihilate the "Zionist entity" I might agree with you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-19424097

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, says Iran has doubled production capacity at the Fordo nuclear site.

The latest IAEA quarterly report also said Iran had "significantly hampered" the agency's ability to inspect the Parchin military site.

Except to the incurably left field it should be obvious what Iran are doing despite the protestations of Khamenei. Of course the threat is real.

But, as I have previously stated, it is the proportion of U235 mixed into the U238 (with a smidgen of U239) that is significant. For fuel rods it is a 5% proportion. For weapons grade it is greater than 80%. This is beyond the capabilities of the current Iranian programme and any projected improvements to that programme.

Except for the ones at Natanz which are not being used to their full capacity but are churning out 20% enriched for research.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-19424097

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, says Iran has doubled production capacity at the Fordo nuclear site.

The latest IAEA quarterly report also said Iran had "significantly hampered" the agency's ability to inspect the Parchin military site.

Except to the incurably left field it should be obvious what Iran are doing despite the protestations of Khamenei. Of course the threat is real.

But, as I have previously stated, it is the proportion of U235 mixed into the U238 (with a smidgen of U239) that is significant. For fuel rods it is a 5% proportion. For weapons grade it is greater than 80%. This is beyond the capabilities of the current Iranian programme and any projected improvements to that programme.

Except for the ones at Natanz which are not being used to their full capacity but are churning out 20% enriched for research.

Which was the reason the US and German governments developed the 'Stuxnet' virus to screw up the centrifuges and other Siemens equipment.

This has caused me serious difficulties on several gas-fired power plants over the past three or four years.

Which was the reason the US and German governments developed the 'Stuxnet' virus to screw up the centrifuges and other Siemens equipment.

This has caused me serious difficulties on several gas-fired power plants over the past three or four years.

Which leads to the question of how Iran has 189kg of 20% enriched. With an old school cascade of 1000 it is around 1 month to produce 1kg of 6% and 3 months to produce the same at 20%.so that is Fordo. Natanz with new school cascades can do 3kg a month (20%) but has only been running around 2 years. Let's forget that the Natanz cascade doesn't enrich from base as it uses pre-refined (where did that come from?) and also forget that Stuxnet reduced (by admission) Iran's capacity to refine at all, we are talking about many 10s of kg of 20% enriched Uranium out of thin air. Iran is seeking conflict, trying to hide that it is seeking conflict and doing a piss poor job at it.

20% enrichment is useless for weapons grade material.

It may be that the mad mullahs are trying to bring it up to the mark, it may be that they wish to use it for other (peaceful) purposes. We don't know.

But please stop and think. What is the aim of the US government in this? To limit the spread of nuclear weapons (remember they signed treaties with India - not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty), or to gain control of the Iranian oil fields by invading a country whose Islamic goernment they do not like. Compare with their neighbour, Iraq.

Yeah, sure. We keep invading countries and never getting any oil out of it. Maybe we will get it right some day.

20% enrichment is useless for weapons grade material.

I agree. Handy to have if you want to make weapons grade though Iran doesn't have the ability to enrich further.... except thay do, at Natanz. Natanz is what really started the bells ringing because using that type of centrifuge to enrich low grade uranium (around the level required for rod production) to medium grade (~20% for medical research etc) is quite frankly, silly. Imagine popping to the local shop for a pint of milk using a 40' artic rather than the car or motorbike.... Or a fella buying kevlar body armor, an AK47 and 2000 rounds of ammo to kill the rabbit that keeps eating his carrots. Both are valid but the latter is certainly going to raise some eyebrows.

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.

talking about a "dirty" device... two devices each containing a miniscule amount of Plutonium and 500 grams of C4 strategically placed in Wall Street and the London's "city" would cause global financial havoc and a "rien ne vas plus!" for many months.

why Natanz?

Iran and North Korea signed a scientific and technological cooperation agreement Saturday, bringing the two nations deeply at odds with the U.S. closer together.

http://abcnews.go.co...eement-17132952

why Natanz?

Because the the centrifuge cascade at Natanz is not a bottom up type, it uses previously enriched uranium (up to 20% ish) and is capable of enriching to weapons grade. The remainder of Iran's centrifuges (that we know of) are bottom up which is only good to reach around 20% from close to 0%. All this could well be true, silly but true except for one small detail... Iran could have produced 189kg of 20% enriched uranium in this time though it would required the additional 1000 centrifuges at Natanz to be working the whole time which they said they have not. Let's just say it's bluster and that they (the additional 1000) have been working all the time. All this seems possible, very unlikely but still in the realm of possible except for one small thing... Just a tiny thing which seems to have been overlooked by Iran but seen by others. Where did the enriched uranium gas come from when the Natanz plant started up and their are only 3 options.

1. The gas came from Fordo or another low grade enrichment facility but this would be at a deficit with regard to 189kg so not that.

2. The gas just happened to be in them.

3. The gas came from an as yet unknown facility.

THIS is what is putting people on edge.

my reference to Natanz has a different meaning.

my reference to Natanz has a different meaning.

OK, I'll leave my post up anyway Naam.

Canada takes bold move against Iran.

Very admirable!

BTW, I don't know so I am asking, has Obama OR Romney made such a clear statement about the open threats by Iran of GENOCIDE against Jews?

The only downside of this is that I can't say I'm Canadian anymore to Iranians when I'm afraid they are going to poison my food. (I like Iranian food.)

http://www.nytimes.c...-iran.html?_r=1

QUEBEC — Calling Iran “the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today,” Canada’s foreign affairs minister, John Baird, abruptly announced Friday that his government had cut all diplomatic ties with the country.

...

He added that Iran “routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide.”

Canada takes bold move against Iran.

this will teach the Mullahs a lesson!

Canada takes bold move against Iran.

this will teach the Mullahs a lesson!

Don't you be dissing the Canucks!

Every little bit helps.

Canada takes bold move against Iran.

Very admirable!

BTW, I don't know so I am asking, has Obama OR Romney made such a clear statement about the open threats by Iran of GENOCIDE against Jews?

The only downside of this is that I can't say I'm Canadian anymore to Iranians when I'm afraid they are going to poison my food. (I like Iranian food.)

http://www.nytimes.c...-iran.html?_r=1

QUEBEC — Calling Iran “the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today,” Canada’s foreign affairs minister, John Baird, abruptly announced Friday that his government had cut all diplomatic ties with the country.

...

He added that Iran “routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide.”

Very brave indeed, as a Brit/Canadian it really took me by surprise that Minister Baird acted so quickly, the Iranians were on a plane the next day. I wish he went one step further and moved our Embassy back to Jerusalem this would be the time to stand up and do the right thing.

This is much more than Canada being Pro-Israel - I wonder if Canada got word from a cousin things are heating up ?

Canada takes bold move against Iran.

Very admirable!

BTW, I don't know so I am asking, has Obama OR Romney made such a clear statement about the open threats by Iran of GENOCIDE against Jews?

The only downside of this is that I can't say I'm Canadian anymore to Iranians when I'm afraid they are going to poison my food. (I like Iranian food.)

http://www.nytimes.c...-iran.html?_r=1

QUEBEC — Calling Iran “the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today,” Canada’s foreign affairs minister, John Baird, abruptly announced Friday that his government had cut all diplomatic ties with the country.

...

He added that Iran “routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide.”

Very brave indeed, as a Brit/Canadian it really took me by surprise that Minister Baird acted so quickly, the Iranians were on a plane the next day. I wish he went one step further and moved our Embassy back to Jerusalem this would be the time to stand up and do the right thing.

This is much more than Canada being Pro-Israel - I wonder if Canada got word from a cousin things are heating up ?

Yes, Canada is certainly showing some backbone, which seems to be sadly lacking in both the U.S and Europe at the mo. Apropos Iran's proxy Hezbollah, there is now the prospect that European governments may finally treat it as the terrorist organization which it is, not because of Israel's recently ignored request for them to do so, but on account of Hezbollah supporting the Syrian regime, just as European nations are poised to intervene there.

Canada takes bold move against Iran.

this will teach the Mullahs a lesson!

Don't you be dissing the Canucks!

Every little bit helps.

how much these little bits help we experience since years

how much these little bits help we experience since years

Wrong thread, Naam! The other one is about infant circumcision.

Apropos Iran's proxy Hezbollah, there is now the prospect that European governments may finally treat it as the terrorist organization which it is, not because of Israel's recently ignored request for them to do so, but on account of Hezbollah supporting the Syrian regime, just as European nations are poised to intervene there.

Whereas I agree that Hezbollah should be treated as a terrorist organisation, despite the fact that it is a major player in Lebanon's government, I question the view that Europe is going to participate in any action inside Syria, whether in support of Bashir Assad or the Sunni opposition, which is fomented by interested parties in other parts of the Arab world, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The Western world has no place in the disputes going on at the moment between Sunni and Shia moslems (Bashir Assad's Alawi sect is a Shia offshoot) and should stay well out of it - in Bahrain the Shia (mainly immigrant) population is revolting against the Sunni sheik, in Syria the Sunni population (including Iraqi and other immigrants) is revolting against the Shia government. In both instances it is better to stay out and let the established authority deal with the rebels - whose agenda(s) is not clear to any government intelligence.

This item is interesting.

It gels with the knowledge that I do have on this issue which I admit is limited because I've never been to Egypt OR Iran:

In a column published last week, the Washington Post’s Colbert King correctly indicted the leadership of Iran as sponsors of “the most virulent form of state-sanctioned anti- Semitism since Nazi Germany.” It is true that the Iranian leadership is wildly anti-Semitic, but, on my visits to Iran, I’ve never personally felt the hatred of Jews on the popular level.

The column contrasts that situation in Iran to that in Egypt where anti-semitism on the street is reported to be rampant.

Anti-Semitism, the socialism of fools, is becoming the opiate of the Egyptian masses. And not just the masses. Egypt has never been notably philo-Semitic (just ask Moses), but today it’s entirely acceptable among the educated and creative classes there to demonize Jews and voice the most despicable anti- Semitic conspiracy theories. Careerists know that even fleeting associations with Jews and Israelis could spell professional trouble.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-06/in-egypt-anti-semitism-is-back-in-fashion.html

The difference is that Israel wiped out the Egyptian armed forces in less than the time it took God to create the world.

When I was working in Iran there was tolerance for all religions, but that was in the Shah's time. We had friends who were jewish, others Armenian christian, many moslems and a couple of Bah'ai. In Shiraz there was also a Zoroastrian temple.

During the revolution things changed. Even while the Shah was still in Iran the jewish-owned supermarket was raided and all alcohol destroyed. before the Shah left the local army general (a Bah'ai) was pulled from his jeep and he, his bodyguard and his family were all butchered. I was shopping one day when the army sealed off the street I was in and opened fire. Only six killed, but it was a little nervy.

Don't know what happened to our office manager - he was bah'ai. As a kid he had walked to Abadan and persuaded BP (then Anglo-Iranian Oil) to give him a messenger job. He pulled himself up from there to a senior position (for a local) in BP, then retired. We brought him out of retirement to work for us (Davy Power-Gas).

The only discrimination I encountered there was in monthly progress meetings, where the engineers for us, our contractors and our designers (all Armenians except for two of us Brits) would discuss all financial matters in Armenian, much to the annoyance of the Client's engineer - an Irani.

The Iran threat has been happening for more than 30 years.

Im starting to think it really isnt real at all.

Well the IAEA does not agree with you.

The difference is that Israel wiped out the Egyptian armed forces in less than the time it took God to create the world.

When I was working in Iran there was tolerance for all religions, but that was in the Shah's time. We had friends who were jewish, others Armenian christian, many moslems and a couple of Bah'ai. In Shiraz there was also a Zoroastrian temple.

During the revolution things changed. Even while the Shah was still in Iran the jewish-owned supermarket was raided and all alcohol destroyed. before the Shah left the local army general (a Bah'ai) was pulled from his jeep and he, his bodyguard and his family were all butchered. I was shopping one day when the army sealed off the street I was in and opened fire. Only six killed, but it was a little nervy.

Don't know what happened to our office manager - he was bah'ai. As a kid he had walked to Abadan and persuaded BP (then Anglo-Iranian Oil) to give him a messenger job. He pulled himself up from there to a senior position (for a local) in BP, then retired. We brought him out of retirement to work for us (Davy Power-Gas).

The only discrimination I encountered there was in monthly progress meetings, where the engineers for us, our contractors and our designers (all Armenians except for two of us Brits) would discuss all financial matters in Armenian, much to the annoyance of the Client's engineer - an Irani.

My experience of Iranians - and it is limited to those that live, work or travel overseas, is that they are as charming and open-minded as anyone I could hope to meet. I've never tried to provoke them with questions regarding their affinity or otherwise for semites (apparently anti-semitism doesn't include arabs *).

SC

* An appalling piece of linguistic discrimination of which we should all be ashamed