Israel v Iran conflict

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by thenry

I don't understand this war. Everyday in Mecca, Saudi Arabia they recite the Quran as does the rest of the Muslim world. In those verses are Israel. Whatever your stand point Israel is reality. By wiping out Israel through war means the holy book doesn't hold credibility. It's a story ffs. There is no Quran without Israel. I don't get it.

They are talking about the land, not the state.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Chris

What got my attention this afternoon is how Trump, like the pathetic bully he is, is now threatening Iran to make a deal lest things get worse, as if this is somehow anything to do with him.

Yes he is making this country look worse....... I think he should back off Chris before something bad happens!!

[Sephiroth]

To get back to the matter in hand:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn840275p5yo

Last week, the IAEA said in its latest quarterly report that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched up to 60% purity - a short, technical step away from weapons grade, or 90% - to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. That was "a matter of serious concern", given the proliferation risks, it added.

This is the nub of the matter. You all know as well as I what Iran would do with a nuclear bomb, assuming that it could deliver it onto Israel. That's been Iran's goal since 1979.

[downquark1]

They can deliver bombs to Israel, they just demonstrated this.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by downquark1

They can deliver bombs to Israel, they just demonstrated this.

... nuclear? Just what's your point?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

To get back to the matter in hand:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn840275p5yo



This is the nub of the matter. You all know as well as I what Iran would do with a nuclear bomb, assuming that it could deliver it onto Israel. That's been Iran's goal since 1979.

Except when it wasn’t…

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... nuclear? Just what's your point?

If they intended to nuke Israel and could convince Russia to lend them a nuke, it would have already happened.

While it is true they would rather Israel not exist, I think the idea they would nuke it asap is far fetched.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Except when it wasn’t…

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

What's your point?
It's clear to everyone what the IAEA was saying: Iran has enough U235 to build a few nuclear bombs.

Put that together with Iran's publicly declared dedication to the destruction of the State of Israel, then the handshaking and smiles from 2015 (your evidence) can be taken with a pinch of salt.


---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

If they intended to nuke Israel and could convince Russia to lend them a nuke, it would have already happened.

While it is true they would rather Israel not exist, I think the idea they would nuke it asap is far fetched.

Is this naievity on your part? What's with this "if" stuff? Iran was refining Uranium for its own nukes. That must be obvious to you - and if not why not?

As to your "far fetched" assertion, it must be at least a 50/50 chance that they they would nuke Israel; they are religious zealots who welcome martyrdom.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Is this naievity on your part? What's with this "if" stuff? Iran was refining Uranium for its own nukes. That must be obvious to you - and if not why not?

As to your "far fetched" assertion, it must be at least a 50/50 chance that they they would nuke Israel; they are religious zealots who welcome martyrdom.

No, you're confusing sunni and shia, and Arabs and Persians.

The Iranians are different to Bin Laden. They are a theocratic regime don't want their country burnt to the ground for martyrdom, they are more subtle than that.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by downquark1

No, you're confusing sunni and shia, and Arabs and Persians.

The Iranians are different to Bin Laden. They are a theocratic regime don't want their country burnt to the ground for martyrdom, they are more subtle than that.

Apologies for my rudeness - but ?????

In this part of the conversation, Shia/Sunni doesn't come into it (except perhaps that the Sunni Arabs are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of their Shia enemy, Iran, being taken down by Israel).

My entire point is about Iran's nuclear development and its intentions toward Israel.

Why have you pivoted away from that?

What have you got against Israel, frankly?


---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E...rael_relations

Iran and Israel do not maintain diplomatic relations and relations are hostile. The Iran–Israel relationship was cordial for most of the Cold War, but worsened following the Iranian revolution in 1979 and has been openly hostile since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Iran's current government does not recognize Israel's legitimacy as a state and has called for its destruction; it views Palestine as the sole legitimate government of the historic Palestinian territories. Israel considers Iran a threat to the Middle East's stability and has targeted Iranian assets in assassinations and airstrikes

Clear enough?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What's your point?
It's clear to everyone what the IAEA was saying: Iran has enough U235 to build a few nuclear bombs.

Put that together with Iran's publicly declared dedication to the destruction of the State of Israel, then the handshaking and smiles from 2015 (your evidence) can be taken with a pinch of salt.


---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 ----------



Is this naievity on your part? What's with this "if" stuff? Iran was refining Uranium for its own nukes. That must be obvious to you - and if not why not?

As to your "far fetched" assertion, it must be at least a 50/50 chance that they they would nuke Israel; they are religious zealots who welcome martyrdom.

The point is that under the JCPOA Iran couldn’t build a nuclear weapon, so that ipso facto negates your proposition about their "goal"…

You all know as well as I what Iran would do with a nuclear bomb, assuming that it could deliver it onto Israel. That's been Iran's goal since 1979.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Apologies for my rudeness - but ?????

In this part of the conversation, Shia/Sunni doesn't come into it (except perhaps that the Sunni Arabs are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of their Shia enemy, Iran, being taken down by Israel).

My entire point is about Iran's nuclear development and its intentions toward Israel.

Why have you pivoted away from that?

What have you got against Israel, frankly?


---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E...rael_relations



Clear enough?

I haven't pivoted away. The martyrdom doctrine is a religious thing and that requires a religious discussion. Their intention towards nuking Israel requires a discussion on their attitude towards martyrdom -- if they did nuke Israel, America would seek revenge and at that point Russia may not defend them.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The point is that under the JCPOA Iran couldn’t build a nuclear weapon, so that ipso facto negates your proposition about their "goal"…

You too? What do you think Iran was doing? Why was/is it enriching Uranium to weapons grade?


---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

I haven't pivoted away. The martyrdom doctrine is a religious thing and that requires a religious discussion. Their intention towards nuking Israel requires a discussion on their attitude towards martyrdom -- if they did nuke Israel, America would seek revenge and at that point Russia may not defend them.

The martyrdom doctrine leads to the death of people with whom the martyrs disagree. I'm worried for you.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You too? What do you think Iran was doing? Why was/is it enriching Uranium to weapons grade?


---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------



The martyrdom doctrine leads to the death of people with whom the martyrs disagree. I'm worried for you.

From the previously linked article

Low-enriched uranium, which typically has a 3-5% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. Highly enriched uranium has a purity of 20% or more and is used in research reactors. Weapons-grade uranium is 90% enriched or more...

…. Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was also reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%…

… Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor existed.

Iran must also not build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.

So, under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran would not have the capability to build a nuclear weapon, so could not fulfil "their goal since 1979"…

[papa smurf]

If Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb should any country in the region be allowed them?