Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Predicting Iran will obtain nuclear weapons by the end of the decade, the defense establishment's new and updated assessment for 2007 does not foresee the United States undertaking a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The chances of an American strike are deemed "low," according to assessments by the security establishment. Israel also believes that international diplomatic efforts to stop Iran will fail, security sources said.
In an interivew with the Post in late September, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said US President George W. Bush would prevent the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Asked whether he felt Bush would one way or the other stop Iran going nuclear, Olmert responded: "I believe so."
In April, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iran had passed one of the major hurdles in its race to obtain nuclear power and had, for the first time, successfully enriched uranium, a high-ranking IDF officer told the Post that Iran would obtain nuclear independence in a matter of months.
At the time, a battery of 164 centrifuges was used to enrich the uranium to 3.5 percent. To produce highly-enriched uranium at 90%, Iran would need to operate thousands of centrifuges without interruption for a period of several months.
Ahmadinejad announced plans last month to build 60,000 additional centrifuges, leading Israel to believe that it was only a matter of time before Iran developed a nuclear capability. Pakistan encountered similar difficulties in its nuclear program but eventually overcame them.
The assumption in the defense establishment is that even if sanctions were imposed on Iran today, they would not be effective in deterring the regime from continuing with its nuclear plans. The Democratic takeover of the US Senate and Congress has also led to the prediction that President George W. Bush will not be able to order a military strike.
In addition, the prediction is that Bush's administration is headed towards talks with Iran, expected to be one of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report on America's options in Iraq to be presented to the US president on Wednesday.
The UN Security Council demanded in July that Teheran suspend enrichment, but Iran instead has expanded that work, recently setting up a second experimental chain of 164 centrifuges to produce small amounts of low-enriched uranium.
Teheran has said it intends to activate 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006 and then increase the program to 54,000 centrifuges. Iranian officials say that would produce enough enriched uranium to fuel a 1,000-megawatt reactor, such as that being built by Russia and nearing completion at Bushehr.
Experts estimate Iran would need only 1,500 centrifuges to produce a nuclear weapon.
Meanwhile, on Monday French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that the six powers seeking a UN resolution on Iran's nuclear program were nearing agreement on a text.
High-ranking diplomats from the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany will meet Tuesday in Paris to discuss measures to punish Iran for failing to halt the enrichment of uranium.
"We want to reach as broad an agreement as possible in the UN Security Council," Douste-Blazy said in Brussels, according to the French Foreign Ministry. "Therefore we are gathering tomorrow in Paris to discuss the text."
Douste-Blazy said he discussed the Iranian situation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
We are in agreement with Russia to adopt sanctions against Iran's proliferation program," Douste-Blazy said.
On Friday, Lavrov reaffirmed Russia's readiness to back a UN ban on exports of nuclear materials and sensitive technologies to Iran, but said US-proposed sanctions were "too tough."
A European draft UN resolution in October would order all countries to ban the supply of materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It would also impose a travel ban and asset freeze on companies, individuals and organizations involved in those programs.
The draft would exempt a nuclear power plant being built by the Russians at Bushehr, Iran but not the nuclear fuel needed for the reactor.
Russia proposed major changes that would limit sanctions solely to measures that would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Russia would eliminate any travel ban, asset freeze, or mention of Bushehr.
"We have taken the Russian amendments into consideration," Douste-Blazy said.
NOW READ THE TALK BACK FROM JEWS AND OTHERS .AND THEY HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL MUSLIMS TERRORSIT AND BLA BLA BLA
4. war between 2 mafias
daeved - nz
12/05/2006 01:32
America would be taking on Russia, not iran if it attacked the nuclear facilities.......iran is just another russian front........
2 5. Worst comes to worst
MIKE - USA
12/05/2006 01:30
I think teheran will soon get what Iraq got back in the day.. bec I know that Israel wont sit still while alminijihad is plotting to destroy it...
6. Clever tactics ...
Arvin
12/05/2006 01:44
3 It appears the the Iranians have taken full advantage of the American blunder in Iraq and the Israeli blunder in Lebanon. In hindsight, the Americans (and possibly Israel) are responsible for the current state of affairs
4 7. A nuclear Iran: better for Israel
Jessica - U.S.A. /Canada
12/05/2006 01:53
Wish Israelis could understand the following rather twisted argument:" A nuclear iran will serve Israel". A nuclear Iran would force the right-wing in Israel to come to the negotiation table and resolve the conflict in a few years. This would gaurantee the existence of Israel for a longer period. As long as there is a disproportion in power in the region ISRAEL would not be serious in making peace with the palestinians. period. Time will prove it to you believe me.
5 -8. Fork in the Road...
Michael - USA
12/05/2006 01:54
March 7, 1936
6-9. Name the Centrifuges
h - USA
12/05/2006 02:01
Might as well name some of them "Olmert-Jerusalem" and others "Peretz-Tel Aviv," because that is where the bombs will go due to the weak Israeli "leaders" who will do nothing to stop them
7-10. The end of Israel
Scott - USA
12/05/2006 02:06
Since Olmert has taken power in Israel, I now refuse to visit the Jewish state. I refuse to support a country whose leader supports its own destruction and the end of the Jewish people all while the Israeli public does nothing!.
8-12. The days of Noah!
INKY BG - USA
12/05/2006 02:38
They saw a BIG boat being built, but they thought he was crazy. We know Ahmadinejad is crazy. Does anyone stop a plane from North Korea to Iran? Has Ahmadinejad changed his tune? Bush would have stopped them. Realize, the Democrates didn't let America enter WW2 untill we were attacked They sat back and watched crazies then too
9-13. Mankind is at the mercy of the medieval ayatollahs
Gershon ben David - Australia
12/05/2006 02:42
It is clear that many world leaders know the danger from a nuclear armed Iran. The only problem is that they have no courage to stop them. History proved it many times that doing nothing about the forthcoming danger is a poor choice. We just need a few brave men to make a decision, before humanity falls in the hands of the medieval ayatollahs.
10-14. DO IT, ISRAEL!
Ronald Barbour - USA
12/05/2006 02:54
DO IT, ISRAEL!!! If our gutless wonder of a country will not take out the Iranian nukes then Israel must do it to save Western Civilization!
11-15. Not Necessary to do Anything
Tex
12/05/2006 02:56
It is not necessary to do anything to Iran. Read Chapters 38 and 39 of Ezekiel to see what will happen soon.
12-16. Believe it
Roger - Canada
12/05/2006 03:05
If there is one lesson to learn from Hitler is that when someone with the power to do so promises they are going to eliminate you, they MEAN it. Iran's talk is no less real. And if Israel believes it is, then they are guilty of forgetting the one big lesson of WWII. I'll bet the average Israeli hasn't forgotten the lesson. Too bad for them that it appears their current political leaders have. Israel has the power to stop their enemies. They sadly lack the will.
13-19. To Stop Iran
Rick
12/05/2006 03:19
To Stop Iran maybe requires destroying Iran: The justice of self defense means doing the absolute minimum nessesary to defend one's self. Is there anything less than the destruction of Iran to eliminate the threat against Israel?
20. #11 your out of your mind
14- Aaron McGuire - USA
12/05/2006 03:23
your smoking crack if you think i don't want Iran bombed. I write my elected officials to take strong military action against Iran ALL THE TIME! all my fellow Jewish brothers all feel the same as me.
15-21. Iran
Richard - USA
12/05/2006 03:23
I wouldn't be so certain about American disposition towards Iran. This is a textbook mission for air power and SLCM's and there would be absolutely no reason to put a single American body on the ground inside Iran. No one here cares what actually happens inside Iran - just what power Iran can project outside its borders. I say don't worry excessively - yet.
16-. Need to define goals
Andrew
12/05/2006 03:35
If the goal is Israel's security, let's talk about methods: --- Clean Break reccomends ensuring Israel's military superiority in the region via 'divide-and-conquer'. US has been conquering by proxy and we are conspiring civil wars. --- An alternative strategy would be making sure Israel has no enemies. This would mean '67 borders. Israel prefers the first option. Americans are no longer willing to play ball. It's as simple as that.
17-25. U.S. preemptive strike against Teheran
Tommy John - U.S.
12/05/2006 03:45
If Israel won't solve the Iran problem with its 300 nukes you may rest assured Bush is not going to do it for them.
18-26. arvin #6
David Reed - USA
12/05/2006 03:40
A very naive assessment. America's "blunder" is in trusting so-called allies who play both sides against the middle, hoping to sap American power and influence while appeasing radical Islam which is the enemy of every civilized nation. The Bush administration is also hamstrung by domestic enemies within the USA hoping to obtain power for themselves. Our radical Islamic enemies strengthen as our "allies" jockey for power, to our mutual and collective peril.
19-26. arvin #6
David Reed - USA
12/05/2006 03:40
A very naive assessment. America's "blunder" is in trusting so-called allies who play both sides against the middle, hoping to sap American power and influence while appeasing radical Islam which is the enemy of every civilized nation. The Bush administration is also hamstrung by domestic enemies within the USA hoping to obtain power for themselves. Our radical Islamic enemies strengthen as our "allies" jockey for power, to our mutual and collective peril.
20-27. "interview" with olmert"..olmert said"...What's the point of talking to Useful-Idiots?!!
snappir
12/05/2006 03:42
talking to olmert is like talking to a mentally unstable person. Is there any sense and point of talking to him ? He says one thing today, another thing tomorrow...he doesn't know what the hell he is doing as a primeminister of Israel. All he is doing is DAMAGE, DAMAGE and again DAMAGE. Olmert and his handlers at the Left Inc. are USEFUL to one and only side - the enemy, the arabs, the euronazis. For Israel and Israelis they are a malignant tumor.
21-28. To INKY BG. USA could NOT enter war earlier!
Magnus K - Norway
12/05/2006 03:50
In 1939 the Us had an army equal to the size of the Polish one. The truth is that the Us would have been DEFEATED and crushed, had they entered into the war in say, december 39. Also the Us army was ill-equpped, and severly ill-trained, compared to say, Germany and Japan. That is the Truth!
22-29. arvin #6 cont.
David L Reed - USA
12/05/2006 03:50
furthermore, if our President Bush were allowed to wield our power unfettered by whiners who think radicals can be reasoned with and bought into liking us, he would do so swiftly, boldly, and with decisive clarity to the great horror of enemies domestic and abroad, and Israel would not find itself in such a nightmarish circumstance. Look to your God, Israel,... He is your first and last hope, Godspeed to you all.
23-30. To Richard -- There will be NO bombing
Eric - USA
12/05/2006 04:13
Richard, you are simply wrong. The US will not bomb Iran. The entire concept is ludicrous, and plainly won't work as we've seen from Iraq. The American public won't stand for it, nor will any sensible person. War with Iran is not the pathway to peace. I just thank God the American public woke up and voted out the war mongering idiots who created the current disaster in Iraq. Peace will prevail now that sensible people are in power. Israel needs to do the same.
24-31. NPT Treaty Unraveling at the Seams
Texan - USA
12/05/2006 04:27
Between North Korea and Iran, the NPT Treaty is fraying. There are other regional players in the ME like the UAE, Saudi, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and a host of others that have the funds and eventually the technology to get the bomb. Israel will either learn to live with the threat or take a stand in the coming year.
25- 32. #18: "Nukes = peace.......????"
excalibur - RSA
12/05/2006 04:23
This joker has taken leave of his senses! In Iran, one is not dealing with rational, civilized, peaceful people! One is dealing with maniacal Islamic zealots, who will stop at nothing to destroy Israel. He sounds just like Nancy Pelosi and her ilk. Head in the clouds, lilies in the liver and brain in neutral. Would the US have donated a nuclear weapon to Hitler?
26-33. APPEASERS are the first
Randall
12/05/2006 04:24
to feed the crodiles in hopes that they will be eatern last. Churchill .
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE CALLS IRANIANS LUNATIC AND HE IS THIS AND THAT WELL JUDGE FOR YOUR SELF .
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apa...icle/ShowFull
The chances of an American strike are deemed "low," according to assessments by the security establishment. Israel also believes that international diplomatic efforts to stop Iran will fail, security sources said.
In an interivew with the Post in late September, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said US President George W. Bush would prevent the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Asked whether he felt Bush would one way or the other stop Iran going nuclear, Olmert responded: "I believe so."
In April, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iran had passed one of the major hurdles in its race to obtain nuclear power and had, for the first time, successfully enriched uranium, a high-ranking IDF officer told the Post that Iran would obtain nuclear independence in a matter of months.
At the time, a battery of 164 centrifuges was used to enrich the uranium to 3.5 percent. To produce highly-enriched uranium at 90%, Iran would need to operate thousands of centrifuges without interruption for a period of several months.
Ahmadinejad announced plans last month to build 60,000 additional centrifuges, leading Israel to believe that it was only a matter of time before Iran developed a nuclear capability. Pakistan encountered similar difficulties in its nuclear program but eventually overcame them.
The assumption in the defense establishment is that even if sanctions were imposed on Iran today, they would not be effective in deterring the regime from continuing with its nuclear plans. The Democratic takeover of the US Senate and Congress has also led to the prediction that President George W. Bush will not be able to order a military strike.
In addition, the prediction is that Bush's administration is headed towards talks with Iran, expected to be one of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report on America's options in Iraq to be presented to the US president on Wednesday.
The UN Security Council demanded in July that Teheran suspend enrichment, but Iran instead has expanded that work, recently setting up a second experimental chain of 164 centrifuges to produce small amounts of low-enriched uranium.
Teheran has said it intends to activate 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006 and then increase the program to 54,000 centrifuges. Iranian officials say that would produce enough enriched uranium to fuel a 1,000-megawatt reactor, such as that being built by Russia and nearing completion at Bushehr.
Experts estimate Iran would need only 1,500 centrifuges to produce a nuclear weapon.
Meanwhile, on Monday French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that the six powers seeking a UN resolution on Iran's nuclear program were nearing agreement on a text.
High-ranking diplomats from the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany will meet Tuesday in Paris to discuss measures to punish Iran for failing to halt the enrichment of uranium.
"We want to reach as broad an agreement as possible in the UN Security Council," Douste-Blazy said in Brussels, according to the French Foreign Ministry. "Therefore we are gathering tomorrow in Paris to discuss the text."
Douste-Blazy said he discussed the Iranian situation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
We are in agreement with Russia to adopt sanctions against Iran's proliferation program," Douste-Blazy said.
On Friday, Lavrov reaffirmed Russia's readiness to back a UN ban on exports of nuclear materials and sensitive technologies to Iran, but said US-proposed sanctions were "too tough."
A European draft UN resolution in October would order all countries to ban the supply of materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It would also impose a travel ban and asset freeze on companies, individuals and organizations involved in those programs.
The draft would exempt a nuclear power plant being built by the Russians at Bushehr, Iran but not the nuclear fuel needed for the reactor.
Russia proposed major changes that would limit sanctions solely to measures that would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Russia would eliminate any travel ban, asset freeze, or mention of Bushehr.
"We have taken the Russian amendments into consideration," Douste-Blazy said.
NOW READ THE TALK BACK FROM JEWS AND OTHERS .AND THEY HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL MUSLIMS TERRORSIT AND BLA BLA BLA
4. war between 2 mafias
daeved - nz
12/05/2006 01:32
America would be taking on Russia, not iran if it attacked the nuclear facilities.......iran is just another russian front........
2 5. Worst comes to worst
MIKE - USA
12/05/2006 01:30
I think teheran will soon get what Iraq got back in the day.. bec I know that Israel wont sit still while alminijihad is plotting to destroy it...
6. Clever tactics ...
Arvin
12/05/2006 01:44
3 It appears the the Iranians have taken full advantage of the American blunder in Iraq and the Israeli blunder in Lebanon. In hindsight, the Americans (and possibly Israel) are responsible for the current state of affairs
4 7. A nuclear Iran: better for Israel
Jessica - U.S.A. /Canada
12/05/2006 01:53
Wish Israelis could understand the following rather twisted argument:" A nuclear iran will serve Israel". A nuclear Iran would force the right-wing in Israel to come to the negotiation table and resolve the conflict in a few years. This would gaurantee the existence of Israel for a longer period. As long as there is a disproportion in power in the region ISRAEL would not be serious in making peace with the palestinians. period. Time will prove it to you believe me.
5 -8. Fork in the Road...
Michael - USA
12/05/2006 01:54
March 7, 1936
6-9. Name the Centrifuges
h - USA
12/05/2006 02:01
Might as well name some of them "Olmert-Jerusalem" and others "Peretz-Tel Aviv," because that is where the bombs will go due to the weak Israeli "leaders" who will do nothing to stop them
7-10. The end of Israel
Scott - USA
12/05/2006 02:06
Since Olmert has taken power in Israel, I now refuse to visit the Jewish state. I refuse to support a country whose leader supports its own destruction and the end of the Jewish people all while the Israeli public does nothing!.
8-12. The days of Noah!
INKY BG - USA
12/05/2006 02:38
They saw a BIG boat being built, but they thought he was crazy. We know Ahmadinejad is crazy. Does anyone stop a plane from North Korea to Iran? Has Ahmadinejad changed his tune? Bush would have stopped them. Realize, the Democrates didn't let America enter WW2 untill we were attacked They sat back and watched crazies then too
9-13. Mankind is at the mercy of the medieval ayatollahs
Gershon ben David - Australia
12/05/2006 02:42
It is clear that many world leaders know the danger from a nuclear armed Iran. The only problem is that they have no courage to stop them. History proved it many times that doing nothing about the forthcoming danger is a poor choice. We just need a few brave men to make a decision, before humanity falls in the hands of the medieval ayatollahs.
10-14. DO IT, ISRAEL!
Ronald Barbour - USA
12/05/2006 02:54
DO IT, ISRAEL!!! If our gutless wonder of a country will not take out the Iranian nukes then Israel must do it to save Western Civilization!
11-15. Not Necessary to do Anything
Tex
12/05/2006 02:56
It is not necessary to do anything to Iran. Read Chapters 38 and 39 of Ezekiel to see what will happen soon.
12-16. Believe it
Roger - Canada
12/05/2006 03:05
If there is one lesson to learn from Hitler is that when someone with the power to do so promises they are going to eliminate you, they MEAN it. Iran's talk is no less real. And if Israel believes it is, then they are guilty of forgetting the one big lesson of WWII. I'll bet the average Israeli hasn't forgotten the lesson. Too bad for them that it appears their current political leaders have. Israel has the power to stop their enemies. They sadly lack the will.
13-19. To Stop Iran
Rick
12/05/2006 03:19
To Stop Iran maybe requires destroying Iran: The justice of self defense means doing the absolute minimum nessesary to defend one's self. Is there anything less than the destruction of Iran to eliminate the threat against Israel?
20. #11 your out of your mind
14- Aaron McGuire - USA
12/05/2006 03:23
your smoking crack if you think i don't want Iran bombed. I write my elected officials to take strong military action against Iran ALL THE TIME! all my fellow Jewish brothers all feel the same as me.
15-21. Iran
Richard - USA
12/05/2006 03:23
I wouldn't be so certain about American disposition towards Iran. This is a textbook mission for air power and SLCM's and there would be absolutely no reason to put a single American body on the ground inside Iran. No one here cares what actually happens inside Iran - just what power Iran can project outside its borders. I say don't worry excessively - yet.
16-. Need to define goals
Andrew
12/05/2006 03:35
If the goal is Israel's security, let's talk about methods: --- Clean Break reccomends ensuring Israel's military superiority in the region via 'divide-and-conquer'. US has been conquering by proxy and we are conspiring civil wars. --- An alternative strategy would be making sure Israel has no enemies. This would mean '67 borders. Israel prefers the first option. Americans are no longer willing to play ball. It's as simple as that.
17-25. U.S. preemptive strike against Teheran
Tommy John - U.S.
12/05/2006 03:45
If Israel won't solve the Iran problem with its 300 nukes you may rest assured Bush is not going to do it for them.
18-26. arvin #6
David Reed - USA
12/05/2006 03:40
A very naive assessment. America's "blunder" is in trusting so-called allies who play both sides against the middle, hoping to sap American power and influence while appeasing radical Islam which is the enemy of every civilized nation. The Bush administration is also hamstrung by domestic enemies within the USA hoping to obtain power for themselves. Our radical Islamic enemies strengthen as our "allies" jockey for power, to our mutual and collective peril.
19-26. arvin #6
David Reed - USA
12/05/2006 03:40
A very naive assessment. America's "blunder" is in trusting so-called allies who play both sides against the middle, hoping to sap American power and influence while appeasing radical Islam which is the enemy of every civilized nation. The Bush administration is also hamstrung by domestic enemies within the USA hoping to obtain power for themselves. Our radical Islamic enemies strengthen as our "allies" jockey for power, to our mutual and collective peril.
20-27. "interview" with olmert"..olmert said"...What's the point of talking to Useful-Idiots?!!
snappir
12/05/2006 03:42
talking to olmert is like talking to a mentally unstable person. Is there any sense and point of talking to him ? He says one thing today, another thing tomorrow...he doesn't know what the hell he is doing as a primeminister of Israel. All he is doing is DAMAGE, DAMAGE and again DAMAGE. Olmert and his handlers at the Left Inc. are USEFUL to one and only side - the enemy, the arabs, the euronazis. For Israel and Israelis they are a malignant tumor.
21-28. To INKY BG. USA could NOT enter war earlier!
Magnus K - Norway
12/05/2006 03:50
In 1939 the Us had an army equal to the size of the Polish one. The truth is that the Us would have been DEFEATED and crushed, had they entered into the war in say, december 39. Also the Us army was ill-equpped, and severly ill-trained, compared to say, Germany and Japan. That is the Truth!
22-29. arvin #6 cont.
David L Reed - USA
12/05/2006 03:50
furthermore, if our President Bush were allowed to wield our power unfettered by whiners who think radicals can be reasoned with and bought into liking us, he would do so swiftly, boldly, and with decisive clarity to the great horror of enemies domestic and abroad, and Israel would not find itself in such a nightmarish circumstance. Look to your God, Israel,... He is your first and last hope, Godspeed to you all.
23-30. To Richard -- There will be NO bombing
Eric - USA
12/05/2006 04:13
Richard, you are simply wrong. The US will not bomb Iran. The entire concept is ludicrous, and plainly won't work as we've seen from Iraq. The American public won't stand for it, nor will any sensible person. War with Iran is not the pathway to peace. I just thank God the American public woke up and voted out the war mongering idiots who created the current disaster in Iraq. Peace will prevail now that sensible people are in power. Israel needs to do the same.
24-31. NPT Treaty Unraveling at the Seams
Texan - USA
12/05/2006 04:27
Between North Korea and Iran, the NPT Treaty is fraying. There are other regional players in the ME like the UAE, Saudi, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and a host of others that have the funds and eventually the technology to get the bomb. Israel will either learn to live with the threat or take a stand in the coming year.
25- 32. #18: "Nukes = peace.......????"
excalibur - RSA
12/05/2006 04:23
This joker has taken leave of his senses! In Iran, one is not dealing with rational, civilized, peaceful people! One is dealing with maniacal Islamic zealots, who will stop at nothing to destroy Israel. He sounds just like Nancy Pelosi and her ilk. Head in the clouds, lilies in the liver and brain in neutral. Would the US have donated a nuclear weapon to Hitler?
26-33. APPEASERS are the first
Randall
12/05/2006 04:24
to feed the crodiles in hopes that they will be eatern last. Churchill .
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE CALLS IRANIANS LUNATIC AND HE IS THIS AND THAT WELL JUDGE FOR YOUR SELF .
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apa...icle/ShowFull
