Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

DUBAI: India, Pakistan and Iran agreed to press ahead with negotiations to finalise a 2,100 km gas pipeline deal in defiance of US opposition to the venture, Qatari newspaper The Peninsula reported on Sunday.

"All three of us have agreed to go ahead with the pipeline proposal," said India's Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Murli Deora after emerging from talks with his Iranian and Pakistani counterparts in Doha. The ministers are attending the three-day International Energy Forum (IEF) that began on Saturday.

The meeting between Deora, Amanullah Khan Jadoon of Pakistan and Kazem Vaziri of Iran lasted for about half-an-hour, said the paper. Further, Deora said a meeting at the level of secretaries between the three countries would be held shortly in Pakistan's port city of Karachi.

Jadoon had earlier informed that the meeting was likely to be held in the first week of May. He also said the three countries had conducted their own studies and the cost of the project was initially estimated at $7 billion.

IANS adds: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Indian journalists Saturday that discussions are on course on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, despite the Iranian nuclear controversy.

"We need that gas. And it is in the interests of all the three countries to see that this project goes on," Singh said on board his special aircraft as he flew to Hanover for an official visit to Germany.

Iran President: Israel Is a 'Fake Regime'

Iranian President Decries Israel As a 'Fake Regime,' Arguing Nation Cannot Continue to Exist

So, even if it's only a 10% shot, we have to go after anyone who threatens the United States (even notionally) OR Israel?

Lets just for a moment consider what might happen if in fact we did strike a nuke at Iran. Would it just knock out their nukes under ground or would it hurt/kill people or would miss entirely and start a ground war?

It would be Iran's fault though, for putting their illegal nuclear program in such a deep bunker.

I know many of you hate the long cut and paste. Still, I thought this good enough to present in its entirety. edgarblythe





Gunning for Iran (The Sunday Times/by Sarah Baxter)

It is seven o'clock in the morning eastern standard time when the news comes through to Americans at their breakfast tables. President George W Bush will shortly be addressing the nation live from the Oval Office. Moments later he is on air, announcing in a sombre drawl that Iran's nuclear sites have been struck during the night by American bombers.
"You can see the shape of the speech the president will give," said Richard Perle, a leading American neo-conservative. "He will cite the Iranians' past pattern of deception, their support for terrorism and the unacceptable menace the nation would present if it had nuclear weapons.
"The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation."

. . . .

Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

The Sunday Times understands that a strike with a conventional weapon is much more likely. By 2008 a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US Air Force. The 30,000lb behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 100ft under the ground before exploding.

Trident ballistic missiles, newly converted to carry conventional warheads, may also be on hand by 2008, providing Bush with further options.

Until Ahmadinejad won the Iranian presidency on a tide of popular support that caught the West by surprise last June,

oralloy wrote:

It would be Iran's fault though, for putting their illegal nuclear program in such a deep bunker.

The problem is: it's not an illegal nuclear program. Not if they don't proclaim that they want to built nuclear weapons, as the NPT allows for civilian use of nuclear technology. The steps they have been taking so far are the steps leading up to a civilian nuclear program. The problem is that those are also the first steps towards a nuclear weapons program. For example, you'd have to enrich uranium to a certain level in order to use it as nuclear fuel for a power plant. That'd be legal. Enriching it beyond that level would only leave one conclusion: you're going for a nuclear weapons program. That'd be illegal. Under the NPT. So, technically, they are still running a legal nuclear program in their deep bunker.

>Hans Blix made some interesting points on the radio yesterday. The Iranians started their nuclear programme in the 1980s, fearful of Iraq. Now they are continuing, fearful of the US. A few grammes of 3.5% enriched uranium does not constitute a threat to world peace, so a chapter 7 resolution from the UN is a non starter. If there are some people in Iran who do indeed want a weapon, then the only way forward is to convince them that it really is not necessary, i.e. the US should conclude a peace and security deal with Iran as they did with North Korea.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

It would be Iran's fault though, for putting their illegal nuclear program in such a deep bunker.

The problem is: it's not an illegal nuclear program. Not if they don't proclaim that they want to built nuclear weapons, as the NPT allows for civilian use of nuclear technology. The steps they have been taking so far are the steps leading up to a civilian nuclear program. The problem is that those are also the first steps towards a nuclear weapons program. For example, you'd have to enrich uranium to a certain level in order to use it as nuclear fuel for a power plant. That'd be legal. Enriching it beyond that level would only leave one conclusion: you're going for a nuclear weapons program. That'd be illegal. Under the NPT. So, technically, they are still running a legal nuclear program in their deep bunker.

A nuclear power program would not have been done in secrecy.

The very fact that this program was done in secret means that it is a weapons program.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why would it be illegal for Iran to have nuclear weapons when other countries have nuclear weapons? As of yet, they don't have them, but why if they did have them, would it be illegal?

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:

It would be Iran's fault though, for putting their illegal nuclear program in such a deep bunker.

The problem is: it's not an illegal nuclear program. Not if they don't proclaim that they want to built nuclear weapons, as the NPT allows for civilian use of nuclear technology. The steps they have been taking so far are the steps leading up to a civilian nuclear program. The problem is that those are also the first steps towards a nuclear weapons program. For example, you'd have to enrich uranium to a certain level in order to use it as nuclear fuel for a power plant. That'd be legal. Enriching it beyond that level would only leave one conclusion: you're going for a nuclear weapons program. That'd be illegal. Under the NPT. So, technically, they are still running a legal nuclear program in their deep bunker.

A nuclear power program would not have been done in secrecy.

The very fact that this program was done in secret means that it is a weapons program.

Well, I can follow that line of argument. It's a sound assumption, in my opinion. However, you were talking about the current program as an illegal nuclear program. As far as public knowledge goes, that's not true. At least if we're talking about the current status of the program.