Odds on a war with Iran before 2013?

[Golden Applesauce]

Is this one of those cases where, regardless of how the depot actually exploded, it's in the best interests of the Israeli gov't if everyone thought they were behind it, while still maintaining plausible deniability?

[Cain]

Probably.  Rather like their entire SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM everyone knows they have, but will never, ever be mentioned as a possible reason why Iran might be seeking nukes, along with seeing US and Israeli military bases springing up on almost all its borders.

[wudgar]

Why can't we attack someplace nice for a change? Like southern France... we could liberate the Cathars.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Why can't we attack someplace nice for a change? Like southern France... we could liberate the Cathars.

I think that the French did a pretty decent job of liberating them from this planet centuries ago.

We could, however, liberate the Basque I suppose.

[Cain]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK22Ak02.html

A former inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repudiated its major new claim that Iran built an explosives chamber to test components of a nuclear weapon and carry out a simulated nuclear explosion.

The IAEA claim that a foreign scientist - identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko - had been involved in building the alleged containment chamber has now been denied firmly by Danilenko himself in an interview with Radio Free Europe published last Friday.

The latest report by the IAEA cited "information provided by Member States" that Iran had constructed "a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments" - meaning simulated explosions of nuclear weapons - in its Parchin military complex in 2000.

The report said it had "confirmed" that a "large cylindrical object" housed at the same complex had been "designed to contain the detonation of up to 70 kilograms of high explosives". That amount of explosives, it said, would be "appropriate" for testing a detonation system to trigger a nuclear weapon.

But former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley has denounced the agency's claims about such a containment chamber as "highly misleading".

Kelley, a nuclear engineer who was the IAEA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq and is now a senior research fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, pointed out in an interview with the Real News Network that a cylindrical chamber designed to contain 70 kg of explosives, as claimed by the IAEA, could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design, contrary to the IAEA claim.

"There are far more explosives in that bomb than could be contained by this container," Kelley said, referring to the simulated explosion of a nuclear weapon in a hydrodynamic experiment.

Kelley also observed that hydrodynamic testing would not have been done in a container inside a building in any case. "You have to be crazy to do hydrodynamic explosives in a container," he said. "There's no reason to do it. They're done outdoors on firing tables."

Kelley rejected the IAEA claim that the alleged cylindrical chamber was new evidence of an Iranian weapons program. "We've been led by the nose to believe that this container is important, when in fact it's not important at all," Kelley said.

The IAEA report and unnamed "diplomats" implied that a "former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist", identified in the media as Danilenko, had helped build the alleged containment vessel at Parchin.

But their claims conflict with one another as well as with readily documented facts about Danilenko's work in Iran.

The IAEA report does not deny that Danilenko - a Ukrainian who worked in a Soviet-era research institute that was identified mainly with nuclear weapons - was actually a specialist on nanodiamonds. The report nevertheless implies a link between Danilenko and the purported explosives chamber at Parchin by citing a publication by Danilenko as a source for the dimensions of the alleged explosives chamber.

The Associated Press reported on November 11 that unnamed diplomats suggested Volodymyr Padalko, a partner of Danilenko in a nanodiamond business who was described as Danilenko's son-in-law, had contradicted Danilenko's firm denial of involvement in building a containment vessel for weapons testing. The diplomats claimed Padalko had told IAEA investigators that Danilenko had helped build "a large steel chamber to contain the force of the blast set off by such explosives testing".

But that claim appears to be an effort to confuse Danilenko's well-established work on an explosives chamber for nanodiamond synthesis with a chamber for weapons testing, such as the IAEA now claims was built at Parchin.

[Cain]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15823622

The UK has imposed new sanctions against Iran which will cut off all financial ties with Iranian banks.

It follows the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran and concerns about its nuclear programme.

From 1500 GMT on Monday, all UK credit and financial institutions are required to cease all transactions with banks including the Central Bank of Iran.

Chancellor George Osborne said there was evidence that Iran's banks were funding its nuclear weapons programme.

This is the first time the UK has used powers created under the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act to cut off a country's banking sector in this way.

The United States and Canada are also expected to announce further economic sanctions against Iran on Monday.

Hey girls and boys, here's an interesting thing: do you know how the modern financial system was formed?  It was mostly by the Templars, who created international banking.  You see, as states centralised and raised ever larger armies, the cost of maintaining forces in the field in a war situation could quickly strip the assets of even the richest countries, especially as the duration of a conflict became correspondingly longer.

As such, those with large sums of cash and the ability to transport it, such as the Templars and, later, more modern banks (such as the Medici Bank) became vital to any successful military policy.  It is widely believed, for instance, that the War of the Roses was won due to the backing of the aforementioned Medici Bank, and that Britain's success in the Seven Years War was because British credit with Dutch banks was better than that of the French.

This continues to be true even to this day.  Who financed the Iraq War, apart from as-yet unborn American citizens?  It was Chinese banks, backed by the Chinese government.  The first Gulf War was supported by Gerrman and Japanese banking institutions.  So, when you cut off a foreign nation's banks from accessing international lines of credit, based on a spurious charge, what message do you think that sends to the Mullahs in Tehran about our intentions?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Bar bar bar bar barbara ann?

[Phox]

Bar bar bar bar barbara ann?
\

II think you nailed it, Twid.

This whole things is getting stickier and stickier.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bar bar bar bar barbara ann?

Ahahahahaha

No

I can tell you from the frontlines that something just shifted

not necessarily for the better.

[Cain]

I'm hearing so many disturbing things via my State and FCO friends re: Iran its not even funny anymore.

Look into what Adam Werritty, unvetted "special advisor" to our former Defence Secretary, was doing in Tel Aviv with the British Ambassador to Israel, and his links to "opposition groups" in Iran and subsequent debriefing at the hands of MI6.  The assassins who keep killing Iranian physicists.  The unexplained explosions, the border violence, the hacking programs directed against Iranian critical infrastructure, the unusual circumstances surrounding the Iranian assassination plot in the USA.

We're already at war.  The fighting just hasn't been made overt yet.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I'm hearing so many disturbing things via my State and FCO friends re: Iran its not even funny anymore.

Look into what Adam Werritty, unvetted "special advisor" to our former Defence Secretary, was doing in Tel Aviv with the British Ambassador to Israel, and his links to "opposition groups" in Iran and subsequent debriefing at the hands of MI6.  The assassins who keep killing Iranian physicists.  The unexplained explosions, the border violence, the hacking programs directed against Iranian critical infrastructure, the unusual circumstances surrounding the Iranian assassination plot in the USA.

We're already at war.  The fighting just hasn't been made overt yet.

Do you think this is a war that will remain undeclared? Like, will it continue to be a shadow war for regional stability or some other reason?

[Cain]

If anything is going to be resolved, it will ultimately require open conflict - the Iranian regime is too stable to collapse due to covert action.

The sticking problem seems to be who should actually do the dirty: Israel or the USA.  This dance has been going on since 2005, at least.  Most in Israel would prefer the USA to do the deed, though some outspoken militarists think they'll fuck it up, like they did Iraq and so Israel should carry out the strikes.  Equally, in the USA, most would prefer Israel to do the damage - after all, they're closer, already an international pariah and, well it's their security at stake, much more so than the USA.  On the other hand, some identify US security needs directly with Israeli security needs, and so argue a US strike is both necessary and required.

Until the pendulum eventually swings into one of these camps, there will be incessant backdoor bickering about who should do it.  I think, ultimately, it will fall to the USA - the Arab monarchies are also looking to topple Tehran, and they can feed back information to Washington to make Iran look more like a rogue state, rather than the regional challenger to their supremacy it actually is.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What do you think the outcome will be?

Also, probably a decent question, what factor do you think US debt will play into all of this?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm in Ankara currently and the air is charged with discussion the Turkish position regarding Syria. The PM is taking a threatening position and the public seems torn between thinking its a bluff and thinking its legit. The nightly news has about 15 minutes worth of stories dedicated to showing off Turkish troops in training and discussing how Russia and Turkey could launch a joint attack on Syria. That's pretty much pulled all attention off of Iran here, at least from the public perspective... Any noise from your side on this topic, Cain?

[Cain]

The Russian thing sounds pure bullshit, I have to say.  The Russians refuse to condemn Syria, and have made noises about human rights abuses by the rebels there.

I'd suggest bluff...though Turkey has been taking in refugees in large numbers, and the rumour is military defectors are being trained and sent back in to aid the rebel effort.  The Israelis think the Army may move in and set up buffer zones on the Syrian border, and allow the rebels to use those areas as bases for larger-scale assaults...which seems a reasonable conclusion.  The Turks can claim they are merely protecting their borders and protecting refugess per international law, whilst actually carrying out limited military operations to aid the rebels.