THE BBC FILM THAT EXPOSED ISRAEL’S SECRET ILLEGAL WEAPONS (FULL DOCUMENTARY)
Published on Jun 19, 2012
The BBC Film That Exposed Israel’s Secret Illegal Nuclear Weapons (FULL Documentary)
Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability
The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran’s nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, and the European Union announced in January that it will begin an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1. Although the United States, the EU, and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms.
It should not. Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.
POWER BEGS TO BE BALANCED
The crisis over Iran’s nuclear program could end in three different ways. First, diplomacy coupled with serious sanctions could convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But this outcome is unlikely: the historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded from doing so. Punishing a state through economic sanctions does not inexorably derail its nuclear program. Take North Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless rounds of sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions. If Tehran determines that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind. In fact, adding still more sanctions now could make Iran feel even more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection of the ultimate deterrent.
The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice.
‘Israeli spies warn against military strike on Iran’ – ex-ambassador
Published on Mar 6, 2012 by RussiaToday
Despite Israel’s rulers pushing for an attack on Iran, intelligence does not recommend it, Thomas R. Pickering, former US Ambassador to Israel, told RT. It is mutual distrust between Iran and the US that stalls the diplomatic settlement, he believes.
‘Iran is already a nuclear power’
Uploaded by RussiaToday on Feb 20, 2012
The US and Britain are warning Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities… saying new sanctions need time to work. Tehran, currently being visited by UN inspectors, denies accusations it’s developing atomic weapons. But Israel — which also accuses Tehran of attacking its diplomats abroad — could now be on an unstoppable path to a military strike. RT talks to Sadegh Zibakalam, professor of political science at the University of Tehran
Iran signed the NPT (Nuclear nonProliferation Treaty), Iran joined the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), allows IAEA inspectors to their facilities, Iran did not Invade Anyone, Iran doesn’t have any nukes.
Israel refused to sign the NPT, Israel refused to join the IAEA, refused to allow IAEA inspectors to their Secret Illegal Nuclear Facilities, Israel invaded all of their neighbors, openly commits genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians & Israel has hundreds of Nukes.
Straits Times April 14 2012
Iran Nuke Deal Within Reach
The Obama administration’s Iran strategy has worked so far. Unprecedented pressure has forced Teheran to the negotiating table. It will take extraordinary diplomatic skills to reach a settlement in the talks this weekend among Iran and the P5 plus 1 group – the United States, Britain, Russia,China, France and Germany..
But there is too much pessimism in the air. A robust deal is possible if, as with any successful negotiation, both sides can come away with something.
What would a deal look like? The US has long demanded that Iran stop all enrichment of uranium, a process that allows it to produce the fuel necessary for an atomic bomb. Iran has insisted that it has the right to enrich for a peaceful nuclear programme.
Now, it seems that a smart compromise might be reached. Washington has signalled that it will ask Iran to stop enriching uranium to 20 per cent, the level form which furl can easily converted for military purposes. Iran has indicated that it might be willing to accept such a limit and would enrich up to only 3.5 per cent or 5 per cent. Then it could claim that it has preserved its right to enrichment.
Iran would still have a stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 per cent, produced over the past two years, perhaps enough to make a nuclear bomb. Teheran has rejected Washington’s demands that this uranium be shipped abroad for safekeeping, saying it is needed for the production of medical isotopes.
But Iran almost accepted a deal on this point in 2009 and proposed one in 2010 in which it would have shipped out low-enriched uranium. Statements from officials on both sides suggest that they might embrace elements of those proposals, which involved sending away some of Iran’s uranium stockpile in return for completed fuel plates that are used in the process of making medical isotopes.
There have been reports that Washington will demand that Iran shut down its Fordo nuclear plant, where high-level enrichment takes place in a facility buried in a mountain near Qom. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjanmin Netanyahu publicly demanded this last weekend) Iran has refused, saying it has the right to position nuclear facilities wherever it wants as long as its programme is peaceful. Washington should soften its stance on this issue as long as Iran accepts intrusive inspection also this can be independently confirmed.
The crucial point on which Iran should make deep concessions is comprehensive inspections. Last year’s International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) report laid out a series of indicators that Iran is pursuing a weapons programme. The P5 plus 1 group should use that as a checklist of activities that the country would commit to refraining from and insist that the IAEA get unfettered access to the sites until the agency is satisfiable that any such military programme has been shut down. Iran would have to receive some rewards for accepting such unprecedented inspections, and the obvious option would be the relaxation of sanctions, step by step, as inspections proceed unimpeded.
For any deal to stick , it has to be accepted by two groups. There are reasons to think that Iran’s hardliners, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollad Ali Khamenei, might be amenable. Ayatollah Khamenei has consolidated power:He has beaten back the Green movement; accommodated one key rival, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafasanjani; and sidelined another, President Mahmnoud Ahmadinejad. Ayatollah Khamenei has also given himself room to make concessions on the nuclear programme.
Consider this categorical statement he made in February:”The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons…because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grace sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”
He might well have been laying the ground to explain concessions to his audience at home.
The strategy of US President Barrack Obama’s administration is to tell Iran: All we are asking is that you demonstrate this in concrete actions. That is a smart way to frame its demands. But if Iran does make concessions, the US would have to accept the second important group. Republicans in Washington, could be an obstacle. If they refuse to reciprocate on sanctions, there will be no deal.
The administration has handled its allies, Russia, China, the United Nations and even Teheran with skill. But to succeed, it has to tackle its most formidable foe, with whom its has not much negotiating success:Republicans.
WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP