
How Israel, in Dark of Night, Torched Its Way to Iran’s Nuclear Secrets - SREinSF
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-mossad-nuclear.html
======
IBM
Netflix should make this into a movie or series. Plenty of good material to
draw from: this heist, assassinating Iranian scientists with magnetic bombs on
motorcycles [1][2] and Stuxnet [3].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/11/iran-
nuclear-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/11/iran-nuclear-
scientist-killed)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists)

[3]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxne...](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html)

~~~
Area12
Given that there will be people insisting that the main objective of the
program was nuclear power, not weapons, a show like that would be risky. Does
Netflix want their shows accused of glorifying murder? I'm aware that there is
the argument, perhaps with evidence, that Israel was halting weapons research
aimed at them, but Netflix may not want to take the risk that the debate goes
against them.

~~~
KKKKkkkk1
Maybe those people should read the quoted article.

 _Last week, at the invitation of the Israeli government, three reporters,
including one from The New York Times, were shown key documents from the
trove. Many confirmed what inspectors from the International Atomic Energy
Agency, in report after report, had suspected: Despite Iranian insistence that
its program was for peaceful purposes, the country had worked in the past to
systematically assemble everything it needed to produce atomic weapons._

------
ajnin
I don't really get it. If all they had to show were 15 year old documents, so
dating before the Iranian nuclear accord, wouldn't this indicate that Iran did
in fact fulfill its side of the agreement ? The main argument seems to be that
if they kept the archives then it must mean that they want to resume their
research program at some point in the future. I'm sure if Israel had any clear
and direct evidence showing that Iran violated the deal they would have shown
it.

~~~
chris11
I've heard responses from former Obama appointees that the documents in
general were not surprising. They believed that Iran had an active nuclear
program, was lying about it, and was hiding it. So they tried to create a deal
that would not require countries to trust that Iran was complying. Overall it
looks like Iran was complying with the deal, even if we can't assume good
faith. So Netanyahu's speech came across as overtly political.

~~~
dogma1138
The “problem” with the deal form Israel’s point of view is that the
restrictions are temporary on both the enrichment and the long range missile
programmes.

The Iran deal would work out only if there would be a regime change before the
restrictions expire, and while 15 years are enough for the US it’s not enough
for Israel considering that the Iranian nuclear program has started even
before the revolution, then with the full support of the US.

While the documents should surprise no one their release by the Israelis was
done to make it harder for Iran to continue to run “we never worked on nuclear
weapons” story they at least from Israel’s point of view manage to
successfully sell to quite a lot of people.

------
firic
> But if sanctions resume, and more Western companies leave Iran, it is
> possible that Iranian leaders will decide to resume nuclear fuel production.

and

> By the time the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya
> Amano, was finally permitted to visit the site in 2015, it was empty, though
> the agency’s report indicated that it looked as if equipment had been
> removed.

I don't understand the authors conclusion. He is saying that without a nuclear
deal Iran will try to develop the bomb. Later he shows that even with a deal
Iran tries to make a bomb and not report it. My intuition says that the
solution is to create a new deal. One that makes it harder for Iran to hide
nuclear bomb making facilities and doesn't involve sending them $1.7 billion
dollars in cash [1]

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-
payment-c...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-
cash-20160907-snap-story.html)

------
pknerd
Why is it flagged?

~~~
touristtam
It's quite a politically heavy article, on a Technology first board.

~~~
YouAreGreat
It's about Israelis killing scientists and engineers, hitting dangerously
close to home on a technology first board.

------
exabrial
Real life Ocean's 11? This seems more like The Bank Job (2008)!

------
imbokodo
> Netanyahu...proved Iranian...intent to resume bomb production

Israel has dozens, if not hundreds, of nuclear bombs. Why should Iran not have
nuclear bombs as well? The US and US industry was pushing for Iran to turn
more towards nuclear production in the 1970s.

Iran also has made offers for a nuclear-free Middle East agreement - offers
Israel has always rejected. What is the line - Arab and Muslim states in the
Middle East are not allowed to have nuclear bombs, but Jewish ones can?

Some people might say Iran has theocratic and undemocratic elements. But the
US and Israel had little problem with the Shah's lack of democracy. Also the
US and England backed the conservative, fundamentalist mullahs in Iran from
the 1950s to the 1970s against democratic republicans like Mossadegh. The US
only turned against conservative fundamentalist mullahs in Iran at the very
end of the 1970s who wanted US (and USSR) interference with Iran's internal
affairs ended.

~~~
khazhou
There's a non- Jewish-vs-Muslim argument: no country that does not today have
nukes should be allowed to develop them. Hold the line. It may not be "fair",
but it's safer for the world.

~~~
davidf18
The history is that France gave the Israelis the Dimona Reactor originally as
payback for helping the French and British with the Suez Canal nationalized by
Egypt. The next French PM said he was giving Israel the technology to prevent
another Holocaust.

Although the Arab nations have tried repeatedly to destroy Israel they are not
afraid of Israel using the bomb against them. Nor can they conquer Israel
because Israel has the bomb. Hence it provides an excuse to never start
another war with Israel.

The Saudis and other Sunni Arab countries are terrified of a nuclear Shia Iran
and would build their own bomb if Iran had one. As one might imagine, the
Saudis are very supportive of Israel's efforts against Iran.

------
poster123
The leaders of Iran have called for the destruction of Israel many times, so
of course Israel will do what it can to thwart the nuclear weapons program of
Iran.

------
aqibgatoo
Finding a way to bomb another nation for fossil fuels

~~~
throwaway8879
This is a simpleton's way of looking at an issue as complex as this. It's
intellectual laziness to try to water down geopolitical/historical motivations
by claiming that "ooooh they did it for the oil!".

~~~
omeid2
It is true that the problem is more complicated than just Oil. However, if you
look beyond the superficial aspects, the bottom line of all conflicts
throughout history boils down to the two interchangeable currencies of money
and power.

Perhaps the reason Oil seems such a convenient rationale is because it is
readily convertible to power and money.

~~~
GW150914
Well yes, with money as a proxy for power, but that makes it so oversimplified
as to be meaningless. Ideology, religion, a desire or freedom, resources,
sheer malice, and much more is the nuance that matters too. You can boil
anything humans do to power and resources, but is that really informative? If
you do that, then the Allies and Axis in WWII are indistinguishable, and
that’s unwise.

~~~
omeid2
Just because that level of abstract thinking renders other activities
meaningless does not mean it should be the case with conflicts/wars too.

The superficial and nuances of wars only matters when you want to justify
them. For an outsider, it is pretty clear who is fighting for more power and
resources, and who is fighting to maintain their power and resources.

The point that I am trying to make is that we as humanity need to look at wars
for what they are, bloody murderous missions on quest for power. And until we
stop glorifying wars with various superficial reasons, we are doomed to
forever repeating these conflicts and murdering our own kind.

~~~
GW150914
I don’t want to justify wars, or as you’re doing, judge them. I want to
_understand_ them, because that and not justification or judgement is probably
the best way to stop them.

~~~
omeid2
I am not judging wars, I am only trying to _understand_ what wars are, as a
general concept, not least because I don't want to judge wars but because
trying to judge specific wars without committing to one side or the other is a
futile.

