Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Jul 5, 2019.
The oldies are the goodies...
Yeah, I don't think a ground war is in the cards under almost any circumstance short of them using WMD (they have already chemical weapons if not nuclear, so I suppose it's possible if implausible). And if even if it was, Article V can only be triggered by a direct attack on the homeland of a member nation. We made sure that language was in the treaty to keep one of the allies from trying to involve us in an attack on one of their colonies, such as when India conquered the Portuguese colony of Goa (1961?). And even if we somehow got around that, it would still be a U.S. show with largely political support from our allies. NATO is a force on the ground in Europe where most of the nations can project force from their homeland and move troops and equipment by rail if necessary. None of them (even the UK and France) can project significant force without massive U.S. logistical support.
Back to the point. Should war come (and I hope it doesn't and don't think it will), it will be an air and sea campaign where we hold every advantage.
I hear that they are only able to promise 48 virgins in paradise instead of the usual 72.
I just clicked on this and response was that video was not allowed in this Country.
It was just a classic SNL skit called Bad Idea Jeans that was a parody of Dockers commercials in the early 90s.
Bring me up to speed -- how did JCPOA allow Iran to "increase their overall capacity to refine material"?
For ten years, Iran will place over two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, from its current stockpile of 19,000 centrifuges (of which 10,000 were operational) to no more than 6,104 operational centrifuges, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium, with the enrichment capacity being limited to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there must be IR-1 centrifuges, the first-generation centrifuge type which is Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran will give up its advanced IR-2M centrifuges in this period. The non-operating centrifuges will be stored in Natanz and monitored by IAEA, but may be used to replace failed centrifuges. Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for fifteen years.
Iran may continue research and development work on enrichment, but that work will take place only at the Natanz facility and include certain limitations for the first eight years. This is intended to keep the country to a breakout time of one year.
Iran's Fordow facility will stop enriching uranium and researching uranium enrichment for at least fifteen years; the facility will be converted into a nuclear physics and technology center. For 15 years Fordow will maintain no more than 1,044 IR-1 centrifuges in six cascades in one wing of Fordow. "Two of those six cascades will spin without uranium and will be transitioned, including through appropriate infrastructure modification," for stable radioisotope production for medical, agricultural, industrial, and scientific use. "The other four cascades with all associated infrastructure will remain idle." Iran will not be permitted to have any fissile material in Fordow.
The agreement also required that Iran give up its entire stockpile of medium enriched uranium, reduce its stockpile of low enriched uranium from 10,000 KGs to 300, and not enrich any further uranium beyond 3.67%.
Those all seem to be a severe limitations on enrichment; so where do you get the idea that enrichment capacity actually increases under the agreement?
I stand corrected but I will offer this bit of information or discussion
Under the terms of the deal, Iran is allowed to install and "test" up to 30 of the new IR-6 centrifuges which are 10x faster than the IR -1 models. This was not supposed to occur until 8.5 years after the deal was signed but Iran has already begun installing 20 of them claiming that the terms are murky about the number of units allowed to be installed and tested prior to 2023. If the IAEA is reporting on it now, it would seem that the actual installation began much sooner since the reports are not typically real time documents.
As much or more important than the centrifuges is the heavy water reactor that Iran continues to develop which the western world wanted to be dismantled.
All of this just helps set the stage such that if/when Iran decides to stop agreeing to the deal their break out period to produce the elements required for the nuclear device is substantially shortened. Add to that their continued development of their ballistic missile program and it is obvious why they were happy to sign the deal they got. ) and the EU wanted a deal, Iran wanted a deal, Iran got the deal they wanted and the west didn't quibble over the details as along as they got a deal. The EU has since learned that the IRG oligarchs aren't going to give them any good deals or access to Iranian markets and that Iran will sue the time they are buying with the deal to advance their nuclear program and their ballistic missile program while using the proceeds from the oil sales to help fund their proxies throughout the ME.
UN atomic watchdog raises questions of Iran's centrifuge use
Times today are much different than they were in the Truman era, and there is simply no comparison between the politics of George Washington's presidency and Obama's. Presidents in the post war era have progressively assumed more and more foreign policy responsibilities, and now seek basically no input from Congress on any major decisions -- even when their own party controls congress (let alone the opposing party). Look at Trump. He's not going back to the Senate with terms for ending the trade wars. He's certainly not involving them in the negotiations with NK. If he ever reaches an agreement, maybe he asks for Senate approval -- or more likely it just stands as an agreement that will last his presidency and maybe gets continued into the next administration (if his successor is on board). I'd agree with you that this is not a trend that lends itself to long term stability, but it's where we're at politically. Obama plainly hoped that the Democrats would win and continue JCPOA into the next administration. That didn't happen, and Trump unsurprisingly pulled out. Just as the next president (if it is a Democrat) will likely shred Trump's agreements the moment he's out of office.
Per that article:
The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, said last month that Iran had begun installing a chain of 20 IR-6 centrifuges at its underground Natanz enrichment facility. Iranian officials say the IR-6 can enrich 10 times faster than an IR-1.
Even being generous with the timing, installation would have started long after we pulled out of the deal (14 months ago at this point). If we were still in the deal, we could have demanded that Iran take the IR-6s offline even if the language in the agreement was (as Iran claims) ambiguous. But we're out, and now it's just Iran saber rattling with Europe. Just like breaching the enrichment limit.
As for the breakout time, prior to the deal it was estimated that it would take Iran 3 months to produce enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb. It's likely that time has increased substantially; but more importantly, it's now been several years and they still don't have a bomb. The reality is, without a deal, that wouldn't be the case. In all probability, absent military intervention, Iran would have already produced and tested numerous bombs by this point. Yeah, they aren't permanently crippled from ever building one, but at least they don't have one yet. And by some miracle they decided to work on Europe rather than simply building a bomb after we left the agreement. But now that appears to be just about over. Which means it won't be long until Iran has a bomb.
So the question is -- what are we going to do about it? Hope Europe saves the day? Hope Iran suddenly caves to sanctions? Targeted strikes? Or just accept the new normal of a nuclear Iran like we have with NK?
Uh oh, looks like our government initiated another “false flag” in the Persian Gulf. This time we highjacked, like, five Iranian gunboats and made to seize a British tanker. Good thing that British warship was there, or we might have have been successful in pulling this one off. Damn U.S. warmongers.
Iran has apparently seized a Panamanian flagged tanker under guise of responding to distress call
U.S. tries to muster a flotilla as Iran suspected of seizing tanker
U.S. tries to muster flotilla to secure Persian Gulf shipping as Iran suspected of seizing oil tanker
Tensions with Iran remained high on Wednesday as mystery swirled around the whereabouts and status of an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin says U.S. officials believe Iran has seized the small coastal tanker along with its crew of 25 people.
Iran has said it responded to a distress call from the Panamanian-flagged tanker MT Riah, based in the United Arab Emirates, and came to its rescue. But no other nation has reported receiving a distress call from the Riah, which was seen being escorted by Iranian naval vessels after the transponder that automatically reports its location was switched off on Saturday. At last report, the ship was anchored off Iran's Qeshm island, which hosts a number of bases belonging to the Islamic Republic's elite Revolutionary Guard force.
Oh, my goodness ... We are really turning up the temperature with all of these “false flags,” aren’t we? The insidious “Military-Industrial Complex” strikes again.
and they did it while we were busy showing off our advanced tracking systems to keep track of all vessels in the straits. Kind of like attacking a Japanese tanker when the Japanese PM was there.
Who’s the “they”? Aren’t “we” the “they”? We know the “they” isn’t Iran, because that doesn’t fit the narrative.
I’m pretty certain the US knows where the tanker is located. I don’t see how Iran could hide something like from our satellites.
They certainly know where it was when it turned towards Iran and where it was when the tracking beacon as turned off. UAE tanker, wonder if they will try and deploy forces to take it back. I doubt they enter Iranian waters to do that but with all the cool, level heads in that part of the world who knows....
Well, if we do know, then it’s because Trump is an evil genius who’s behind the whole thing. And if we don’t know, then it’s because Trump is a slobbering moron who lost track of it because he was golfing or womanizing or something.
I’m pretty damn anti-Trump but know better than to think our military's success/failure is reliant on his input.
I just don’t see how we wouldn’t know where the vessel is, beacon turned on or not, with the amount of satellite and drone coverage we have over that narrow body of water.