How to avoid an Israeli strike on Iran?

reply to post by midicon



If things were only that simple.

Flawed thinking at work .

reply to post by SLAYER69


From the source article .

But first things first. Should Israel attempt to delay the Iranian program by force, he said, the result would be particularly disastrous for the United States.

Any air strikes would drive the anti government protesters or forces back into the hands of there oppressors .

Iran, at the very least, would view an Israeli attack as being American-enabled-and perhaps explicitly approved -- which would prompt the regime in Tehran to retaliate directly against U.S. interests in the region.

Iran knows it can't defeat Israel in a conventional war because of support provided from the USA . So they would just step up there proxy war with Israeli by lending support to various terrorist organisations .

Riedel reaches back to deterrence theory by proposing that the United States offer Israel the benefits of American nuclear umbrella.

The concept of the American Nuclear umbrella isn't possible under the current US administration because Obama has ruled out ever using nukes even has a response to such an attack . Talking about an open invite to Iran and North Korea to use nukes .

This, of course, only works if those with their fingers on the hypothetical Iranian nuclear button are rational,

It would be a fatal error to assume that the Iranian regime is in the slightest bit rational . Regimes like the one in Iran when do some crazy things when they are on the brink and they want to stay in power . Iran could end up nuking Israeli or its own people . Saddam gassed the Kurds without giving it much thought so I wouldn't put anything past the current regime in Iran .

Though Riedel could very well be accurate in his analysis, in order to keep his deterrence argument intact he needs to downplay the possibility that Iran would transfer a nuclear weapon to a third party

I would rate this as the main danger along with Iran using nukes against its own population . It is also possible that nukes are used against Israel as an EMP device .

reply to post by xpert11


Are you replying to me or the parts of the article you quoted?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Are you replying to me or the parts of the article you quoted?

I was mostly addressing the flawed premise put forward in the article . Although as you had posted the OP I wondered what your thoughts would be .

Cheers xpert11 .

reply to post by xpert11



I thought it good that it was written. Things cannot be fixed or straightened out unless it's discussed.

reply to post by DerekJR321


How can you hold a country to an agreement they haven't signed?
Why wont Iran comply to an agreement they HAVE signed and agreed too?

reply to post by SLAYER69


The unfortunate "truth" is that no NPT country is complying.

So why should Iran?

reply to post by peck420


I'm not disagreeing with you I'm just curious do you have a list of violators and the violations?

Signatories involved - every NWS and most western NPT signatories (anybody with nuclear technology)

Article 4 Section 2

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Source - UN NPT Treaty

Bolded text by me.

Note the use of words "shall" and "in a position to do so".

As every country involved is is more than capable of helping in the digital age we can pretty much ignore the "in a position to do so". If you can name a country that couldn't provide a minimum of "on-line" assistance, feel free to comment on this.

Next is the term "shall". Not "could", "should", or "maybe".

Definition of "shall":

As an auxiliary, shall indicates a duty or necessity whose obligation is derived from the person speaking; as, you shall go; he shall go; that is, I order or promise your going. It thus ordinarily expresses, in the second and third persons, a command, a threat, or a promise.

Source - Definition

My interpretation of Article 4, Sec.2, is that every signatory is obligated to help all other countries (this includes non NPT also) research, develope, and implement safe nuclear technology.

I have yet to see this happen. In Canada, anytime there is talk of nuclear energy, there is a good amount of chest pounding of our "safe" CANDU reactors. Even capable of producing energy while being incapable of enrichment. This makes Canada non-compliant of the treaty.

Now let's move on to Article 6.

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

(Source is same as Article 4)

Bold by me.

Definition of "good faith" (in legalese no less)

Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.

Source - Definition

The duty of each party to an agreement (and all officers, employees, or agents of each party) to act in a fair and equitable manner toward each other so as to guarantee each party freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation from the other.

When everybody insist on negotiating behind closed doors, you are no longer negotiating in good faith.

Now, I do understand, that for some of the members, this would entail divulging national security interests. Specifically the weaponized states, however, they did sign the agreement with this article in it.

For specific infractions:

France - Israel: France as a NWSP is in violation due to the "theft" of nuclear weapons by Israel. I have looked for an official decleration of missing nuclear material by France, but nothing seems to exist PRIOR to Israel's outing as a NWS (this does not implicate Israel as they are not a signatory). France is in violation of articles 1 & 5. Transfer was indirect and it is under IAEA procedure to report missing materials immediately. Although this claim has never been "official", there has also been no official IAEA inspection and count.

USA - NATO: United States and NATO continue to store and maintain nuclear weapon systems belonging to the United States outside US borders. This goes against articles 1 & 2. I would almost buy the NATO/US defense to this accusation if NATO member planes had not been modified to carry US nuclear weapons, as this involves direct technological sharing in regards to nuclear weapons.

Russia/USSR - During the collapse of the USSR many nuclear weapons, as well as materials, fell into non-nuclear weapon state hands. Russia was obligated by the treaty to recover these weapons.

North Korea - Publicly stated that they "now" had nuclear weapons, while a signatory. Left NPT 2003.

To do a full analysis would involve access to multiple governments "secret" databases. However, now that there is publicly 3 non treaty members with nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea) and as the "heart and soul" of the agreement (articles 4 & 6) have never really been practiced, I would say that the treaty has been nothing more than lip service for a long time.

reply to post by peck420


Thanks I very much appreciate the reply. I'll read through it and give my reply later today.