Might be missing the point of the argument, but as a historian, one once again asks why a nuclear Iran seems to worry most other nations when a study of history proves that Iran has never attacked another nation since its Persian days?

The same certainly does not fit little spittyfire Israel, which for years now has had an illegal array of
nuclear warheads pointed at Iran.

Though one has no love for Iran, it is the historical context that any good historian has to go by.

Nuclear reactors with an external fuel rod supply and reprocessing based on a new for old exchange cannot be used to develop weapons.

The refining of fuel and reprocessing can, but as it is hideously expensive on a small scale (such as in Iran) cannot be justified for power generation in a small country, and is thus a definitive indicator of a weapons program.

For Iran to produce fuel rods at 4=5 times the cost of buying them from Russia, it can be inferred that the only reason is to avoid the oversight of IAEA and to produce weapons grade fissile material.

An example needs to be made of Iran, via tough sanctions, so that everyone can see that nuclear weapons are a no no.

I don't think the UAE nukes will produce weapons material because the process in not secretive like Iran and they want assured long term supply of fuel. The thing to note about the UAE is that after building skyscrapers, artificial islands, an indoor ski resort and gas fired desal plants they now want something besides oil even though they have plenty of sunlight. That point seems lost on those who think that sun and wind will replace fossil fuel at affordable cost.

A few points.
Looks like MAD will soon be back with us. It was always inevitable once the Americans reneged on the disarmament treaties and Israel, Pakistan and India refused ANY form of co operation.

Obviously the shills for nuke power that have been roaming the west spruiking their nukes for the past few years have give up on persuading us and have gone off to make their lucre elsewhere. And to hell with security. Only the money matters.

Armageddon is only a matter of time.

But little Israel already has the most deadly of them, Shadow Minister, and because she is so over-ready to use them on Iran, what else can Iran do?

Strike nuclear weapons which if used against Iran could not only bring in Russia but probably China.

To be sure Henry Kissinger was right fifty years back when he warned his boss Richard Nixon that a nuclear armed Israel could ultimately bring on WW3.

But Nixon went ahead and gave the deadly okay, and as any competent Minister of State should still know, to mess about with power balances by giving small nations the most deadly of weaponry, is only asking for future trouble.

Bushbred,

Just to clear up a few points in your posts on this thread.

--50 years ago, in 1960, Eisenhower was still president. Kissinger was a powerless academic back then.

--It seems likely that the Israelis already had a small nuclear arsenal in the mid-sixties – before Nixon became President.

--I doubt any US president would have acquiesced to passing nuclear weapons technology to Israel or any other country.

--Most of Israel's nuclear program seems to be home grown. One thing Israel has never lacked is good scientists. See eg "The Tel Aviv Cluster"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html

--If Israel did get any help with its nuclear weapons program it was probably from France.

--If Seymour Hersh is correct Kissinger urged an immediate massive resupply of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur war in order to avert an Israeli nuclear attack on Cairo and Damascus. The resupply took place and Israel went on to win the war.

--There seems to have been nuclear cooperation between Israel and South Africa. It was probably a technology for uranium deal. I think South Africa's uranium enrichment plant at Pelindaba relied on Israeli technology.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident

--Since 1973 US policy seems to have been to keep the Israelis so well supplied with non-nuclear weapons that they need never consider a nuclear strike.

--Israel's ace in the hole seems to be the simple fact that about a quarter of the world's oil pumping capacity is now within reach of its nuclear strike force. If Israel goes down the entire oil and gas infrastructure of the Middle-East becomes radioactive rubble.

--I doubt Israel would actually use its nuclear arsenal for anything less than seeing off what it perceives to be an existential threat.

--Faced with an existential threat I doubt anybody could stop Israel unleashing its nukes.

--Iran's recent failure to launch wars of conquest is probably due to a lack of capability. It's a bit like my saying I've never won an Olympic gold medal.

stevenlmeyer

Much of what you say is true:

- Israel's Dimona reactor (aka the Negev Nuclear Research Center) was built in secret indeed by thousands of French technicians. Its cover, very thin, was that it was a fertiliser or desalination plant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center

- Dimona had/has too small an output for power generation but ideal for plutonium production. The French also built the plutonium reprocessing plant next to the Dimona reactor.

[all covered by Hersh]

- The UK is known to have supplied heavy water for Dimona.

- US technical help was/is often informal in the sense that Jewish-American nuclear scientists were (and are) permitted to immigrate or retire to Israel with the full expectation in the US DOE and DoD that these scientists will pass their knowledge to the Israeli nuclear weapons effort.

Financial help from France, UK came from the "gifting" of the Dimona complex and the heavy water. Jewish-Americans and others of the Jewish diaspora provided a vast amount of Israel's nuclear weapons budget through donations collected by vague Israel funds but widely understood, in quiet conversation, as nuclear protection for Israel.

On "--I doubt any US president would have acquiesced to passing nuclear weapons technology to Israel or any other country."

There is, of course, the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US%E2%80%93UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement - "a bilateral treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom on nuclear weapons cooperation.

...The agreement enables the US and the UK to exchange classified information with the objective of improving each party's "atomic weapon design, development, and fabrication capability".

This includes development of defence plans; training personnel in the use and defence against nuclear weapons; evaluation of enemy capabilities; development of nuclear delivery systems; and research, development and design of military reactors. The agreement also provides for the transfer of special nuclear material (e.g. plutonium, highly enriched uranium, tritium), components, and equipment between the two countries, and the transfer of "non-nuclear parts of atomic weapons" to the UK"

"non-nuclear parts" is a fine line when the US supplies Trident missiles etc to the UK.

Regards

Peter Coates

Hullo Stevenmyer, you caught me using my back country rough and readiness instead of checking on the historical dates.

Certainly learnt about it, but even my middle ground is now a long time ago seeing I'll be 89 come June.

You seem very much like a historical tutor, mate, so I'd better pull my old socks up.

Yep, you are right about France giving Israel early info on nukes, similar to right-wing South Africans later offering help.

Certainly does prove how the Israelies still look for help from a style of politics that proved so gruesomely cruel to them.

Might say it goes right back to the time the Jews sought help from the Romans to put Jesus on Trial.

Anyhow must say most historical academics are correct not only about Henry Kissinger being Nixon's Minister of State, but also how he gave warning not so much about it happening, but that a small nation like Israel going militarily atomic would not offer permanent protection for the new little Israel only upsetting the ME balance of power, ultimately bringing the world's strongest power, America into the picture.

Thus it was only natural that the strongest Islamic ME power, Iran would also be brought into the historical picture.

As Iran was already a nation of over 70,000 at the time and was able to act strongly against America on at least two occasions in the following years, what has happened since, might only bring on much bigger war war - which might easily be pictured by a competent historian -

which I believe you are, Steve'...

Regards, BB, formerly Buntine, WA.

Bushbred you seem fond of making comments unsupported by reality.

“But little Israel already has the most deadly of them, Shadow Minister, and because she is so over-ready to use them on Iran, what else can Iran do?” What BS, please show how you reached this conclusion, given that they haven’t used them in the last 3 decades, or did you simply say the first thing that came to mind?

Considering the consequences of a first strike, they are only an effective deterrent against an invasion, the only chance of which is from the US. Similarly Israel after 3 coordinated invasion attempts by the Arab states developed the bomb and effectively put an end to further similar attacks.

The risk is that if Iran is stupid enough to use the weapon against Israel, is that Israel would retaliate en masse. China and Russia would not intervene, as they are fully aware of the consequences of an Israeli retaliation.

Well Bushbred you have a quarter century on me. I hope that when I'm 89, if I make it that far, I too am able to adapt to new technologies.

Why your focus on Israel?

I'm not asking you whether you like or dislike Israel. I'm just interested in why you are interested.

Stevenimeyer, why I focus on Israel, is because my teachings in political science tell me her unlawful adaption of nuclear armoury has made her a global criminal.

Furthermore, those nations who still believe Israel in her possibly precarious position should have been allowed to get away with it, are global criminals too.

As regards Iran, most academics would be correct in saying that right now, a nuclear armoured little Israel is also justifying Iran to break the law in order to protect herself from Israeli nuclear rockets.

Finally might say that Iran still regarded by certain historians as being proud of her Persian past, might pass judgment better than certain Western nations who link Iran with other Islamic nations whom they abuse by using the term Low Life.

Bushbred,

Considering that israel does not share a border with Iran, the only viable scenario for Israel using nukes against Iran is if Iran fires first. There is no scenario in which Iran is better off after using a nuke.

The problem with Iran is that it is more likely to use it on its neighbors than Israel, or in a fit of instability try to use one on Europe.

On the other hand Israel has not suffered any mass attempts of invasion since it acquired nukes, something which it used to suffer regularly at the hands of the Arab nations.

Shadow Minister, your thoughts do not tie in with much of the Middle East I have studied.

In fact, we believe they tie in with much of the pressure from the more smart-arsed Jewish migration occurring straight into the US after the allied victory against Hitler.

If you actually were a Shadow Minister, might say that like too many MPs you lack that philosophical sense of history that should be strongly middle-road which certainly discourages the one-eyed sense of history which George W Bush pushed so much - unfortunately aided so much by Blair and our own historically uneducated Howard.

Shadow_Minister

Permit me a correction.

Israel has not suffered an attempted invasion since it demonstrated a willingness to USE its nukes as it did in the Yom Kippur war.

This should not detract from the brilliant performance of the IDF in simultaneously defeating numerically superior Syrian and Egyptian attacks.

On the Syrian front small Israeli units displayed reckless courage in conducting sustained attacks on Syrian supply lines. Despite sustaining heavy casualties those units managed to cut Syrian fuel supplies. That brought the Syrian attack to a halt. The IDF was then able to roll back the Syrian force. By war's end Damascus was within range of Israeli artillery.

On the Southern front a small force under the command of then General Sharon crossed the Suez Canal and destroyed the Egyptian anti-aircraft missile batteries on the ground. The IAF was then able to interdict supplies to the Egyptian force in Sinai. The Egyptian offensive ground to a halt. The war ended with the Egyptians entirely surrounded by Israeli forces.

The tactics Israel used in that war are still being studied in war colleges around the world.

At the time the Egyptians and Syrians claimed they never intended to destroy Israel, merely to recapture territory lost in the 1967 war. They were especially keen to get this story out AFTER they had been defeated. The claim was widely repeated by the Arabs' usual apologists who presumably also believe in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas.

It is not clear to me why Israeli nukes should be any more "illegal" than Indian or Pakistani nukes. Or for that matter American nukes.

So-called "international law" notwithstanding, any country threatened with invasion will arm itself with whatever weapons it deems necessary to defend itself.

Countries do not have a "right to exist". Countries exist so long as they have the means and the will to defend themselves against enemies who wish to destroy them. That is the reality of the world.

Fortunately for Israel they have never lacked good scientists able to provide them with the ultimate deterrent.

Middle East needs UN Multinationalism

Stevenimeyer, though your survival of the fittest policy does favour in certain historical situations it does not favour in today's Middle East where middle road UN policies have long been advocated by academics.

To be sure Israeli military aptitude appears admirable, but modern history shows that it has to be carefully watched by means of a multi-national authority.

That was why a much stronger United Nations was advocated not long after WW2, when the Future Peace Code as well as the `Marshall Plan were broken after the US moved into Iran followed not long after by both American and British oil companies.

Could say that such foolish action especially by America, helped to begin the autocratic single top-nation bastardry that has continually angered many West European nations like Norway and Sweden, as well as the remodelled West Germany of course, which after the curse of autocratic Nazism, today knows how important global multinationalism must be not only for the Third World but especially so for the First World.

As one with a smidgoen of Jewish heritage himself can admire how they have proved themselves in all manner of ways through history, but I only pray that this day they try to prove their mental abilities more in a more modern multi-nationalism.

It must be reminded to all that survival of the fittest is just another term for tribalism, so lets look forward in the most fitting fashion for the time.

Regards, BB, WA

Bushbred,

I'm sorry that I lack the mawkish lack of objectivity that you call a "philosophical sense of history"

For example you happily label Israel's nukes as "illegal" when Israel never signed the NPT and has no legal obligation with respect to nukes (whereas Iran has signed the NPT). And without justification or substantiation you ascribe to Israel an over readiness to use the nukes in spite of clear evidence of restraint in the face of massive assault.

I would be worried if my lecturer based his lectures on sentimentality rather than facts.

Israel had the legal right to build nukes and strong survival based motivation to do so. Iran has neither.

PS I am not an MP or even a member of a political party.

stevenlmeyer,

While I like most of your analysis I would argue that Israel "demonstrated a willingness to USE its nukes as it did in the Yom Kippur war" is conjecture, even though I personally believe that if the invasion had been looking like succeeding they probably would have used them.

While the brilliance of Israel's military, and the incompetence of the Arabs ensured Israel's survival from the first 3 invasions, relying on this is hardly a long term survival strategy, as there is always a chance the Arabs could learn from their past mistakes.

Shadow Minister

The Arabs have learned their lesson. They no longer think in terms of inflicting a decisive military defeat on Israel. Instead their tactic is to delegitimate the country. They have succeeded in painting Israel as the world's "resident evil" – the country all "right thinking" people love to hate.

This strategy seems likely to prove successful. Israel is dying the death of a thousand cuts.