Experts Believe Iran Conflict Is Less Likely

[MindMover]

Source: NYTIMES

WASHINGTON — After a winter of alarm over the possibility that a military conflict over the Iranian nuclear program might be imminent, American officials and outside analysts now believe that the chances of war in the near future have significantly decreased.

They cite a series of factors that, for now, argue against a conflict. The threat of tighter economic sanctions has prompted the Iranians to try more flexible tactics in their dealings with the United States and other powers, while the revival of direct negotiations has tempered the most inflammatory talk on all sides.

A growing divide in Israel between political leaders and military and intelligence officials over the wisdom of attacking Iran has begun to surface. And the White House appears determined to prevent any confrontation that could disrupt world oil markets in an election year.

“I do think the temperature has cooled,” an Obama administration official said this week.

At the same time, no one is discounting the possibility that the current optimism could fade. “While there isn’t an agreement between the U.S. and Israel on how much time, there is an agreement that there is some time to give diplomacy a chance,” said Dennis B. Ross, who previously handled Iran policy for the Obama administration.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/world/middleeast/chances-of-iran-strike-receding-us-officials-say.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimesworld&seid=auto

[cstanleytech]

1. I just wish they would abandon the nuclear plants alltogether as its still going to be a source of

problems imo for the region and besides its not like they really need it seeing as they have an abundance of oil to sell from which they can then use the money they earn to build a massive amount of solar and geothermal plants for their electrical needs not to mention both of those dont have an issue with long term waste disposal like nuclear does.
The same goes for the US imo we really shouldnt be investing in new nuclear plants and should be looking at closing them down and switching over to a combo of solar, wind and geothermal.
I mean image the potential energy that could be generated by some plants near yellowstone.

[MindMover]

2. Totally agree and I might add that further fracking in and around

Yellowstone could unleash some unwanted changes in that area....

[Tunkamerica]

7. Huh? what does fracking in yellowstone have to do with the topic?

[MindMover]

11. Fracking is what caused over 2,000 earthquakes in central and western Arkansas and Oklahoma

in the last 2 years until the practice was stopped....apparently earthquakes around a supervolcano is alright with you...?

[Tunkamerica]

14. yes. i am pro-supervolcano.

[joshcryer]

3. Yeah, they have a pithy amount of uranium reserves...

...and in the end it's a bad energy source for them.

Not as if nuclear is a good energy source to begin with.

But let's not mess with Yellowstone please. Under Yellowstone is a planet destroying supervolcano. Just messing around with it could prove disastrous. It will blow again one day in the far distant future.

[MindMover]

4. Far Far distant.....thank you....for your prediction...

[cstanleytech]

6. If iceland can tap into their volcanos I dont see why we cant tap into ours including yellowstone.

[joshcryer]

8. Yellowstone is 1 of 6 supervolcanos on the planet.

I really don't think we should mess with it though I do appreciate geothermal power, the entire caldera moves up and down, release some pressure and see what happens. I think it's a really bad idea. I might be able to go with some low level geothermal power, but high level? No way!

[David__77]

5. Iran has a right to nuclear energy, obviously.

I think that nuclear energy should be supported - much better than fossil fuels.

[joshcryer]

9. I think Gen III+ energy is a no-go to be frank.

If Iran were to request and build Gen IV nuclear (breeder reactors) then I would be completely supportive of them. But what they have now is silly, they don't have the uranium reserves to keep it going for a very long time (only a few years at most, they'd have to import their uranium), and in general I think that they're trying to create a nuclear weapon. It's clear that their nuclear program only has one objective and it's not energy.

Again I do support their energy approaches, whatever they choose even if a bad energy source, but I do not think that in the end they have good intentions, and I don't see myself budging on that one.

What's fascinating is that they think they can disguise their nuclear weapons program beneath a nuclear energy program. All they have to do is create a nuclear pile and they can create a bomb, why they do not do this is beyond me. They can do it. They already have A. Q. Khan derived tech.

PS I do not support a nuclear Iran. I think anti-proliferation is a progressive ideal.

[Selatius]

10. Frankly, the entire Middle East should be made into a nuclear-free zone.

Any discussion of making or convincing Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program is idiotic if it doesn't also include the same in terms of Israel dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

[cstanleytech]

12. No argument there. Though atleast Israel has shown pretty good restraint

regarding the use of their nukes and I have grave doubts that any of their neighbors would have shown a similar amount restraint.

[got root]

13. look! over there... a TERRORIST!

yeah, sure... i don't belive much of what the elite's 'experts' have to say on anything, anymore.