Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

‘I prefer ISIS’: Iran’s terror infrastructure is greater threat to Israel – def minis Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.rt.com/news/329502-isis-iran-threat-israel/

    ‘I prefer ISIS’: Iran’s terror infrastructure is greater threat to Israel – defense minister

    Israel continues to express bitter sentiment over the diplomatic victory that secured the nuclear accord with Tehran: The country's defense minister stated that Tehran's nuclear ambitions and “terror infrastructure” are a bigger threat than Islamic State.

    Speaking at the Institute for National Security Studies' (INSS) conference in Tel Aviv, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon stressed that "Iran is our main enemy,” and if he were to choose between Iran and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in an open conflict, he would "prefer ISIS."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Israel would prefer a conflict with a weaker power than a stronger power and is still crying wolf about Iran.


    How is this news?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This will lead people to believe that Israel is behind ISIS which the Iranian media is actually saying that
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    as long as Israel has the blessing of America nothing bad will happen to her.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by al_94)
    This will lead people to believe that Israel is behind ISIS which the Iranian media is actually saying that
    Iranian media has been mainly blaming the US for the rise of the IS, it hasn't really outright blamed Israel.


    They do, however, attempt to claim that Israel backs 'terrorists' fighting Assad (as they have given treatment to injured 'rebels' near the Israeli border).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    as long as Israel has the blessing of America nothing bad will happen to her.
    Already has not. Or maybe you meant "her" = America?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Already has not. Or maybe you meant "her" = America?
    No i meant Israel = her.

    President Trump would be a great friend of Israel, no ? His daughter is an observant Jew.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by al_94)
    This will lead people to believe that Israel is behind ISIS
    Certainly, cretins may come to that conclusion.

    Those who are not attracted to conspiracy nonsense will give short shrift to this putrid blather
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I like how Israel have been crying about Iran's supposedly suicidal quest for nuclear weapons, 'imminent' since 1992... :lol:


    24 years later and every major power on Earth recognises the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear programme, and the only country in the ME with nuclear weapons remains Israel.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    From the Israeli prospective Iran is the far greater threat. These comments aren't surprising or strange.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moezoeboe)
    24 years later and every major power on Earth recognises the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear programme
    You clearly haven't been paying attention. Iran just agreed to give up the dual-use aspects of their programmes. The entire world imposed harsh sanctions on Iran because it recognised the threat, and only lifted them once Iran gave up that programme

    Even the Russians agreed the programme was a threat and joined in the sanctions regime
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RegencyTwink)
    The entire world imposed harsh sanctions on Iran because it recognised the threat, and only lifted them once Iran gave up that programme
    I have been paying very close attention, I assure you.


    I generally agree with what you say, but I don't see how it negates what I said. Under the JCPOA the P5+1 recognised Iran's right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, which was my point.


    Netanyahu first claimed that Iran was on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons in 1992, yet in the 24 years antecedent to the JCPOA the IAEA Iran somehow never quite managed to develop such weapons. Strange considering how quickly even Pakistan developed nuclear weapons.


    I agree that there were some troubling aspects/behaviour, especially prior to 2003, with regards to research into delivery systems, but all major intelligence agencies have, time and time again, concluded that Iran has never decided to actively seek nuclear weapons. What is less concrete is their intention to reach the capacity to do so, but, again, I doubt this for a few reasons: the fatwa issued by Khamenie declaring nuclear weapons as un-Islamic and banned; Iran's refusal to respond to Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons attacks on Iranians despite having its own WMDs at the time; they have never enriched uranium beyond 20% (and have agreed to stop enriching it to even this level for at least 10 years under the JCPOA), falling well short of the 90% enriched uranium needed for a nuclear warhead.


    Iran's main adversary is Israel, the sole nuclear-power in the ME, who have assassinated Iranian scientists on Iranian soil and are not a signatory to the NPT, whereas Iran has always been a signatory to the NPT and has never been found to divert its civilian nuclear programme to military ends. Netanyahu's crying wolf about the lie of Iran's nuclear ambitions since 1992 is the epitome of irony.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moezoeboe)
    I agree that there were some troubling aspects/behaviour, especially prior to 2003, with regards to research into delivery systems, but all major intelligence agencies have, time and time again, concluded that Iran has never decided to actively seek nuclear weapons. What is less concrete is their intention to reach the capacity to do so, but, again, I doubt this for a few reasons: the fatwa issued by Khamenie declaring nuclear weapons as un-Islamic and banned
    Fair enough, it's clear you have been paying attention.

    However, it is somewhat glib to point to the fact that Iranians had made no active decision to proceed with actually building a device. It's clear, as you say, that they were trying to create the capacity to build one whenever they wanted (to be "one turn of the screw" away, to adopt a formulation used in respect of Japanese proliferation), which is just as much a threat as an active weapons programme because at those earlier stages, they are doing precisely the same thing they'd be doing as if they were actually building a weapon.

    If they were only interested in nuclear energy then there were many offers on the table that would have provided this capability. The world saw that the Iran's were being too cute and too glib in their claim not to be seeking a nuclear programme

    I don't oppose the current deal at all, I take the position that many top Israeli officials, heads of Mossad, former heads of Shin Bet etc have taken, which is that the current deal is acceptable. Using the Netanyahu menace to paint all of Israel as unreasonable warmongers is unacceptable

    http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990...n-nuclear-deal
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RegencyTwink)
    However, it is somewhat glib to point to the fact that Iranians had made no active decision to proceed with actually building a device. It's clear, as you say, that they were trying to create the capacity to build one whenever they wanted (to be "one turn of the screw" away, to adopt a formulation used in respect of Japanese proliferation), which is just as much a threat as an active weapons programme because at those earlier stages, they are doing precisely the same thing they'd be doing as if they were actually building a weapon.
    I agree, but I think this is due to the fact that developing a civilian nuclear programme inevitably entails progressing somewhat towards nuclear-weapons capacity. However, the heavy water reactor in Arak, for example, was dubious in this regard. Although I am of the opinion that this was simply a bargaining chip to be used to extract concessions.


    I don't think Iran has any intention to actually develop nuclear weapons, for the reasons I gave before, but I agree that they have sought the means to produce one at short notice if necessary, as a deterrent to Israel, imo.

    If they were only interested in nuclear energy then there were many offers on the table that would have provided this capability. The world saw that the Iran's were being too cute and too glib in their claim not to be seeking a nuclear programme
    Can you specify which proposals in particular you are referring to? I think it's important to note that science and self-sufficiency are two very strong themes in Iranian culture, so any proposals that negated their ability to have their own domestic programme were destined to fail. They have, however, shipped 98% of their enriched uranium stockpiles to Russia in the last week, so it is clear that they are not totally opposed to cooperation with other countries.


    We have to remember that from Iran's perspective they are a NPT-signatory with IAEA inspectors at their nuclear sites 24/7, and have subject to extremely harsh sanctions effecting the population disproportionately, so they have an image of being unfairly targeted. It's undeniable, however, that certain hard-line governments, notably Ahmadinejad, expressed worrying rhetoric about Israel and a belligerent refusal to cooperate about the world's legitimate concerns with Iran's nuclear programme.

    I don't oppose the current deal at all, I take the position that many top Israeli officials, heads of Mossad, former heads of Shin Bet etc have taken, which is that the current deal is acceptable. Using the Netanyahu menace to paint all of Israel as unreasonable warmongers is unacceptable
    Agreed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moezoeboe)
    I agree, but I think this is due to the fact that developing a civilian nuclear programme inevitably entails progressing somewhat towards nuclear-weapons capacity. However, the heavy water reactor in Arak, for example, was dubious in this regard.
    I was going to mention Arak. There's no need for heavy water if you want to develop a pure energy programme, and modern lightwater reactors can be designed to be utterly useless for a weapons programme. The Russians offered to build one.

    Fordow was also clearly not oriented towards a future civilian energy programme.

    Although I am of the opinion that this was simply a bargaining chip to be used to extract concessions.
    Possibly. In many ways their intentions are quite inscrutable, the problem is that intentions can change. A programme started to use as a bargaining chip can be used down the track for malign purposes if someone who does want weapons comes to power.

    Can you specify which proposals in particular you are referring to? I think it's important to note that science and self-sufficiency are two very strong themes in Iranian culture, so any proposals that negated their ability to have their own domestic programme was destined to fail. They have, however, shipped 98% of their enriched uranium stockpiles to Russia in the last week, so it is clear that they are not totally opposed to cooperation with other countries.
    I'll have to dig out the article, but Russia offered to build a lightwater reactor for them. I take your point about self-sufficiency, though as I think you have somewhat accepted, this wasn't really a programme designed purely for energy purposes (on whatever basis it was started, whether for bargaining chips or a "turn of the screw" deterrent)

    We have to remember that from Iran's perspectives they are a NPT-signatory with IAEA inspectors at their nuclear sites 24/7, and have subject to extremely harsh sanctions effecting the population disproportionately, so they have an image of being unfairly targeted. It's undeniable, however, that certain hard-line governments, notably Ahmadinejad, expressed worrying rhetoric about Israel and a belligerent refusal to cooperate about the world's legitimate concerns with Iran's nuclear programme.
    It's true that Iran's programme has been targeted much more harshly than non-NPT nuclear programmes like Israel, Pakistan and India. The problem is that the Iranian leadership have made a conscious decision to isolate themselves over the years. I know that you shouldn't take their rhetoric at face value, but when a power that regularly makes blood-curdling threats and is a major sponsor of violent non-state actors across the region starts building a programme that could lead to a nuclear weapon, it is entirely expected they will be brought to book. In my view, Iran's isolation is entirely a function of decisions that their leadership have made.

    Also, the Iranians were not fully NPT compliant, they had undisclosed sites like Fordow

    Agreed.
    Cool, glad we are on the same page there You're a gentleman and a scholar (seriously)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RegencyTwink)
    I was going to mention Arak. There's no need for heavy water if you want to develop a pure energy programme, and modern lightwater reactors can be designed to be utterly useless for a weapons programme. The Russians offered to build one.

    Fordow was also clearly not oriented towards a future civilian energy programme.
    As I understand it, Arak was to be used to replace Iran's sole nuclear research facility in Tehran (Tehran Research Lab, built in the 1950s I think, ironically by the USA) for the purposes of research into nuclear isotopes etc. However, the plutonium production was worrying, and, as you say, unnecessary for civilian purposes. However, as I stated, I believe that was just used to extract concessions, as it was in the JCPOA and they have now removed the core of the facility and filled it with concrete (to render its impotence irreversible).


    I disagree about Fordo, I think the decision to build a nuclear facility under hundreds of feet of mountain is understandable in the context of Israel threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, purely for deterrence purposes.

    Possibly. In many ways their intentions are quite inscrutable, the problem is that intentions can change. A programme started to use as a bargaining chip can be used down the track for malign purposes if someone who does want weapons comes to power.
    True, but they have already extracted the concession they sought in exchange for it, and, as I don't believe the current regime seeks nuclear weapons I don't think that's an issue. As for regime change worries, if there is a change in regime it will only go in the opposite direction, as many of the youth in Iran (an overwhelmingly young population) are growing disillusioned with the revolution (the police chief of Tehran in 2012, for example, stated that 50% of Iranians in the capital publicly flaunted Ramadan rules (not eating in public during certain hours) but conceded that this cannot be countered by the State).

    I'll have to dig out the article, but Russia offered to build a lightwater reactor for them. I take your point about self-sufficiency, though as I think you have somewhat accepted, this wasn't really a programme designed purely for energy purposes (on whatever basis it was started, whether for bargaining chips or a "turn of the screw" deterrent)
    The Bushehr facility in Iran is a light-water reactor, built by the Russians. It is true that heavy-water reactors seem unnecessary for a civilian programme (as they produce more plutonium), but Canada's nuclear facilities are heavy-water, so it is not the case that all heavy-water reactors indicate nefarious intentions. In the case of Iran, however, I think it legitimately indicates intentions worthy of suspicion, though.

    It's true that Iran's programme has been targeted much more harshly than non-NPT nuclear programmes like Israel, Pakistan and India. The problem is that the Iranian leadership have made a conscious decision to isolate themselves over the years. I know that you shouldn't take their rhetoric at face value, but when a power that regularly makes blood-curdling threats and is a major sponsor of violent non-state actors across the region starts building a programme that could lead to a nuclear weapon, it is entirely expected they will be brought to book. In my view, Iran's isolation is entirely a function of decisions that their leadership have made.
    Completely agree.


    What Sadegh Zibakalam, professor of political science at Tehran University, has stated on Iranian TV attests to that:
    “Brazil, Argentina and India all have nuclear programme but Iran is the only country which has announced it wants to destroy Israel... who has given us the duty to destroy Israel?”

    “Israel has never said it wants to destroy us ... Even Palestinians recognise Israel. We are more catholic than the pope."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moezoeboe)
    X
    Agree with most of what you say. The only things I'd add is that Canada's heavy water reactors, the CANDU design, were developed in the 1950s when counter-proliferation was not considered such an issue (and iirc some of Canada's nuclear infrastructure was a hangover from their involvement in Tube Alloys)

    The issue with Fordow, I think, is that it would be quite inconvenient to have a deep underground facility for a civilian programme, it's only if you believe your adversaries will perceive it as being of military value that you would build it like that. They clearly knew it would be considered provocative, which any sane country would lead them to consider more carefully whether this facility is actually necessary or if there are other ways you could truly alleviate the concerns about it. Perhaps most important is that it was undisclosed, in contravention of their NPT obligations, which adds to the sense of threat around the whole facility.

    I don't think Iran played this very well; they traded away most of the programme in exchange for lifting of sanctions that were only there due to the nuclear programme. The normal US sanctions programme hasn't been lifted, and in fact it looks like new sanctions will be levied over their ballistic missile tests. My own view is that they wasted vast amounts of money, inflicted totally unnecessary sanctions that badly damaged the Iranian economy, and all for very little benefit in the final analysis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RegencyTwink)
    Agree with most of what you say. The only things I'd add is that Canada's heavy water reactors, the CANDU design, were developed in the 1950s when counter-proliferation was not considered such an issue.
    That's a fair point. I agree that Iran had no need for a heavy-water reactor, and was unwise in developing such a reactor. It has, however, rendered the facility unusable for such purposes now, fortunately.

    The issue with Fordow, I think, is that it would be quite inconvenient to have a deep underground facility for a civilian programme, it's only if you believe your adversaries will perceive it as being of military value that you would build it like that.
    But Iran did know that Israel would perceive it as being of military value, as they had previously threatened to strike similar centrifuge-sites.

    They clearly knew it would be considered provocative, which any sane country would lead them to consider more carefully whether this facility is actually necessary or if there are other ways you could truly alleviate the concerns about it. Perhaps most important is that it was undisclosed, in contravention of their NPT obligations, which adds to the sense of threat around the whole facility.
    It's undeniable that building such a facility deep underground evokes suspicion in any reasonable person, but I stand by my opinion that it was understandable in the context of threats to attack their nuclear facilities and that it was thus a justified measure to deter such attacks.


    As for failing to disclose the existence of the site in time, this is a contentious issue: it's true that Iran were essentially forced to disclose it once its existence was revealed by the NCRI, but Iran argue that they still disclosed it within the legal lime limit. I agree, though, that failing to disclose of its intentions re: the facility ASAP, rather than as late as possible, doesn't help Iran's case.

    I don't think Iran played this very well; they traded away most of the programme in exchange for lifting of sanctions that were only there due to the nuclear programme. The normal US sanctions programme hasn't been lifted, and in fact it looks like new sanctions will be levied over their ballistic missile tests. My own view is that they wasted vast amounts of money, inflicted totally unnecessary sanctions that badly damaged the Iranian economy, and all for very little benefit in the final analysis.
    I partially agree. I agree that Iran has incurred great costs for the Iranian people for little benefit, again, as Sadegh said:
    “I asked [senior negotiator] Aragchi what would you have to say to your grandchild if he comes to you in 30 years time and asks you what did you gain in return for spending so much on the nuclear programme?”

    Zibakalam argued that the programme, especially the enrichment cycle, was not cost-effective for Iran. “How many people work for our atomic agency, how much budget does it have? [Compare that] to the money designated for our health, this is the real issue."
    Most of the sanctions on Iran were based on its nuclear programme, which means that the main bulk of sanctions have been lifted. The main sanctions that remain are mainly US sanctions on Iran for its violations of human rights (totally justified) and on its ballistic missile programme (less justified, or necessary, imo). The new sanctions you speak of, in response to Iran's test firing of its latest ballistic missile 'Emad' (its first precision-guided IRBM) target a list of certain entities/individuals allegedly connected to Iran's missile programme; they won't have any significant effect on foreign investment, or Iran's economy.


    Most significant is that they can now resume selling oil (to Europe), access the global banking system (SWIFT) and access their funds frozen abroad (roughly $100 billion, but only $30 billion of which they can immediately access, the rest being already promised for projects etc). From the situation they were in, they managed to achieve recognition of their civilian nuclear programme and get the sanctions lifted, so I think it was a fairly good deal for all parties involved. However, it was only their incredibly poor leadership that got them into that situation in the first place, so in that sense you are correct.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by al_94)
    This will lead people to believe that Israel is behind ISIS which the Iranian media is actually saying that
    By "people" you mean those with learning disabilities who love conspiracy theories about Jews and who haven't the slightest idea about critical thinking? Then yes, I agree with you.

    Anyone else? No.........
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 20, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.