For the willing; the solution to Iran's nuclear impasse is simple:
1- US and Russia create an international bank for Low Enriched Uranium (LEU).
2- Iran is allowed to produce as much LEU as it desires on the condition that it sells its stock of LEU in excess of one ton to the LEU-bank.
3- Iran is guaranteed unlimited purchase of LEU fuel-rods for its nuclear power stations and research reactors.
The above formula should satisfy both the West and Iran:
Iran will continue its pursuit of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes unhindered; and at no point in time will have enough LEU to enrich further to build a bomb.

The idea of Iran trading it's low enriched fuel for enriched 20% for a medical reactor that built by the US many years ago was put forth by Brazil and Turkey after the White House sent them a letter asking them to use their good offices to strike a deal. That deal was quickly sabotaged by the Uber Zionists at State. Brazil and Turkey were furious. The WH is mum on that FUBAR, but the Uber Zionist that had been in charge of sabotaging any meaningful negotiations with Iran is no longer working for Uncle Sam. Dennis Ross showed his true colors by going to work for WINEP, a lobbying group for Israel, immediately after leaving government employ. Read an outstanding article by Pepe Escobar,"Regime Change in Iran: The Real Motivation Behind Sanctions". It basically shows that most of the attempts by State and Treasury to arm twist everyone into not buying oil from Iran is failing badly. The Russians and Chinese have insisted that no more sanctions are needed and they have warned against any Israeli strikes. If the Russians decide to kick butt on this, they will send a note to the US. They will remind them that since the US has ignored their concerns about a anti-missile system in Europe to protect against a hypothetical attack from Iran, that they have decided to provide Iran with the S-300 and 400 defensive anti-aircraft missiles as a protection against the Israel constant threats of attacks. That will calm things down drastically.

Iran, at least in living record, has never attacked any of its neighbors. That's a fact.

America and Israel the two main 'antagonists' in this particular piece, can, and have, 'been forced' to take military action, not only against 'hostile' neighbours, but against percieved, though undeclared, 'enemies' in wars all around the world.

That America, and more particularly Israel, are feeling an increasing 'need' to reach out and touch Iran with some high explosive, does not bode well for Iran - for that feeling all too often is borne out in fact - and perhaps worse for the world. For Iran won't be an Iraqi/Syrian 'atomic take-out', or other one-day wonder. The 'hitting back' part is more effectively done against America's allies directly and the two antagonists by proxy.

The current Iranian 'world crisis' situation is purely designed as a PR exercise to try to force the Iranians into 'hitting first' (or reasonable facsimile thereof). WMD's or a latter-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution wouldn't fly even in febrile modern-day US legislatures. And, while the hawks in both countries might be elated, a failure to cake-walk might just be the straw that finally breaks their back, politically.

The world, however, will lose this time, even if America wins.

That only works if Iran stops threatening gallant little Israel in Gaza and in Lebanon. It's definitely more nebulous, and perhaps less effective, than sustained bombardment. Booyah to the peacemakers!

Iran is a prey that has teeth and claws.
Desert Fox was training using live ammo and real targets.

Are we suppose to wait until Iran has Nuclear capability and wipes out Israel ? What they're saying is pure blackmail. Those Nuclear Plants need to be destroyed and if that ignites World War 3 , then we'll all just have to with it because once Iran attacks Israel with Nuclear weapons, that will start World War 3 anyway. Iran has put the U.S. and Israel between a 'rock and a hard place' so to speak. sciatic nerve pain

"The threatened conventional attack, one that breaches radiological containment and scatters nuclear materials? That amounts to an unprecedented WMD attack, by the US/Isreal, on Iran, with major collatoral. A clear war crime."

a. this isn't right (about the scattering).
b. even if it were right that wouldn't make it a war crime. The amount of collateral damage never, in and of itself, determines whether a given action is a war crime. The appropriate tests are military necessity and proportionality. Collateral damage figures into the proportionality calculus but it is a factor, not an intrinsic showstopper.

With that said, I tend to think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea. But just because I agree with that doesn't mean that absurd hyperbole (even on the right side) should go uncontested. People (almost always non-lawyers) throw around "war crimes" and "illegal" way too much.

The working medium for enrichment is a pressurized gas, U-hexaflouride. If/when the containment is breached, it vents to atmosphere, or remains recoverable in place. Powders, cake or metallic uranium is easier to shield, transport, disperse, hide. But any idea that collapsing a tunnel on such would put it out of reach is pure fancy. The valuable enriched product would be recovered for sure. Heck, even raw U-ore is commercially viable down to a few dozen PPM concentrations.

What use is tactical plan that didn't intend to scatter enriched Iranian material beyond recovery levels using the same mining techniques that produced the ore, built underground enrichment facilities?

To my knowledge, there's never been a military attack on a working nuclear storage or processing site. The 'no option off the table' attack being threatened by Israeli / US war parties would be unprecedented. Any reciprocal threat or attack would be regarded as terror, and WMD warfare, respectively. This is totally unlike the destruction of unfinished reactors, which are non radiological until fueled.

General Peter Pace threatened to resign if the option of using nuclear bunker busters from one war plan was not dropped The diabolical bastard Cheney was involved in that one and they would force Pace into retirement when he also questioned their lies about Iran providing truck loads of weapons to the Taliban. Both Pace and Admiral William Fallon were forced into retirement for fighting back against the neo-cons lead by Cheney. The nations owed them a great debt of gratitude.

In case this wasn't clear, I didn't want 'scattering' to be a euphemism. Uranium fallout, particularly enfriched U, has a very long half-life, is chemically one of the more toxic elements on earth. The collatoral damage is proportional to the mass, the particle size and dispersal; smaller and wider being worser.

By contrast, the cesium unintentionally released from the Fukishima reactor accident has a half-life measured in days. A bomb-bomb-iran attack that some small-c christians cheer for would have Chernobyl effects if successful. Many hundreds of square miles, ag watersheds and fisheries rendered unfit for use, for generations.

of Alfred Thayer Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt the chokepoint of the Straight of Hormuz was seen as control of the periphery of the sea lanes from the Suez to the Far East. This was obviously prior to the days of any serious consideration of oil fields, reserves and shipping lanes from black gold source to the world market.

Both Mahan and Roosevelt showed the prejudices of the day--the superiority of the white (developed) man and the man of color (ignorant and nonsophisticated). Carving up the periphery of the Persian Gulf was seen as moral superiority to the rescue of the colored man's need to socially advance. This was morality played into the clash of the Imperial powers of the time--various European countries.

While the Straight is still seen as Mahan did-- a vital chokepoint, the past imperialists are gone and new players vye for freedom of the seas and transit of commodity to market. In this case oil as the one item that could possibly make or break most all of the larger national economies of the world.

I have this theory that the prejudices of Mahan and Roosevelt's day probably still linger and retain some evil place and drive in our foreign affairs. Are we (USA) holding moral superiority over the issue of Iraqnian nuke possession as due to the perceived notion that those nasty, crazed, uneducated, and non-sophisticated people just can not be trusted? Is the Iranian connection to Hezzbolah so overwhelming that it is ipso facto that an Iranian nuke would be passed on to non-state terrorist actors?

I don't know the answers to this, but I fear that the US engages the people of the world with snobish superiority (only WE are entitled to the nukes --and a few of our loyal and devious friends). I would tend to believe that this approach puts us all at a disadvantage and would cause many more US deaths on the battlefield surely than pissing Marines.

Admiral Mahan wrote some very compelling, and still to be read works . . .while sitting at a desk, because at sea he was accident prone having collided with other ships on numerous occasions and was known to be rather shaky at the helm. . .The fact is, Mahan didn't like going to sea and viewed it as a hazard that he reluctantly had to accept in making the Navy a career.

There must be a parable here about giving certain people the helm to steer others toward a collision course, having a record of having done it before. . .or something like that?

But we can take heart today that it won't be a Texas Governor Redux.

We're tired of its bellicose war making. Iran is entitled to stand up for its people.

Do you get paid by the word or does your silliness just come naturally?

You really don't strike me as an intelligent person. I see you are going with the old trope of "the banking/military industrial complex wants war" nonsense. I know it works well for unshaven kids in their 20's. Kids are stupid, too much mind altering, not enough mind from the get-go. Usually the nonsense is a prelude to some goofball conspiracy theory mongering or followed up with some bigoted nonsense. So unoriginal, so worthless.

----

Iran is not "standing for its people", its trying to shore up support in the face of rampant unpopularity and dissatisfaction. They are doing whatever possible to ramp up tension and spark conflict wherever possible. This is as bellicose as it gets.

No, I just insult the ideas which are firmly rooted in ignorant bigoted nonsense. Like pretty much anything coming out of your posts.

Here goes my forlorn attempt to talk to you like a mature adult....

Iran is not building a nuke. Just pretending to. If they were building one, we would not be having this discussion. They would be keeping it so far underground it would only be a vague rumor.

Nobody talked about Israel's nuclear weapons program while it was in progress because nobody knew about it until they were ready to disclose it. Same for the USSR, France, China, India, Pakistan and everyone who has developed nuclear weapons using their own efforts.

Countries trying to develop nukes aren't as indiscreet as Iran. Iran is deliberately trying to create a conflict or the appearance of one.

Iran has been saying ALL ALONG that it is NOT developing a nuclear weapon and its enrichment programme is for generating energy. Of course, being the arrogant scheming idiots that you are, you will believe everything except what you're being told.

Iran is saying so in such a coy manner that it invites skepticism. They are expecting not to be believed. This way an attack against them is seen as aggression as opposed to provocation.

They follow up their non-efforts with public displays of their enrichment capability, long range missile tests, provocative military exercises training to cut off the Straits of Hormuz and harsh rhetoric concerning "wiping" enemies off the map.

Its all part of the bluff. They aren't making a nuke but pretending they are. Just enough to look credible for those willing to go to bat for them but not credible enough for everyone else.

In the first place, anyone who really believes that the US would be going to war with Iran anytime soon (outside of Iran putting the moves on any of it's neighbors in a way that would unavoidably require the US to act on its treaty obligations) is paranoid in my opinion. That would really not give the US (and it's allies in the region, most notably the Saudis) a positive outcome. I also think that, personally, if it were me, a war would be the wrong way to handle it.

Personally, I think the US should let the Iranis choke on their regime until it suffers a real, crippling, internal crisis. Then they (and the Europeans) can let the Iranis eat Russian..."rations"...for another couple of generations, since they think the West is the spawn of all evil in the world. I also believe that for the majority of people within Iran, the conflict with the US is still personal, so there's no point in attempting to open relations with the country until the government wises up and gets pragmatic (or is overthrown from within, with the mullahs being fed to the students, by more pragmatic people).

So, having said that, I find it deliciously ironic that the more paranoid opponents of a war against Iran will believe everything that the government of Iran says about its nuclear program and nothing that even more moderate opponents (such as "Spood") of a war say.

As "Spood" has pointed out, most nations don't reveal their nuclear arsenals until they want the world to know about them (and they are a real credible threat). The government of Iran should take note that, unless they are willing to demonstrate the resolve to actually use the things, no one is going to take their mewing seriously. But were they to actually use them, they would invite the most interesting of responses from both the Saudis and the Russians, I think. I doubt the US would even have to get involved. (Can you imagine a coalition of Israel, Russia and Saudi Arabia?) So...They're sort of stuck.

As for the allegation of a double standard when it comes to nuclear weapons vis a vis the rest of the world, I think most of the nuclear five realize those weapons are "different" in (at least) ways that both limit the possibility of de-esclating a conflict (they have a very short time for deployment and use) and of working things out even after a cease fire. That is to say, things can get out of hand very quickly with the nuclear option, so the fewer nations that have them (and the fewer there are in general - witness the US proposals for the reduction in the quantities of nuclear arms) the better off we all are.

Spood, you were doing well in an earlier post, but it looks like the Prozac is wearing off. The last part of your article should apply to Israel. Have you not heard about the anger and strikes and mass rallies against Bibi and his crowd? If you bother to read Haaretz, you will find that Meir Dagan the, past Mossad Chief, states that it would be several years before Iran can build a bomb. Tamir Pardo,The present Mossad Chief, was quoted in the Washington Times as telling a group of Israeli Ambassadors that "Iran is not an existential threat to Israel, even with a bomb". You should at least report that to your supervisor in AIPAC or WINEPand even tone down your crazy attacks and vitriol.

Are you old enough to buy alcohol yet?

Smokey, you have never shown yourself to be worthy of an intelligent discussion. So insults are a much better response than attempting to take your posts seriously.

This may come down to the U.S. probably believing that a nuclear armed Iran could under normal circumstances be tolerated with a policy of deterrence, whereas we suspect, or know, that Israel most likely cannot?

However, there is another line of thought that even if Israel doesn’t attack Iran with limited strikes and by extension of that action drag the U.S. into a war soon-or-later: the underlying issue that should Iran come on line with a nuclear weapon, it will ignite a nuclear arms race within the region, long before Tehran has a credible delivery capability, and it is this scenario that probably most bothers our national security team?

So, I suspect I’m saying there is a possibility that the U.S. would rather control events by looking for an excuse to attack Iran legitimately. . .or what constitutes legitimacy these days. . .rather than watching an out of control arms race begin across the Middle East, most notably with Saudi Arabia, urkey in the beginning, to be followed by Egypt, and the Emirates perhaps?

An example of how quickly this can escalate: the Saudis already plan to build 16 nuclear reactors to generate electricity (the French very happy for the contract business) and any covert weapons program associated with it would be easy. . .Additionally, the Saudis purchased CSS-2 missiles from China back in the 1980s, which were designed to carry a nuclear warhead, and although the Saudis don't at the moment have the warheads, we do know that they have expressed interest in a joint R&D program with Pakistan.

Faced with a build-buy decision, a capital rich country can buy much quicker.

If so, the US volunteering to bomb Iran won't guarantee a change the Saudi calculation; they face a demographic shift to a Shiite Arab majority in the Gulf, with insurrections in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq of course.

A nuclear force is durable, relatively low maintenance, buys strategic external security, puts the royal keepers of Mecca on par with Israel, without posing the obvious internal coup threat of a conventional army.

race.

As Tyratios (sp, sorry) noted above you, there is a real possability that a Saudi nuclear weapons program (to match any that Iran develops) would be followed by nuclear weapons programs in Egypt, Turkey, and the Emirates (my bet would be on Iraq over the Emirates who would seek to remain under the Saudi umbrella).

Here's the rub, all of these nations at one time or another have fought wars against each other

Iraq vs. Iran
Iraq vs. Kuwait - potential invasion of Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia vs. Egypt in Yemen
Turkey vs. the Kurds of Iraq

Flight times, if I remember correctly, between these states are well under five minutes, which means that if there is either an 'oops', or an 'I'm not sure, but it looks like country XXX just fired a missile in our direction, the response time for a counterstrike would likely need to come in two minutes if not less.

As for Israel, the image of frothing at the mouth Jews eagerly seeking to bomb Iran or better yet, get the US military to die for them while Americans pay for their extremism, digs in to centuries old canards. The reality is starkly different.

Most Israelis, unlike Americans, serve its military. This is not just a three year and out deal, but a large majority also serve for several decades in its reserves. It's soldiers have seen combat close up and there are many open discussions about acceptable actions in combat, both within the military and in the wider community.

In addition, Israel's wars are not some distant affairs, but take place with its next door neighbors, and have included fighting on its own territory. For those who don't remember, leading up to the 1967 war, Israelis were digging up public parks preparing graves for the expected losses. Unlike in America's wars, missiles have landed in major cities such as Ashkalon and Haifa. Today, the Iranian proxy army Hizballah, claims to have ordanance that can reach Tel Aviv. Israelis, both its military and political leaders, as well as the man and woman on the street are aware of this threat.

With the real risk of retaliation in mind, Israelis are not interested in launching a frivolous war since it is their homes that are going to be the initial targets of any retaliation and their fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins brothers, sisters, sons and daughters and neighbors, that will be doing the fighting. Realize that this is a nation that really does come to a halt on its memorial day. Go to Israel during Yom HaZikaron (rememberence day) and you will hear air-raid sirens wail and every Israeli, whatever they are doing, even driving, will come to a halt, and commemorate those, both military and civilian who have perished in conflict or terrorist attack.

IF, Israel's military and political leaders decide that they are going to attack Iran, it is most likely because they are out of other options, and fully believe that Iran does mean to carry out its long-running threat to destroy their state and people.

"Which means everyong can just assume it'll be USA vs Iran, and we all know who'll win that fight."

Actually, I don't know who will win. What do you think? We have an exhausted AVF, questionable public support at home, a national economy on the brink of bankruptcy, etc. On the other hand, we would face a real country with a nationalistic spirit (unlike Iraq with its sects). And from what I gather, Iran has a population twice as large as Iraq, and a land mass that's four times larger.

After our no-doubt spectacular aerial attack, we'd have to put troops on the ground....how many months would we have to stage all the men and machines? And after we defeat the Iranian forces, how long do we occupy the country, and with how many troops?

But maybe I'm oversimplifying. Maybe there is an Iranian "Chalabi" waiting in the wings to form a Resistance Movement that will take over after we win the tactical victories and relieve us of the burden of occupying a hostile country? Who do you think will win?

Regardless of how difficult it would be for the US Military to wrestle Iran to the ground, my point is that *all* commentators (from Tom Ricks on down to you) are simply assuming that's going to be the equation i.e. would it be:
1) Easy for the US Military to defeat Iran, or
2) Hard for the US Military to defeat Iran?

Nobody asks this obvious question:
Q: What is to stop other countries from coming to Iran's aid?

Come on, Ricks, take the wider view i.e. the USA will never get the UN Security Council to authorize the use of force against Iran, which means that any US attack upon Iran will be nothing more - nor less - than "an armed attack upon a Member of the United Nations".

Article 51 of the UN Charter: all states have a right to a collective self-defense against an armed attack i.e. if the USA attacks Iran without UNSC authorization then int'l law says - and the UN Charter agrees - that Russia and/or China would be e.n.t.i.t.l.e.d. to jump in and come to Iran's defence.

That would mean the Korean War all over again, but this time the USA will be playing the role of North Korea and not, ummmm, the Beacon of Democracy.

Oh, the irony....

And for those who say "They Wouldn't Dare!" then I can only point you back to Good Ol' Douggie MacArthur, who thought exactly the same thing about the Chinese in 1950.

Until, that is, the People's Liberation Army took him up on that dare.

That Iran is not on China's doorstep like North Korea was. In addition, Iran's political ideology is not similar as was North Korea and China under Communism.

Third, The US and EU are huge customers of China's economic output. Something in the realm of $1.5 Trillion annually. In addition, China holds roughly $1.0 Trillion worth of US Treasury bonds.

China's over-riding political goal is to protect the party and keep the people from revolting. Knock $1.5 Trillion worth of output from its economic base and the Chinese people would be somewhat upset. Iran, no matter how much oil they pump, doesn't have the bank account to replace the lost customers.

Russia meanwhile, is looking to purchase ships for its navy from France. I don't see how and why it would decide to get into a shooting war over Iran.

It's not a question of being scared, but a question of each of these nation's interest.

And Iran is not on Israel's doorstep either.

This will be an air and naval campaign, and that means China can provide assistance by means of air assets and anti-shipping missiles.

Indeed, if Israel is involved they could find their F-16s pitted against Chinese J-10 Vigorous Dragon, which would indeed be Karma coming back to bite Netanyahu on the bum.

Oh, yeah, and did you notice which countries share the Caspian Sea?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Iran gets itself some nukes then there will be no American attack on Iran.

Full. Stop.

and the one you pointed to in Debka, I don't see where this hinges on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Well, there goes your street cred.

You do know who runs debka, don't you?

It's like listening to a 1960's hippy quoting from Pravda, and then expecting to be taken seriously.

I know who runs it...former isrsaeli intel officials...and their analysis, while sobering and not what liberals like to hear, is often spot on. Read what you like, I find them to be excellent ....same for stratfor....

this site? lol...mostly a forum for hacks with agendas....and the loony crowd who bloviate here are mostly racist anti american, anti semitic freaks. a lot of ron paulers....who as we all know, are fringe loons...oh yea! Dr. Paul! the gyno for pres! LOL......

"and their analysis" ..... is exactly what the Israeli government wants you to hear.

"is often spot on." ....... [chortle]

And your evidence for that latter statement is..... what, exactly?