Netflix should make this into a movie or series. Plenty of good material to draw from: this heist, assassinating Iranian scientists with magnetic bombs on motorcycles [1][2] and Stuxnet [3].
Given that there will be people insisting that the main objective of the program was nuclear power, not weapons, a show like that would be risky. Does Netflix want their shows accused of glorifying murder? I'm aware that there is the argument, perhaps with evidence, that Israel was halting weapons research aimed at them, but Netflix may not want to take the risk that the debate goes against them.
Maybe those people should read the quoted article.
Last week, at the invitation of the Israeli government, three reporters, including one from The New York Times, were shown key documents from the trove. Many confirmed what inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, in report after report, had suspected: Despite Iranian insistence that its program was for peaceful purposes, the country had worked in the past to systematically assemble everything it needed to produce atomic weapons.
I don't really get it. If all they had to show were 15 year old documents, so dating before the Iranian nuclear accord, wouldn't this indicate that Iran did in fact fulfill its side of the agreement ? The main argument seems to be that if they kept the archives then it must mean that they want to resume their research program at some point in the future. I'm sure if Israel had any clear and direct evidence showing that Iran violated the deal they would have shown it.
I've heard responses from former Obama appointees that the documents in general were not surprising. They believed that Iran had an active nuclear program, was lying about it, and was hiding it. So they tried to create a deal that would not require countries to trust that Iran was complying. Overall it looks like Iran was complying with the deal, even if we can't assume good faith. So Netanyahu's speech came across as overtly political.
The “problem” with the deal form Israel’s point of view is that the restrictions are temporary on both the enrichment and the long range missile programmes.
The Iran deal would work out only if there would be a regime change before the restrictions expire, and while 15 years are enough for the US it’s not enough for Israel considering that the Iranian nuclear program has started even before the revolution, then with the full support of the US.
While the documents should surprise no one their release by the Israelis was done to make it harder for Iran to continue to run “we never worked on nuclear weapons” story they at least from Israel’s point of view manage to successfully sell to quite a lot of people.
from a purely diplomatic standpoint, Im not so sure Iran was wrong to keep these documents. as its been proven the US is somewhat of a fair-weather friend with its treaties lately.
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. To date, Iran has never built a single nuclear bomb but only proven it can through enrichment should it choose to.
Israel's only real power in this case has been extrajudicial state-sponsored targeted assassinations. Its something that generally lands countries like Libya on the US terrorist embargo list, but Israel not so much.
I doubt this was the author’s intent, and it was certainly not the Israeli governent’s intent, but for me the most interesting parts of the article were the details of modern day intelligence techniques, and the overt descriptions of numerous (Israeli?) assassinations of people in Iran’s nuclear program, which was apprently justified by extremly flimsy evidence that Iran’s done anything to violate the treaty.
There is a very long history by succeeding Israeli governments of assassinations with little evidence. Sometimes using false evidence or odd justifications to base the killing on. But there is also little reason to point the finger. The Obama administration took the policy and expanded it even further.
The article says Iran was hiding and saving these documents so that when the 15 year ban on nuclear material expired, Iran could startup it's nuclear program from where it left off.
Part of the issue, w/ respect to the U.S. pulling out of the deal appears to hinge on the Saudi's nuclear plans.
As the story was told at a D.C. forum (sorry can't remember which one, but it was w/i the last year):
1a) not only was U.S. representation excluded from bidding on their project(s), but the Chinese and the Russians were allowed to.;
1b) if the U.S. was excluded from bidding, and therefore uninvolved in the project(s), it would not be able to "monitor" it;
2) the Saudis were supposedly citing Iran's ability to enrich uranium, and saying that that therefore allowed them (the Saudis) to do so, too, because their program was also "only for peaceful purposes."
> But if sanctions resume, and more Western companies leave Iran, it is possible that Iranian leaders will decide to resume nuclear fuel production.
and
> By the time the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, was finally permitted to visit the site in 2015, it was empty, though the agency’s report indicated that it looked as if equipment had been removed.
I don't understand the authors conclusion. He is saying that without a nuclear deal Iran will try to develop the bomb. Later he shows that even with a deal Iran tries to make a bomb and not report it. My intuition says that the solution is to create a new deal. One that makes it harder for Iran to hide nuclear bomb making facilities and doesn't involve sending them $1.7 billion dollars in cash [1]
> Netanyahu...proved Iranian...intent to resume bomb production
Israel has dozens, if not hundreds, of nuclear bombs. Why should Iran not have nuclear bombs as well? The US and US industry was pushing for Iran to turn more towards nuclear production in the 1970s.
Iran also has made offers for a nuclear-free Middle East agreement - offers Israel has always rejected. What is the line - Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East are not allowed to have nuclear bombs, but Jewish ones can?
Some people might say Iran has theocratic and undemocratic elements. But the US and Israel had little problem with the Shah's lack of democracy. Also the US and England backed the conservative, fundamentalist mullahs in Iran from the 1950s to the 1970s against democratic republicans like Mossadegh. The US only turned against conservative fundamentalist mullahs in Iran at the very end of the 1970s who wanted US (and USSR) interference with Iran's internal affairs ended.
There's a non- Jewish-vs-Muslim argument: no country that does not today have nukes should be allowed to develop them. Hold the line. It may not be "fair", but it's safer for the world.
The history is that France gave the Israelis the Dimona Reactor originally as payback for helping the French and British with the Suez Canal nationalized by Egypt. The next French PM said he was giving Israel the technology to prevent another Holocaust.
Although the Arab nations have tried repeatedly to destroy Israel they are not afraid of Israel using the bomb against them. Nor can they conquer Israel because Israel has the bomb. Hence it provides an excuse to never start another war with Israel.
The Saudis and other Sunni Arab countries are terrified of a nuclear Shia Iran and would build their own bomb if Iran had one. As one might imagine, the Saudis are very supportive of Israel's efforts against Iran.
Nobody was interested in seeing Pakistan get nukes except for Pakistan and a select few other regimes.
If it were somehow easily possible to strip Pakistan of their nukes, it would be done. Once a country breaks through the nuclear line, the options for dealing with them rapidly dwindle, as we're seeing with North Korea.
Once Iran has nukes, Saudi Arabia is guaranteed to pursue their own. Then suddenly the revolutions that are so common to the middle east become globally threatening to billions of people. Just picture a powerful terrorist group - whether ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc - with suitcase nukes, it's the classic dread. Nobody else has used nukes in 70 years, for good reason. That will not remain the situation if those types of groups acquire them, they're designed to self immolate. Any of those terrorist organizations would sacrifice their entire organizations, without a second thought, to detonate such a weapon in a major Israeli city. Israel by contrast, has had nukes for decades and could destroy any given nearby country at will, and has chosen to never use them. There is zero chance Israel's enemies will behave similarly: they openly, frequently call for the genocide of Israel.
I don't think Iran is the threat they're made out to be. My husband's family is Sunni Muslim and deeply religious. Despite that, they all see Saudis and gulf Arabs in general as the most intolerant and hypocritical group, even though in theory they should support Sunnis over Shias. My father in law told us about Saudis funding these Madrassas in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh where they preach hatred of the US and Israel. All of this is anecdotal evidence, but still surprising.
You have to differentiate the Sunni and the Wahhabi/Salafi (which Wahhabis may call themselves Sunni.).
To know who are exactly are they: You may need reopen the history books for 19th century history about Muhammad bin Abd Wahhab, how his father and brother opposed him, what Ottoman's Muhammad Ali Pasha tried to do, etc. connection of the said events with Arab Revolt, T.E. Lawrence, the Saud family, Palestine, Fall of Caliphate 1924, ...Things pretty much went out of hand in Muslim world
From theological perspective (aqeedah) and approach in studying the religion, you can see how much Sunni and Salafi differs.
Probably the only reason Sunni today have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia because they control Makkah and Madinah.
The leaders of Iran have called for the destruction of Israel many times, so of course Israel will do what it can to thwart the nuclear weapons program of Iran.
This is a simpleton's way of looking at an issue as complex as this. It's intellectual laziness to try to water down geopolitical/historical motivations by claiming that "ooooh they did it for the oil!".
Good to see a voice of reason. All too often I think the left and the right make strawmen of each other's positions and attack them with vitriol. I don't know how we're supposed to discuss and understand complex issues in a complex world when people want everything simple, black and white where good is white and black is evil. The world is complicated. We need calm, deep and reasoned thinking more than ever.
It is true that the problem is more complicated than just Oil. However, if you look beyond the superficial aspects, the bottom line of all conflicts throughout history boils down to the two interchangeable currencies of money and power.
Perhaps the reason Oil seems such a convenient rationale is because it is readily convertible to power and money.
Well yes, with money as a proxy for power, but that makes it so oversimplified as to be meaningless. Ideology, religion, a desire or freedom, resources, sheer malice, and much more is the nuance that matters too. You can boil anything humans do to power and resources, but is that really informative? If you do that, then the Allies and Axis in WWII are indistinguishable, and that’s unwise.
Just because that level of abstract thinking renders other activities meaningless does not mean it should be the case with conflicts/wars too.
The superficial and nuances of wars only matters when you want to justify them. For an outsider, it is pretty clear who is fighting for more power and resources, and who is fighting to maintain their power and resources.
The point that I am trying to make is that we as humanity need to look at wars for what they are, bloody murderous missions on quest for power. And until we stop glorifying wars with various superficial reasons, we are doomed to forever repeating these conflicts and murdering our own kind.
I don’t want to justify wars, or as you’re doing, judge them. I want to understand them, because that and not justification or judgement is probably the best way to stop them.
I am not judging wars, I am only trying to understand what wars are, as a general concept, not least because I don't want to judge wars but because trying to judge specific wars without committing to one side or the other is a futile.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/11/iran-nuclear-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxne...