Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

i do wonder if a lot of these (what haykel calls PC) responses to ISIS are actually not about gingerly protecting the majority islam population from being associated w/ ISIS but more about protecting other fundamentalist/radical groups from being besmirched by a comparison to ISIS, ie Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi, general Wahhabism, etc - like instead of finishing the equation as "ISIS is not Islam," [but] moderate Islam is, it's "ISIS is not Islam," [but] Saudi Arabian fundamentalism is, or whatever. that it's more about realizing that ISIS is a toxic brand than an actual theological dispute.

Here's another one

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-defines-real-islam-says-isis/

The Atlantic ignores Muslim intellectuals, defines "true Islam" as ISIS
by Murtaza Hussain @mazmhussain

the atlantic doesn't do that tho! it's not such a nuanced argument that ppl should be misunderstanding it. there's a big difference between "this ideology is firmly based in both an interpretative tradition and textual literalism" and "this is the true face of islam." conflating tho two is either indicative of idk, ignorance or disingenuity. like if some jews took over jerusalem, reinstated the sanhadren, and started giving sabbath violators + adulterers the death penalty, i'm sure 99% of world jewry would disagree that this is an appropriate representation of judaism (esp in 2015), but they'd also be right to say that the Torah explicitly discusses the role of courts in giving the death penalty for sabbath violation + the death penalty and tho it hasn't been put into practice for two thousand years it's obv a form of judaism and not some other new religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/nyregion/damages-awarded-in-terror-case-against-palestinian-groups.html

Well well well: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

lol i take it you didn't actually read the leaked report linked to from that guardian article

guardian is pretty shit but they're not doing their readers any favors by making up an obv bullshit narrative for the leak. mossad isn't disagreeing w/ bibi - they all agree that iran is developing the infrastructure to reach breakout capacity. that's what bibi's silly bomb graphic at the UN was about. but the guardian is trying to pretend as tho bibi has been claiming that iran is actually building the bomb itself (?) and that therefore mossad saying that iran is building infrastructure (which they explicitly write in the report they believe will be used for military purposes) contradicts that?

lol, you bullshitting, I take it you didn't read the article? You're basically just making shit up with no basis in the article.

okay i mean i read the actual document they're reporting on as well as the article about it, but sure, rely on the misleading lede + not the actual data

they basically made up the scoop - the leak does not say or contradict what they're claiming. the article's claim is just a fabrication.

except you're making up a bunch of bullshitty claims about their claims, so whatever.

Iran’s enrichment abilities continue to improve. The quantity of material enriched to 20% is not increasing at this stage as some is being converted to nuclear fuel for TRR. In addition, Iran is making great efforts to activate the IR40 reactor (which is expected to produce military-grade plutonium) as quickly as possible.

does this sound like mossad believes iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons?

or are you just saying that guardian is selling the scoop that hard? in which case why the big "well well well" when you came into the thread? and why is guardian running this like it's a big scoop?

the guardian /isn't/ i meant

The article never says 'not pursuing nuclear weapons', that is another madeup bullshit claim of yours. The article says that Iran is “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons” which is an actual quote from the fucking report.

The Mossad briefing about Iran’s nuclear programme in 2012 was in stark contrast to the alarmist tone set by Netanyahu, who has long presented the Iranian nuclear programme as an existential threat to Israel and a huge risk to world security.

That's the Guardian's claim. Does this just mean that the Mossad wrote about their concerns about Iranian nuclear progress in a more sterile tone than Bibi? The Mossad report says:

Bottom line: Though Iran at this stage is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons, it is working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment, reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given.

Bibi said in 2012 at the UN:

The red line should be drawn right here…………..

Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.

Before Iran gets to a point where it’s a few months away or a few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

Each day, that point is getting closer. That’s why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that’s why everyone should have a sense of urgency.

Obviously both Bibi and the Mossad in 2012 were discussing Iranian enrichment so I just don't see the scoop from the Guardian here.

Maybe you didn't understand Bibi's argument in 2012? It was always about closing the enrichment gap and reducing the breakout time. More Bibi:

For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse.

For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very big industrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they’re still vulnerable.

In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months.

The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It may be very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran. That’s a country that’s bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined.

The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. Chances are you won’t find that facility either.

So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

As soon as i saw Seamus Milne's name connected to this story I knew to ignore it.

Yet more Bibi bullshit: “By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move[d] on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.”

Leaked pages "the amount of 20% enriched uranium is therefore not increasing"

How does those two statements not oppose each other? And both those quotes are in the Guardian article.

Like, the enrichment rate is zero, how could that lead to bomb-capability in a year?

According to the Mossad document enrichment rate is not zero.

Enrichment: Activity at the Kashan and Qom sites has expanded to a limited extent only, apparently because of a lack of available centrifuges, but there has been a significant increase in the rate and efficiency of enrichment - approximately 230kg uranium is enriched to 5% per month, and approximately 12kg is enriched to 20% per month.

Iran has thus far accumulated about 5,500kg of uranium enriched to 5% (after about 1,500kg were allocated for enrichment to 20%) and about 100kg enriched to 20% (after 75-100kg were converted into nuclear fuel for TRR).

[…]

We understand that Iran continues to improve its enrichment abilities. And is even liable to advance them significantly when the advanced IR2M or IR4 centrifuges, currently being run in in [sic] the pilot facility in Natanz, are put into service.

In 2011, many scientists from the AMAD program [R&D of nuclear weapons program under the Iranian defense ministry] formed an organization called SPND, also under the auspices of the defense ministry. At the head of the organization is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, former head of AMAD.

The organization was established for the purposes of preserving the technological ability and the joint organizational framework of Iranian scientists in the area of R&D of nuclear weapons, and for the purposes of retaining the skills of the scientists. This is allow renewal of the activity necessary to produce weapons immediately when the Iranian leadership decides to do so.

Also from the leaked document ^

Yeah, you do realize that we're talking medium enrichment rates, 20%, and Iran was using the 20% they made for other purposes. So the enrichment rate was zero, as the amount of 20% medium enriched stayed the same.

Right, at the time that the Mossad released this document only some of the 5% had been enriched to 20% and they hadn't completed it. Which was what Bibi was arguing at the time - that the 20% enrichment takes the longest time by far and the final stage (the heavy enrichment) is a very quick process (even a couple weeks). If you read the entire Mossad leak they're are detailing a number of areas where Iran is increasing their ability, and efficiency, to enrich, from putting Arak's IR40 into operation that "is expected to produce enough military-grade plutonium for one bomb per year," to "a significant increase in the rate and efficiency of enrichment" at Kashan and Qom. I just don't see how you can read this Mossad document and think you've found a smoking gun, as if Bibi was lying or contradicting his internal intelligence agencies.

This has always been a debate about breakout time. At what point is Iran capable of enriching enough for a weapon (and producing the other infrastructure necessary to weaponize) and the international community (or the US, or Israel) cannot stop them. And obv this is [hopefully] what is being negotiated about now between Iran and the US - how much enriched they're allowed to keep, and whether the inspections regime will be able to ensure that surreptitious enriching isn't happening.

I just don't see how you can read this Mossad document and think...

Well, ok, but I'm not putting too much stock in your reading capabilities, so whatever.

I think saying, "but look, they aren't actually pushing directly to a nuclear weapon right now," is missing the point. That's why Mossad report says: "It is working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment, reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given."

xp nice ad hom, I'll just assume you get the point and we can move on to something new. heard this on BBC this morning, super depressing:

Islamic State 'abducts dozens of Christians in Syria'

expert on BBC thought they might just be capturing them to exchange for IS hostages

xp nice ad hom

Thanks, thought it was pretty wellmade myself.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Daily-Mail-epic-geography-fail-UK-paper-claimed-Israel-flooded-Gazas-major-West-Bank-cities-392057

response response follow-up to the wood piece:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants-reader-response-atlantic/385710

Obviously it is a transparent lie when Israel Iran denies its nuclear weapons program, so surely we can all agree that it would be perfectly justified if Iran Israel were to bomb the shit out of any suspected Israeli Iranian nuclear facilities.

trenchant

Well, from a realpolitik POV the Iranian nuclear situation basically comes down to Iran saying, "But, WHY can't I have a nuclear bomb? Everyone has them. Pakistan has them, North Korea has them, Israel has them. Rusia has them. All the kids have their own bomb but me. And I already saved up enough to buy one with my own money."

And the answer they get is a stern look from the western nuclear powers and "You can't because I say so, that's why."

At which Iran says, "Quit ruining my life!"

The Sauds funded the Pakistani nuke program, and very likely have their own as a result.

MAD worked for 70 years (so far) preventing global conflagration between superpowers. There seems no reason it couldn't work for israel (who have attacked every neighbor) and Iran (who hasn't initiated an overt conflict since 1826).

I keep thinking about starting a thread about MAD. Particularly bc I'm very skeptical about its reality - too small a sample size to draw any real conclusions, and too many times that US + USSR nuclear programs were almost executed during the cold war.

like it wasn't MAD that kept the Petrov situation from devolving into an actual nuclear exchange, and in the middle east i think we can expect as much, if not more, fallibility in the systems.

Aimless otm

Israel Iran [...] Iran Israel

One (I think) relevant difference is a history of Iranian leaders explicitly advocating the elimination of Israel.

Another (I think) relevant difference is a history of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorist and/or extremist groups. Though of course, very fortunately, Iran is enemy to our enemy re Isis. But that ad hoc alliance re ISIS is IMO not reason enough to overlook other geopolitical factors and context.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389186094/isis-man-who-beheaded-prisoners-identified-as-london-man-by-bbc

Born in Kuwait

There's a interminable bizarre press conference being held right now by a campaign group that the alleged Jihadi John contacted because MI5 had been harassing him.

Not sure what they're trying to achieve.

One (I think) relevant difference is a history of Iranian leaders explicitly advocating the elimination of Israel.... Another (I think) relevant difference is a history of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorist and/or extremist groups.

Neither of these observations has much bearing on the use of nuclear weapons.

The worst side effect of Iranian nuclear capability that could be considered likely would be the initiation of an arms race that would require both Israel and Iran to pursue increasingly sophisticated systems for the detection of incoming missiles. Because of the proximity of the two nations, these systems would need to be set on a hair trigger. That would hugely increase the chances of an accidental nuclear exchange, unless, of course, the two sides negotiated a more reasonable compromise position, which, based on recent history is so not gonna happen.

As for a deliberate nuclear exchange, that is not going to happen either. The current provocations would certainly continue, but based on a somewhat altered calculus. For example, Israeli aircraft would probably not be sent to Iran to drop loads of bombs on Iranian targets with the same impunity as they would be today. Iran could extend its nuclear umbrella over countries it considered reliable allies. Overall, I'd say Iraq and the Gulf States would be affected far more than Israel would be.

the worst side effect of Iranian nuclear capability would be Saudi Arabian nuclear capability

expand on that, plz. how soon would this happen? would it be open or covert? how would it change things regionally or globally? iow, why is this so bad and hated?

on one hand any increase in nuclear stockpiles, esp in unstable or dangerous governments + states, is not a good thing. on the other hand pakistan already has nukes so really iran getting nukes (or even SA) would just be added a lot of risk to already extreme risk

In November 2013, a variety of sources told BBC Newsnight that Saudi Arabia had invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects and believes it could obtain nuclear bombs at will. Earlier in the year, a senior NATO decision maker told Mark Urban, a senior diplomatic and defense editor, that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery. In October 2013, Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring." Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, "we will get nuclear weapons", the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions. Gary Samore, who until March 2013 was President Barack Obama's counter-proliferation adviser, told BBC Newsnight: "I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan."[23]

so within a month maybe? it could be open, if iran gets nukes i can't imagine the US will have much leverage to keep saudi arabia from getting their own. hard to speculate about how a nuclear armed iran + saudi arabia would change the regional landscape - like the joke about nukes is that they're so expensive and once you have them you can't use them. so ideally, everyone gets nukes and then nothing really changes. but MAD is sorta bullshit and i'd hate to depend on the rationality of khomeni or the saudis, or the stability of either state, or an accidental exchange/miscommunication, etc. but like i said, pakistan already has nukes which is like worst case situation already so i don't have any more fingers to cross.