Israeli minister says alternatives to attack on Iran running out

[fairbanksb]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


Israeli minister says alternatives to attack on Iran running out
Jun 6 03:36 AM US/Eastern

An Israeli deputy prime minister on Friday warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.

"If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it," said Shaul Mofaz, who is also transportation minister.

"Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme," Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot daily.

He stressed such an operation could only be conducted with US support.

A former defence minister and armed forces chief of staff, Mofaz hopes to replace embattled Ehud Olmert as prime minister and at the helm of the Kadima party.


Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

[fairbanksb]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Israeli PM raises spectre of military operation in Gaza
Jun 6 06:23 AM US/Eastern

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday raised the spectre of a full-scale military operation in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip despite Egyptian attempts to mediate a truce.

"According to the information as it is now, the pendulum is much closer to tough military action," Olmert told journalists on arrival in Israel following a three-day trip to the United States.

His comments came a day after a man was killed in southern Israel in a mortar attack claimed by the armed wing of Hamas, the Islamist movement that has run Gaza since it ousted forces loyal to secular Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas a year ago.

But Olmert also suggested that the door to a negotiated truce was not completely closed.

He said his government was still considering whether to avoid getting "into a violent and hard conflict with the terror organisations in Gaza" or to launch "operations that would be much more aggressive and hard."

Israeli forces launched several raids after Thursday's attack.

On Friday a military engineering unit operating armoured bulldozers on the Gaza side of the border was involved in a firefight with Hamas gunmen, the military said.

A member of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, was killed in the exchange of fire, Gaza emergency medical services said, and an Israeli military spokeswoman said a soldier was wounded.

Earlier on Friday at least 10 Palestinians were wounded in an Israeli air raid on a Hamas police post in the north of the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medics said. The military said the raid was in reply to Thursday's attack.

Violence in and around the impoverished sliver of land has continued despite Egyptian efforts to mediate a ceasefire and slow-moving peace talks with Abbas, who has only held sway in the Israeli-occupied West Bank since his forces were ousted from Gaza.

At least 491 people, nearly all Palestinians and mostly Gaza militants, have been killed since Israeli-Palestinian peace talks resumed in November, according to an AFP count.

The Israeli military said on Friday that Palestinians fired more than 2,300 rockets and mortar bombs at Israel in the past six months.

"The sand in the hourglass is running out. We are at the last pinch of sand," the Yediot Aharonot daily quoted Defence Minister Ehud Barak as telling leaders of southern Israeli communities near Gaza.

The mass-circulation newspaper said it appeared likely that a major military operation in Gaza would take place within days.

Before leaving Washington on Thursday, Olmert played down the chances of achieving a truce in and around Gaza. "Israel's conditions for a truce are not bearing fruit in the way that could lead to a ceasefire," he said.

In exchange for stopping rocket attacks, Hamas has demanded an end to the blockade of Gaza which Israel says is aimed at forcing militants to halt their attacks on the Jewish state.

Israel has demanded an end to rocket attacks and arms smuggling from Egypt's Sinai peninsula, as well as progress in negotiations for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Palestinian militants in 2006.

Egypt has been acting as mediator in the truce talks because Israel refuses to negotiate directly with Hamas, which it considers a terrorist organisation.


Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

[Copter Doctor]

Appeasment Does NOT work. We might not have to worry about the Hilldabeast, but I am very concerned about the 'global' candidate for US president, Obama.

[Walker10]

What proof exists that shows that Iran's nuclear program is centered on the acquisition of nuclear weapons as opposed to developing nuclear power for electrical generation? I mean, I hear a lot about Iran trying to axquire nuclear weapons, but never see any evidence to support the contention.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Walker10

What proof exists that shows that Iran's nuclear program is centered on the acquisition of nuclear weapons as opposed to developing nuclear power for electrical generation? I mean, I hear a lot about Iran trying to axquire nuclear weapons, but never see any evidence to support the contention.

for Iran's "nuclear threat" read WMD, excuse for war

can any nation developing nuclear power (the supposed green thing to do) ever prove it is not developing nuclear weapons

[ontheright]

Originally Posted by Walker10

What proof exists that shows that Iran's nuclear program is centered on the acquisition of nuclear weapons as opposed to developing nuclear power for electrical generation? I mean, I hear a lot about Iran trying to axquire nuclear weapons, but never see any evidence to support the contention.

Um no evidence to the contrary either. Why then are they testing ICBM's? Why are they stalling the IAEA?

The time to move is NOW!!! Take them out....

[Richard]

Originally Posted by ontheright

Um no evidence to the contrary either. Why then are they testing ICBM's? Why are they stalling the IAEA?

The time to move is NOW!!! Take them out....

probably to counter Israel's nuclear threat to the Arab world

look my view is that I hate Islam but the Arabs occupy that part of the world, they have the oil, Israel and Islam should be forced to live together

[Wardogs]

Originally Posted by Walker10

What proof exists that shows that Iran's nuclear program is centered on the acquisition of nuclear weapons as opposed to developing nuclear power for electrical generation? I mean, I hear a lot about Iran trying to axquire nuclear weapons, but never see any evidence to support the contention.

Walker, the proof is in the types of facilities and the agreements they have with the Russians who are building one of the plants due to to be completed next year. The Russian contract calls for supplying fuel for 10 years with an option for an additional 30 years. Iran has rejected the longer option.
The enriched Uranium production facilities that are at the center of one of the controversies have several thousand centrifuges (estimates run as high as 6,000) that produce a type of fuel incompatible with the type used by the Russian plant. However, it IS compatible with weapon production.

The other major concern is the heavy water facility at Arak that came on line in 2006. It's only function is for the production of Plutonium.

Aside from a small IAEA-safeguarded "zero-power" (meaning no electricitiy production) research reactor located at the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center, Iran has no known heavy water reactor and no need for an indigenous source of heavy water. Iran's only nuclear power reactor expected to become operational within the next decade is the light-water reactor under construction with Russian help at Bushehr that I mentioned above. This raised questions about Iran's intentions in constructing an industrial-scale heavy water production plant at Arak. Heavy-water moderated reactors are better suited for plutonium production than are light water reactors. The US believed Iran's true intent is to develop the capability to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, using both the plutonium route (supported ultimately by a heavy-water research reactor) and the highly enriched uranium route (supported by a gas centrifuge enrichment plant). The Arak heavy water plant only makes sense if it is paired with a plutonium production reactor. No reactor, no need for Plutonium.

Iran has stated that the Plutonium plant is for "medical research", but this makes no sense. If the Iranians want heavy water for medical purposes, they can satisfy their needs by importing 500 kilograms annually at a cost of $150,000 plus operating expenses for a “hot cell.” However, the heavy water reactor at Arak, with a rated capacity of 40 megawatts, requires an initial heavy water charge of 80 to 90 tons and annual replacement of 1 ton. Iran has announced that its heavy water production capacity will be 8 tons annually with expansion capacity to twice that level. At current prices, that would come to D2O valued at $4.8 million, more than 30 times the requirement for medical use. There is clearly a disconnect, logically and cost-wise. The facility to manufacture heavy water is itself estimated to cost many tens of millions of dollars. It seems clear that Iran wants heavy water for far more than medical purposes.
wardogs

[Spirit Of Truth]

Originally Posted by Walker10

What proof exists that shows that Iran's nuclear program is centered on the acquisition of nuclear weapons as opposed to developing nuclear power for electrical generation? I mean, I hear a lot about Iran trying to axquire nuclear weapons, but never see any evidence to support the contention.

Well God knows there's a shortage of fossil fuel in Iran.

Nevertheless, Iran nuclear program is so blatantly geared for nuclear weaponry and there attitude so belligerent, one has to wonder if this is all some sort of setup:

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraniannuclearbomb.htm

[Walker10]

Originally Posted by ontheright

Um no evidence to the contrary either. Why then are they testing ICBM's? Why are they stalling the IAEA?

The time to move is NOW!!! Take them out....

By this logic though, we should be attacking Israel instead.

Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, does not allow IAEA inspections, runs a nuclear reactor (Dimona) that by all estimates is an accident waiting to happen, has between 100-400 (by reasonable estimates), has the delivery systems, and has threatened to destroy guilty and innocent countries and peoples via the Sampson Option.

[Walker10]

Originally Posted by Wardogs

Walker, the proof is in the types of facilities and the agreements they have with the Russians who are building one of the plants due to to be completed next year. The Russian contract calls for supplying fuel for 10 years with an option for an additional 30 years. Iran has rejected the longer option.
The enriched Uranium production facilities that are at the center of one of the controversies have several thousand centrifuges (estimates run as high as 6,000) that produce a type of fuel incompatible with the type used by the Russian plant. However, it IS compatible with weapon production.

The other major concern is the heavy water facility at Arak that came on line in 2006. It's only function is for the production of Plutonium.

Aside from a small IAEA-safeguarded "zero-power" (meaning no electricitiy production) research reactor located at the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center, Iran has no known heavy water reactor and no need for an indigenous source of heavy water. Iran's only nuclear power reactor expected to become operational within the next decade is the light-water reactor under construction with Russian help at Bushehr that I mentioned above. This raised questions about Iran's intentions in constructing an industrial-scale heavy water production plant at Arak. Heavy-water moderated reactors are better suited for plutonium production than are light water reactors. The US believed Iran's true intent is to develop the capability to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, using both the plutonium route (supported ultimately by a heavy-water research reactor) and the highly enriched uranium route (supported by a gas centrifuge enrichment plant). The Arak heavy water plant only makes sense if it is paired with a plutonium production reactor. No reactor, no need for Plutonium.

Iran has stated that the Plutonium plant is for "medical research", but this makes no sense. If the Iranians want heavy water for medical purposes, they can satisfy their needs by importing 500 kilograms annually at a cost of $150,000 plus operating expenses for a “hot cell.” However, the heavy water reactor at Arak, with a rated capacity of 40 megawatts, requires an initial heavy water charge of 80 to 90 tons and annual replacement of 1 ton. Iran has announced that its heavy water production capacity will be 8 tons annually with expansion capacity to twice that level. At current prices, that would come to D2O valued at $4.8 million, more than 30 times the requirement for medical use. There is clearly a disconnect, logically and cost-wise. The facility to manufacture heavy water is itself estimated to cost many tens of millions of dollars. It seems clear that Iran wants heavy water for far more than medical purposes.
wardogs

Thanks for the info Wardogs. I still see this as a problem, if it is one at all, as a theoretical, something years in the future, not one that requires the destruction of a whole peoples at this point in time though.

Meanwhile, while we worry about things years in the future, we're not worried about a threat that exists right now. It seems to me that Israel's threats to nuke half the Middle East and parts of Europe is a far more pressing concern. And, even if we discount the nuclear warhead threat completely, they still operate the Dimona reactor and from what I've read, suffers major problems that I believe is due to it's age. And accident at this reactor would have baasically the same affect as what we saw at Chernobyl. If we should be worried about 'something' nuclear happening in the Middle East, this is what we should be focused on and pressing for IAEA inspection of this facility.

[Walker10]

Originally Posted by Spirit Of Truth

Well God knows there's a shortage of fossil fuel in Iran.

Iran is having problems with it's 'fossil' fuel production and while I'm not sure, I believe they are close or at peak production also. If that's true, then it would make sense for them to pursue a nuclear power alternative the same as other countries are exploring.

Nevertheless, Iran nuclear program is so blatantly geared for nuclear weaponry and there attitude so belligerent, one has to wonder if this is all some sort of setup:

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraniannuclearbomb.htm

Well, I certainly agree that Iran's president is belligerent beyond belief, a definite nutcase, but he's limited to talk, he doesn't have the ability, or not much of one at least to actually carry those prepsterous threats out. Big difference between making what amount to idle threats and actually having the capability to carry them out. After all, do we really take North Korea's Kim Il nutcase too seriously with his bombastic threats?

[Wardogs]

Originally Posted by Walker10

Thanks for the info Wardogs. I still see this as a problem, if it is one at all, as a theoretical, something years in the future, not one that requires the destruction of a whole peoples at this point in time though.

Meanwhile, while we worry about things years in the future, we're not worried about a threat that exists right now. It seems to me that Israel's threats to nuke half the Middle East and parts of Europe is a far more pressing concern. And, even if we discount the nuclear warhead threat completely, they still operate the Dimona reactor and from what I've read, suffers major problems that I believe is due to it's age. And accident at this reactor would have baasically the same affect as what we saw at Chernobyl. If we should be worried about 'something' nuclear happening in the Middle East, this is what we should be focused on and pressing for IAEA inspection of this facility.

Israel's "threats" as you call them are largely a figment of the imaginations of her enemies. Her nuclear arsenal is defensive and her stance about their use is exactly the same as our MAD.
Iran on the other hand is under the control of madmen. Not the people, who by and large do not hate the West, but the leaders have stated their intentions clearly.
I have no first hand knowledge of Dimona's condition, but I know the Israeli people. If a danger exists, they will deal with it.
It helps to understand that as a free nation, Israel allows free speech. Just like here, that includes extremists from each end of the political spectrum.
Iran's threat is NOT "years in the future". It's possible that they have at least one weapon already although I personally don't think so. I do believe that the probability is that they will within a year or two.
I know your feelings on both nations, but in Israel's case you're wrong. If, as you have stated before, Israel was a "homicidal maniac" she would have dealt with her enemies long before now.
I don't want to argue this, it's been obvious to me for years that minds won't be changed. I have lived with, and patrolled with the Israeli people for many years and I know them to be a proud, honorable and loving people.
wardogs

[Spirit Of Truth]

US And Israel Discuss Military Cooperation To Halt Iran
Middle-East
6/6/08
www.infolive.tv
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.t...tion-halt-iran

Amid rising concerns over the Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with US President George W. Bush on Wednesday to discuss possible joint military action to halt Iranian nuclear aspirations.

In a telltale sign of the increasing US-Israeli concern over Iran, US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell arrived to Israel on Tuesday to convene with heads of the Israeli intelligence community about possible military action.

McConnell met with several high ranking Israeli intelligence officers, including head of Military Intelligence Major General Amos Yadlin, Chief of General Staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

The US National Intelligence Estimate, under the command of McConnell, reported late last year that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 even though it had renewed its enrichment of uranium in 2005.

The report contradicted Israeli intelligence on the matter and sparked delegations from the Mossad and Military Intelligence to travel to the US several times in recent months to present the Americans with Israel's estimates concerning Iran's race towards nuclear power.

Defense officials said that McConnell's visit to Israel was part of the ongoing intelligence dialogue between the two countries and that he would be presented with the most updated Mossad and MI assessments regarding Iran's nuclear program. MI recently moved up its assessment and now believes that Iran will master centrifuge technology by the end of the year, meaning that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade.

Despite the visit, officials said it was unlikely that McConnell's office would put out a new and revised NIE before the US elections in November.

According to the Jerusalem report one official said that "we do not expect a change to the earlier American assessments," "Just like we do not expect the current administration to take military action against Iran."

On Monday, Barak told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel needed to do everything possible to ensure that the Iranians did not obtain nuclear power.

"There are many things we can do, but the last things that help us are words and criticism," Barak said.