They maybe confused between North Korea and Iran...Not knowing what else to do...Israel asks China to stop Iran nuclear program
Israel urges China to use its ‘influence’ to stop Iran’s nuclear program
Israel’s top diplomat on Monday urged China to use its “influence” on Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, stressing that Israel will takeenglish.alarabiya.net
Iranian Nuclear Doctrine
- Thread starter jauk
- Start date
Sineva
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,657
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
"I spoke today with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang. I called on him to exert his influence on Iran to stop the progress of the nuclear program, which poses a danger to many countries in the Middle East and the world. The State of Israel will act in any way to prevent the terrorist regime in Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons."["Translation"]Not knowing what else to do...Israel asks China to stop Iran nuclear program
Israel urges China to use its ‘influence’ to stop Iran’s nuclear program
Israel’s top diplomat on Monday urged China to use its “influence” on Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, stressing that Israel will take
Sineva
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,657
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
I do like the "israel will act in any way....." tough talk,but it does come off as far less tough,not to mention credible,when you have it at the end of a paragraph where israel is basically begging china for help with iran.
Whats uncle sam gonna say.....
OldTwilight
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,118
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Nk has more sovereignty than money worshiper I.s
EU: If Iran enriches uranium to 90%, we will snapback all UNSC sanctions
Iran: If EU invokes snapback, we will withdraw from the NPT
Israel: If Iran enriched uranium to 90%, we will launch a military attack against their nuclear facilities
US: We will not stop Israel from attacking Iran
STAFF
- Joined
- May 1, 2015
- Messages
- 3,786
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
So, we have to see if and when 90 % enrichment is detected I suppose.
And with the current Fatwa in place against nuclear WEAPONS, is there any possibility or the nuclear doctrine to change officially?
And, do members consider the current doctrine to be a deceitful tactic like Israel, and Western powers do or do you truly believe that the military will keep away from developing any nuclear warhead?
aryobarzan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,586
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
If these are red lines of major players then how about this:
Golden chance for mullahs to go 90%..Israel will attack...mullahs chance to destroy Israel and not be accused of being the ones who started that war.
43 years mullahs claim they are not afraid of Israel..show us you mean it..of course poor Iran will be destroyed also but since when did a Mullah consider what is good for Iran..Iran is just a tool..
Personally I think mullahs will shut up and never do 90%..keep Iran sanctioned for ever wait and pray for destruction of Israel for the next 25 years..and after 25 years is passed issue another 25 years..lol...
No, the fatwa is sincere and cannot be violated.
I don't think Iran will enrich to 90% unless seriously provoked. It seems we are at a standstill. The real issue is what would happen to the provisions in the JCPOA which state all UNSCRs are permanently lifted (i.e. no more possibility of 'snapback') from October 2025. That is the date where something will have to happen and some redlines may be triggered (I predict a push to a new deal / return to JCPOA by then, otherwise we will have a serious escalation).
Iran never proposed it should destroy Israel in a direct war, but by a referendum.
It's more about interests and cost-benefit analysis rather than fear. Iran can easily destroy Dimona and impose severe costs on Israel, and that's likely what Iran would do in the event of an Israeli attack, hence why Israel has not dared to attack Iran in the last 30 years (despite crying wolf daily and making threats daily).
STAFF
- Joined
- May 1, 2015
- Messages
- 3,786
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
In case of any or all redlines crossed, escalated and active conflict, you don't see in any scenarios of Iran operationalizing Nukes? I really even being biased in favor of Iran in this conflict, can't believe it, let alone anyone in West taking the word for it. Enriching to high levels and even to 90% itself is a provocation and hinting at the intention of developing nukes tbh. Actions and words are incoherent.
JCPOA is of no value with U.S. not returning to it. I think it should not even be discussed. The question is not if but when will Israel strike Iran in a significant manner. We all presume them striking through air which they might but I believe they always strike going by history with surprise. Therefore, They can take action through land, a large covert operation from within and outside Iran and otherwise.
Anyone who knows Israel should not be in doubt that Israel will strike or not. Of course Iran will strike back which I am sure Israel and its allies will have taken in view when they decide to hit target Iran.
2025 is a significant year but I will never let my guard down before it too. We can already see Israel and the Western Press building hysteria and a narrative.
aryobarzan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,586
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Completely wrong and classic distortion of everything, the only ones that have been threatening Iran of total war and ATTACK are the US and Israel, Iran respond to the threat by making a warning, understand the difference between a threat and a warning. You can look up on who started threats and who is doing it at a weekly basis.
By saying things such as "We are not afraid", it is an answer to thr threat, not a threat, just like warnings of total destruction if a single foreign aircrafts violates the air space to throw bombs.
This is the same thing: "I'm going to punch you in the face if you ever do x"
Response: "Punch me in the face and retaliate, i am not afraid of you"
The first threats were made by both, before Iran starts its missile program which worked very well since Iran is saved from zn Iraq-like invasion. The "Iran is never going to do anything" is a typical quote from people not following what happens in the region and study since 1979
30+ years of weekly threats from Israel, still nothing, threatening to bring Azeri and Kurdish separatist inside Iran, still nothing and forced to fund some militias at the Iraq borders, 0 long term damage done on nuclear sites, nothing.
Your logic should go to Israel which is reassuring its zionist friends and promising that they are going to bomb Iran nuclear sites, threats of separatism, but still nothing and lied to its people for decades.
I even doubt they would do something with max enrichment, doing that would lead to catastrophic things for all the region which everyone knows including themselves and no one wants, and no, Israel doesn't have every rights to the point of nuking a country and get away with it. Israel has always been viewed as posing no big threat because how small it is geographically and military wise beside WMD weapons. The real threat is the United States.
No, but Iran already has nukes that they bought from the former Soviet countries post 1991. I read this about this in Clash of civilization and the remaking of the new world order by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. The missile tests came after to marry the nukes to the missile. Kinda like how Pakistan did it. Ghauri was tested in 1998 I think before the nuke tests. Pakistan already had nuke warheads to go.
This is why Iran hasn’t been attacked yet. They won’t test unless they really have to. Israel too follows the same policy. Not the first, but won’t be the second.
No. There is a religious fatwa from the highest authority in Iran against it. If Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons it would have done so by now.
When Saddam's Iraq used Western-supplied chemical weapons against hundreds of thousands of Iranians in his invasion, Iran did not retaliate with chemical weapons.
You and they can believe what you want. Iran has not enriched uranium to 90%. Unlike other states in the region, Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has a legal right to enrich uranium.
Iran appears to want to be a nuclear-capable state, on the cusp of weaponisation at very short-notice. It lacks the political will to make that final step (due to terrorist traitors exposing its secret nuclear weapons program in 2002 meaning that Iran's case was referred to the UNSC). Since then Iran has been under the watchful eye of the international community and trying to close the UNSC file.
Indeed. The US remains open to returning to the JCPOA, recently stating that the deal the parties negotiated (that Iran walked away from) is still open.
Unsubstantiated conjecture. If there was ever a time to strike Iran, it would have been in the decades before Iran invested so heavily in its AD network and built several nuclear facilities spread across the entire country, several buried deep under mountains and thus beyond reach for Israel.
This is not logical. They have tried to conduct sabotage and other terrorist operations in Iran for decades, sometimes successfully in the short-term. None of them have a lasting impact and each one is counterproductive as they only result in Iran taking further steps to progress its nuclear program (e.g. legitimately enriching uranium to 60% after the Zionists extrajudicially assassinated Fakhirzadeh in an act of terrorism, which was previously a red-line for the West).
There is doubt because of the incredible deterrence and military power Iran has managed to accumulate, as evidenced by Israel's reticence to strike Iran until this point. I agree Israel has factored in Iran's response and the consequences of such an illegal act of aggression, hence why it has refrained from doing so (that's called deterrence).
Israel can probably heavily damage Natanz but it cannot destroy Fordow (or the massive new enrichment facilities being built deep underground at Natanz), it lacks the weapons needed to do so. By contrast, Iran can very easily destroy Israel's sole major nuclear facility (Dimona) with only 20 Emad ballistic missiles (even assuming a 20% failure rate and 90% interception rate) and then use the strike to legitimately withdraw from the NPT and enrich to 90% at Fordow. Therefore, unless Iran makes a sudden, clear rush to weaponisation, it is not logical for Israel to strike. Even then, the limitations of their options and costs they would incur would weigh heavily against such a decision.
Last edited:
