UN nuclear watchdog holds 'very productive' talks with Iran

[folium]

@Midas

You are quite right, AQ Khan, under the auspices of General/then President Musharraf, saw Pakistan through a phase of promiscuous proliferation offering its services, knowhow and hardware to any bidder. N Korea, Libya and Iran were all customers.

This, and then the subsequent attempt to scapegoat AQ Khan, managed to p**s off almost every interested party both domestically and internationally, and was one of the main causes of Musharraf's downfall.

More recently Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have moved to a closer relationship as the latter attempts to squeeze its arch-rival Iran out of the equation. Hence my comment...

Also quite what arrangement Saudi has with Pakistan re nukes is obviously known to only a few, but it is likely that SA's preferred option would be a nuclear deal whereby Iran steps back from nuclear weapons. If it doesn't SA will more than likely go nuclear and both the US and Israel will not want that to happen. And so it goes on....

[midas]

@Midas

You are quite right, AQ Khan, under the auspices of General/then President Musharraf, saw Pakistan through a phase of promiscuous proliferation offering its services, knowhow and hardware to any bidder. N Korea, Libya and Iran were all customers.

This, and then the subsequent attempt to scapegoat AQ Khan, managed to p**s off almost every interested party both domestically and internationally, and was one of the main causes of Musharraf's downfall.

More recently Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have moved to a closer relationship as the latter attempts to squeeze its arch-rival Iran out of the equation. Hence my comment...

Also quite what arrangement Saudi has with Pakistan re nukes is obviously known to only a few, but it is likely that SA's preferred option would be a nuclear deal whereby Iran steps back from nuclear weapons. If it doesn't SA will more than likely go nuclear and both the US and Israel will not want that to happen. And so it goes on....

Pakistan allies with Iran against US

Pakistan has pledged to support Iran if the US launches a military attack against the Islamic Republic. The Pakistani president assured the Iranian leader that his country’s territory will not be used as a launch pad for such an assault.

http://rt.com/news/pakistan-support-iran-us-attack-593/

[jackr]

They're stalling, AGAIN, bomb 'em, quick!!!

[folium]

@Midas

You are quite right, AQ Khan, under the auspices of General/then President Musharraf, saw Pakistan through a phase of promiscuous proliferation offering its services, knowhow and hardware to any bidder. N Korea, Libya and Iran were all customers.

This, and then the subsequent attempt to scapegoat AQ Khan, managed to p**s off almost every interested party both domestically and internationally, and was one of the main causes of Musharraf's downfall.

More recently Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have moved to a closer relationship as the latter attempts to squeeze its arch-rival Iran out of the equation. Hence my comment...

Also quite what arrangement Saudi has with Pakistan re nukes is obviously known to only a few, but it is likely that SA's preferred option would be a nuclear deal whereby Iran steps back from nuclear weapons. If it doesn't SA will more than likely go nuclear and both the US and Israel will not want that to happen. And so it goes on....

Pakistan allies with Iran against US

Pakistan has pledged to support Iran if the US launches a military attack against the Islamic Republic. The Pakistani president assured the Iranian leader that his country’s territory will not be used as a launch pad for such an assault.

http://rt.com/news/pakistan-support-iran-us-attack-593/

rt.com ....hmmmm...always an interesting source of unbiased info. Makes FoxNews look positively neutral!

This report from early 2012 is probably more about posturing and Russian stirring/wishful-thinking/spin than anything else.

How about PressTV, they will be full of love between Iran and Pakistan...

[Steely Dan]

If people quote RT News then here's Debka. If any of it is true it goes to show how politics makes for strange bedfellows.

http://www.debka.com/article/23436/Kerry-bids-from-Abu-Dhabi-to-break-up-unique-broad-front-which-tripped-up-US-Iran-nuclear-deal

The pushback against a nuclear deal between the six powers and Iran in Geneva Friday, Nov. 8 had many partners. Europe, Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates and Israel have bonded together against the Obama administration’s plans to mend US fences with Tehran in general and leave Iran with its nuclear components intact.

[NeverSure]

Spot on. And this newest debacle right on the heals of his international and very public loss of face over his proclamations that he would attack Syria. He really looks like a loser right now and that's intolerable to a narcissist.

Countries like Iran love "peace talks." Look how much time that tactic bought N. Korea. Look how much time it could buy Iran. Look how much time it's buying Syria.

And for anyone who thinks Israel wouldn't hit Iran, he's dreaming. Israel wasn't kidding when it said it wouldn't allow Iran to get a nuke. Just look at Israel's history. It doesn't mess around.

Stay tuned.

I doubt Israel has the ability to carry out a significant conventional strike against Iran's nuclear sites. By "significant" I mean an effort that will destroy Iran's nuclear production/research or at least cripple it to a degree of not being a threat anymore. There is no question of sustained ongoing attacks, no second runs to hit missed targets. It did work out on other occasions, but with easier scenarios (Egypt 1967, Iraq, 1981, Syria 2007).

But yes....Israel sometimes carries out some surprising military operations. Given that, lets assume such a strike is carried out in a successful manner - what then? A few years respite? Eventually, someone will get the nukes.

As for the talks - Iran might be playing for time, or might be truly hit bad by the economic sanctions (probably both). Having these lengthy negotiations seems like the prescribed outcome after the USA went the sanctions way.

Israel has the ability. They would of course like to have the US's help. They have US bunker busters, stealth airplanes... Most important, they have the will.

If nothing else, they have nukes and ICBM's and I promise they aren't going to let Iran keep its promise to "blow them off the map."

Israel does not have the ability to carry out sustained attacks on Iran, Even the Israelis don't ever talk about something along these lines, more of a one time concentrated effort. They do have some bunker busters, true, but not the top end ones (which they couldn't use anyway, as they don't have the required aircraft to carry it). No stealth airplanes on the IAF.

As for the will to carry it out - public opinion and sentiment in Israel is rather divided on that one. There were numerous instances of deadlines and red lines and all manner of doomsday time tables - but no direct Israeli attack so far. If it was a straightforward matter, they would have gone for it long time ago (as they did in other cases).

Carrying out an attack is one thing, and it is even conceivable that it could happen, How successful (from an Israeli point of view) it could be and what will be the aftermath - is another matter.

Regarding the use of nukes - you'll note that I refereed to conventional attack, not a nuclear strike. That's a whole different ball game.

"I promise" ? - better move that finger from the red button, sir

I can't think of an instance when Israel carried out "sustained" missions. They are of the hit and run school. They hit hard, fast and furiously and disappear.

My apologies for using the word "airplane" instead of "aircraft." Israel has stealth Blackhawk helicopters with mid-air refueling capabilities. They also have, well not friends, but countries with common interests in the area. Start with Saudi Arabia which would surely look the other way if Israel were to fly over on the way to a mission.

The US does have a new bunker buster that Israel doesn't have, but the last generation is sufficient if more than one hits the same spot, and they have guidance systems to assure it.

Please don't forget Israel's history back to 1967 and recently in bombing Syria when Obama couldn't get it done. Never take them lightly.

They aren't going to stand by and let Iran get the Bomb, and look at Steely Dan's post above. Israel isn't alone.

Obama is no longer the leader of the free world. He has made too many public mistakes and the allies aren't following him. What the US under Obama thinks doesn't carry much weight in Europe or the Middle East because few if any trust him. He isn't being followed in Geneva re Iran. Who knows what he might do to try to regain respect in the world, if the allies are all against him?

[F430murci]

The Donald said on Fox this morning that Kerry and Bama were so desperate to do something positive that they were going to screw this up and land us in a war with Iran.

[folium]

@ NeverSure (apologies, quote button off-line)

And that's the problem, while the IDF/IAF is capable of highly impressive and innovative tactics, taking out Iran's nuclear capability has to be 100% and without any chance of comeback in the near future. This would require a sustained attack on multiple objectives probably over days to enable the attacks, to carry out the attacks and to ensure that all attacks have achieved complete success. All a far cry from surgical strikes into Iraq or Syria.

The element of surprise went months ago and hardened facilities underground represent a formidable challenge. Even partial failure would have catastrophic consequences for all. Also Iran has had plenty of time to arrange a response to such an attack, conventionally and via its proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The possibility of a total disaster cannot be over-exaggerated.

Jaw jaw is therefore probably a better alternative to a half cocked war war scenario that escalates out of control.

Blind eyes from countries such as Saudi and more engaged support from Iraq's Kurdish area or from Azerbaijan would be crucial but again cannot guarantee that all important 100% success. Basically one heck of a gamble...

[NeverSure]

@ NeverSure (apologies, quote button off-line)

And that's the problem, while the IDF/IAF is capable of highly impressive and innovative tactics, taking out Iran's nuclear capability has to be 100% and without any chance of comeback in the near future. This would require a sustained attack on multiple objectives probably over days to enable the attacks, to carry out the attacks and to ensure that all attacks have achieved complete success. All a far cry from surgical strikes into Iraq or Syria.

The element of surprise went months ago and hardened facilities underground represent a formidable challenge. Even partial failure would have catastrophic consequences for all. Also Iran has had plenty of time to arrange a response to such an attack, conventionally and via its proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The possibility of a total disaster cannot be over-exaggerated.

Jaw jaw is therefore probably a better alternative to a half cocked war war scenario that escalates out of control.

Blind eyes from countries such as Saudi and more engaged support from Iraq's Kurdish area or from Azerbaijan would be crucial but again cannot guarantee that all important 100% success. Basically one heck of a gamble...

War is always a gamble. So is letting Iran get the bomb. Israel's intelligence is as good as it gets. They know where those most important bunkers are and right where to hit them. They've been planning this strategically for a long time.

Win or not, Israel is not going to sit still and do nothing if it can't get other nations to do more than jawbone.

I don't understand how the element of surprise is gone. Wouldn't you be surprised if Israel hit Iran tonight?

Israel has a history of coming out on top ever since right after WWII. 1967 was, well, miraculous. It quickly dispatched several countries with a total population of about 45 million people while it had only about 6 million people and was only settled as a country for less than 20 years. Ever since it constantly prepares for serious battle, knowing that it is surrounded by enemies.

I wonder if Israel ever sleeps? haha.

[NeverSure]

The Donald said on Fox this morning that Kerry and Bama were so desperate to do something positive that they were going to screw this up and land us in a war with Iran.

The Donald has a history of being right. Obama has lost massive face.

The only thing I question is the definition of "land us in a war." I think we've learned our lesson about putting boots on the ground on other people's turf. Iran could be taken out with stealth bombers, the latest bunker busters, and a couple of carrier groups parked off its shores.

Frankly I wish we'd do it. The Iranian people (Persians) are largely good people who like all things Western. It's their leaders who wear the black hats aiding terrorists etc. When the people have tried to protest they've been shot in the streets.

Bring it.

[Ulysses G.]

The Donald said on Fox this morning that Kerry and Bama were so desperate to do something positive that they were going to screw this up and land us in a war with Iran.

I don't agree with The Donald. I think that they are much more likely to capitulate to Iran, let them have nukes and spin it as a "win".

[NeverSure]

The Donald said on Fox this morning that Kerry and Bama were so desperate to do something positive that they were going to screw this up and land us in a war with Iran.

I don't agree with The Donald. I think that they are much more likely to capitulate to Iran, let them have nukes and spin it as a "win".

I didn't word my post well, and although The Donald does have a history of being right, I didn't actually say or mean to say that he's right this time.

I never know what Obama will do. He helped take out Libya without congressional approval, and then failed in his quest to get a consensus to take out Syria. (That was a massive loss of face in front of the whole world.)

You're probably right, but I will say I think the allies should see to it that Iran doesn't get The Bomb.

[Steely Dan]

The Donald said on Fox this morning that Kerry and Bama were so desperate to do something positive that they were going to screw this up and land us in a war with Iran.

I don't agree with The Donald. I think that they are much more likely to capitulate to Iran, let them have nukes and spin it as a "win".

I didn't word my post well, and although The Donald does have a history of being right, I didn't actually say or mean to say that he's right this time.

I never know what Obama will do. He helped take out Libya without congressional approval, and then failed in his quest to get a consensus to take out Syria. (That was a massive loss of face in front of the whole world.)

You're probably right, but I will say I think the allies should see to it that Iran doesn't get The Bomb.

What with Israel getting permission to use Azeri airfields being leaked by Washington 18 months ago one could be forgiven to believe that Israel was stymied from removing an existential threat to itself because the U.S administration opposed a military option. The Iranians are no fools and know this only too well meaning Washington has always negotiated from position of weakness. John Bolton was quoted as stating that Obama would never bomb Iran unless he underwent a complete personality transplant, that in itself would be bad enough, but to block and mislead supposed allies who might have both the guts and capability to do something about Iran is unforgivable.

Small consolation but everyone can now see what a farce we have got, to even put this down to mere incompetence may be too generous, active scheming to bring about such a situation is alas not out of the question.

[Morch]

@ NeverSure (apologies, quote button off-line)

And that's the problem, while the IDF/IAF is capable of highly impressive and innovative tactics, taking out Iran's nuclear capability has to be 100% and without any chance of comeback in the near future. This would require a sustained attack on multiple objectives probably over days to enable the attacks, to carry out the attacks and to ensure that all attacks have achieved complete success. All a far cry from surgical strikes into Iraq or Syria.

The element of surprise went months ago and hardened facilities underground represent a formidable challenge. Even partial failure would have catastrophic consequences for all. Also Iran has had plenty of time to arrange a response to such an attack, conventionally and via its proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The possibility of a total disaster cannot be over-exaggerated.

Jaw jaw is therefore probably a better alternative to a half cocked war war scenario that escalates out of control.

Blind eyes from countries such as Saudi and more engaged support from Iraq's Kurdish area or from Azerbaijan would be crucial but again cannot guarantee that all important 100% success. Basically one heck of a gamble...

War is always a gamble. So is letting Iran get the bomb. Israel's intelligence is as good as it gets. They know where those most important bunkers are and right where to hit them. They've been planning this strategically for a long time.

Win or not, Israel is not going to sit still and do nothing if it can't get other nations to do more than jawbone.

I don't understand how the element of surprise is gone. Wouldn't you be surprised if Israel hit Iran tonight?

Israel has a history of coming out on top ever since right after WWII. 1967 was, well, miraculous. It quickly dispatched several countries with a total population of about 45 million people while it had only about 6 million people and was only settled as a country for less than 20 years. Ever since it constantly prepares for serious battle, knowing that it is surrounded by enemies.

I wonder if Israel ever sleeps? haha.

The IAF carried sustained attacks during all of Israel's wars (as opposed to stand alone operations). Main difference here is distance.

Hurting Iran's nuclear program bad enough to make a difference is probably more than a hit and run thing. Bombing targets in Syria is less of a challenge in terms of operational difficulty, available intel and opposition.

Israel got Blackhawks, whether they are stealth or not (and pretty sure there's no confirmation of this fact) it does not change the basic parameters of the situation. Getting a host of choppers over this distance, undetected, refueled, and back safely again....errr, kinda tricky.

While some of the neighboring countries do share similar worries as Israel, I'm not quite as sure that they would cooperate to such an extent, or that Israel will be willing to trust them that much. With all due respect to Dan's post, the source quoted is not the most reliable (putting it gently here ),

And of course, you do have the US Navy in there as well.. Interesting how this can be tackled.

The bunkerbusters Israel got might be enough for most sites but not for all. Some of them facilities are buried deep enough to give the USAF pause.

In theory, hitting a a place twice in a row might do the trick - in practice, hard to say until you drop/fire and harder to carry out a second run. Not impossible, but the margin for error is problematic.

Israel's intelligence, while certainly capable, isn't all-knowing as you imagine. In fact, most of the heads of Intelligence services who retired lately were pretty much set against carrying out an attack,

[simple1]

The Donald said on Fox this morning that Kerry and Bama were so desperate to do something positive that they were going to screw this up and land us in a war with Iran.

I don't agree with The Donald. I think that they are much more likely to capitulate to Iran, let them have nukes and spin it as a "win".

I didn't word my post well, and although The Donald does have a history of being right, I didn't actually say or mean to say that he's right this time.

I never know what Obama will do. He helped take out Libya without congressional approval, and then failed in his quest to get a consensus to take out Syria. (That was a massive loss of face in front of the whole world.)

You're probably right, but I will say I think the allies should see to it that Iran doesn't get The Bomb.

What with Israel getting permission to use Azeri airfields being leaked by Washington 18 months ago one could be forgiven to believe that Israel was stymied from removing an existential threat to itself because the U.S administration opposed a military option. The Iranians are no fools and know this only too well meaning Washington has always negotiated from position of weakness. John Bolton was quoted as stating that Obama would never bomb Iran unless he underwent a complete personality transplant, that in itself would be bad enough, but to block and mislead supposed allies who might have both the guts and capability to do something about Iran is unforgivable.

Small consolation but everyone can now see what a farce we have got, to even put this down to mere incompetence may be too generous, active scheming to bring about such a situation is alas not out of the question.

With the Israeli sales of drones and other military technology to Azerbaijan plus other local destabalisation threats you would safely think the country would be under intense scrutiny by Iran and it's ally Russia and they would of known of the agreement. Is there any evidence that Azerbaijan has withdrawn from the agreement, if needed, to provide access to Israeli airborne refuelling and search and rescue assets?

There are a multiplicity of issues with the Israeli/Azerbaijan relationship with an overview below.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66431

[NeverSure]

The bunker busters are precision guided and no problem hitting the same place two or three times with a single wave of two or three bombers. If they didn't penetrate clear to the goodies, they'd seal it off for a very long time. Netanyahu thinks Iran could have a bomb within months.

I agree that some intelligence heads are what you say, but they are considered weak by Netanyahu who seems to have gained power recently.

Here's what he said yesterday about these Geneva talks, and he's there.

"Mr Netanyahu said a deal would be a mistake and Israel would not be bound by it.

"I understand that the Iranians are walking around very satisfied in Geneva - as well they should be, because they got everything and paid nothing.

"So Iran got the deal of the century and the international community got a bad deal, this is a very bad deal. Israel utterly rejects it."

So I can't be sure what will happen. Netanyahu has always said he wouldn't let Iran get the Bomb, but for a time he was subordinate to people he considered to be wrong and weak.

We'll see.

[Scott]

A post with a quote that violates fair use has been deleted.

[Steely Dan]

Sorry about that Scott, I must have miscounted. This article is written by Noah Beck, author of a book called 'The last Israelis' in which he postulates what might happen if Iran gets a nuclear bomb. Imho we now live at a very dangerous point in history.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4349/obama_s_catastrophic_moves_on_iran

Obama's desperately eager posture towards the smiling Mullahs has doomed any negotiation to failure by signaling that the U.S. fears confrontation more than anything else

[Ulysses G.]

The more that comes out about Obama/Kerry's "deal", the more obvious it is that Netanyahu and France have it absolutely right.

And despite repeated assurances from Secretary of State John Kerry that "no deal is better than a bad deal," the current Geneva talks appear headed towards precisely that: a bad deal that leaves Iran with the very nuclear breakout capability that a diplomatic "solution" was supposed to prevent.

http://www.thecommen...c_moves_on_iran

[Credo]

Is there something preventing Israel and France from taking care of this perceived threat?

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, the president of the United States. Attacking Iranian nuclear facilities during the middle of negotiations with Israel's biggest ally would be considered rather bad form.

[Credo]

Perhaps, but between some sort of diplomatic etiquette and the survival of the country, I'd go for the survival of the country.

Obama is not inclined to get the US involved in much of anything unless he absolutely has to. In this case he doesn't have to. If France is on board, and they have good evidence, any attack will have credibility. The French are not easily led down the path toward war.

I doubt very much that as soon as the shooting starts the US won't be far behind in making sure nothing happens to Israel. After all, love it or hate it, it's one of the few reasonable stable, predictable places in the region.

[folium]

Perhaps, but between some sort of diplomatic etiquette and the survival of the country, I'd go for the survival of the country.

Obama is not inclined to get the US involved in much of anything unless he absolutely has to. In this case he doesn't have to. If France is on board, and they have good evidence, any attack will have credibility. The French are not easily led down the path toward war.

You can argue that an Israeli attack on Iran, particularly if it is not 100% successful, would represent a far more direct threat to the survival of Israel, especially if Iran has preplaced some form of device with its allies in Lebanon or Syria.

"France is not easily led down the path to war"...well apart from Mali 2013, Afghanistan 2001-12, Libya 2011, Ivory Coast 2002-07, Kosovo 1998-99, Bosnia 1992-95, Djibouti 1991-93, Somalia 1992-93, First Gulf War 1990-91, Lebanon 1983, Chad 1979-87 (and that's just in the last 30 years), you are absolutely right!

[Credo]

I would hardly call some of those Military actions an act of war. Just because there are soldiers present doesn't make it a war.

So, my advice to Israel is to make sure they what they are doing. The US simply can't babysit them forever on every front.

Again, if they have the backing of France, they have a good start.

[Ulysses G.]

Every front? Israel has won numerous wars against great odds with little help from the USA. America did resupply them in 1973 after a sneak attack in which the USSR armed their enemies and provided the Arab armies with intelligence, but not much help before that.

[Credo]

I didn't mean that in a condescending way. The relationship between the US and Israel is an important one and the proper wording would have been something referring to covering their backside.

Israel needs to diversify as much as possible. Especially, if it is seriously important. I am guessing that Iran is seriously important.