The March of War?
Is the United States trying to create a stand off in the UN? This from the BBC
Iran to ignore nuclear resolution
Iran has vowed to pursue its nuclear programme, in its first official response to last week's UN resolution urging it to curb nuclear activities.
Chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tehran would continue to develop nuclear energy within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Last week the Security Council said Iran faced possible sanctions if it did not stop uranium enrichment this month.
Some members fear Iran may use the technology to build nuclear weapons.
Iran says its motives are peaceful.
"Our activities respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty... so we will not accept the suspension [of uranium enrichment]," Mr Larijani said.
"They should know that such resolutions will not affect our determination. We will pursue the nuclear rights of Iranians which are enshrined in the NPT."
Mr Larijani also warned that sanctions would hurt the West more, leaving people there shivering from cold during the winter because of higher oil prices.
BBC
Now to fully appreciate the context of this stand off, I think you have to try and see things through the Iranian eyes. Their Nemesis, AMERIKA, has done some very shitty things to the Iranian people, let’s see, that CIA sponsored coup that brought in the dictatorship of the US sponsored client regime of the repressive Shar, then there’s that whole supporting Saddam with his war against Iran, and let’s not forget the fact that the United States invaded two countries next to Iran. So an understandably paranoid Iran desperately wants an atomic bomb BECAUSE THEY DON’T (for very good reasons) TRUST AMERIKA. And let’s not forget that Iran had a chance to become more moderate with reformer Clerics getting elected into political positions that could have ushered in change. That was until Bush made his “Axis of Evil” brainfart, and the hardliners within Iran pointed to that and convinced the electorate to elect a hardliner.
You can’t have a war without a lot of fear mongering
This today from Reuters
Prepare for Iranian strike, Israelis told
JERUSALEM - Israel yesterday said it should prepare for a missile attack from Iran as a likely leader of peacekeeping in Lebanon called for Israeli troops to stop their shooting.
Italy said it was ready to lead peacekeeping forces in Lebanon and expected a decision by the weekend. But it called for an end to the exchanges that have threatened the week-long truce between Israel and the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah.
Israelis, meanwhile, were being told to be ready for a potential attack from Hizbollah supporter Iran.
"We are liable to face an Iranian missile attack. The Iranians have said very clearly that if they come under attack, their primary target would be Israel," said Rafi Eitan, a member of the decision-making inner Cabinet.
Iran, which this week upset the West by saying it would not heed calls to suspend uranium enrichment, supported the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah in its war with Israel and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
"We must prepare for what could come, and prepare the entire country for a missile strike attack, to prepare all the civilian systems so they are ready for this," Eitan said.
Reuters
Couple of things, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad DID NOT SAY he wanted Israel wiped off the map, he was referring to the regime of occupation in Palestine needed to be wiped of the map – those are two very different things.
Don’t you love the reasoning here by Rafi Eitan? “The Iranians have said very clearly that if they come under attack, their primary target would be Israel,"
Well perhaps Israel would be much better suited to tell America NOT to invade Iran then perhaps shouldn’t they? Iran HAS SAID it won’t attack unless they are attacked – how can that be construed as a threat?
posted by Bomber @ 9:35 am
46 comments
46 Comments:
These 'people' have been laughing at the West for decades.
You are to young to remember when they stuck a gun through a window of their London embassy and shot a police officer at random - still she was just a pig so who cares.
Since then they have ignored every convention and behaved as they like.
Now they hang their own people (mostly women so that doesn't matter) from cranes and worse - the sooner that regime is wiped out the better, although if we could be confident they are only interested in hurting their own people and leaving the ‘uncivilized’ West’ alone I would support staying out and leaving them to get on with it.
Easy to love them - from a safe distance.
Where would you, your girlfriend, or your very well known show biz buddies rather be forces to land - that despot of cruelty and death the USA or amongst those charming Iranians.
You can say what you like about the USA and the British for that matter - firstly they don't care about nobodies from nowhere but even if they did you probably won't get hanged from a crane. Do you realise that if your girlfriend is having sex with you (or anyone else) those nice Iranians will kill her if they can - you of course will be safe.
Haven't seen to many British or Americans - even the ones who hate their chosen country - queuing to go and live in Iran, but I think there are a fair few people trapped there who would love to get out. Even that pitiful dump NZ would probably seem live paradise to them.
Now go make sure your girlfriend has got her burka on and stop sleeping with her you heathen.
Stop being a coward and go and go and live there then you can do something for the people you purport to care about – I suspect your safe, lazy comfortable all talk life will suit you better though.
Talk, like easy sex, is so bloody cheap for people like you.
For anyone who hasn't seen this yet:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&hl=en
Its a pretty in depth look at the events of and surrounding 9/11. Of particular interest to me was the footage of small explosions ahead of the main collapses of both world trade towers, and dozens of ear-witness accounts of "explosions" ahead of the collaspes.
Why is it that you wont take anything Bush/Fox/anyone right of centre seriously, but accept statements from the Iranian regime at face value?
Before we get too carried away, here are a few facts about Iran and it’s current regime. They are provided by Fatemeh Keshavarz, Professor and Chair Dept. of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literature Washington University in St. Louis.
The Iranian supreme religious leader issued a legal decree (fatwa) on November 6, 2004 in which all development, production, and use of nuclear weapons is considered against the Islamic principles and should not be undertaken under any circumstances.
Iranian nuclear facilities have been inspected over 2000 times during the past three years (some surprise inspections) by the IAEA and nothing illegal has been found. The IAEA's report has specified "to date, there is no evidence that undeclared material are related to any weapon's programs."
The Taliban are an enemy of Iran and have engaged in regular assassinations of Iranian diplomats.
The Iranian regime considers al-Qa'ideh a terrorist organization.
Iranians held night long vigils to commemorate the victims of 9/11.
Iran does not support the Shiite extremist Moqtada al-Sadr, and prefers peace, stability, and democratic elections in Iraq because it does not wish its own Kurdish population to aspire to separatist ideas and because a democratic election in Iraq will give a prominent role to the Iraqi Shiites.
According to all major historians of the region, in reality, Iran exercises little influence on the Hezbollah.
The latest best-selling titles in Iran are the DaVinci Code and Hillary Clinton's My life in Persian translation.
According to the latest statistics, close to 70% of the Iranian university students are women
IVF, and gamete donation, as well as transsexual operations are legal in Iran.
Iranian cinema produces critically acclaimed films (often openly critical of the regime).
Iranian women golfers, race car drivers, and polo players compete internationally.
And here are some from my own research:
Some 30,000 Jews are resident in Iran.
Iran’s Parliament reserves a seat for a Jewish representative.
In 2000, 8 Jews were convicted of spying for Israel. They were sentenced to between 4 and 13 years imprisonment. All have subsequently been released.
With reference to the above comments.
Ahmedinejead has not denied the Holocaust. He simply stated that it was perpetrated by Germans, not Arabs and therefore, Israel should more appropriately have been given a State in Europe as was proposed and declined by the Zionists.
Iran possesses less than 170 centrifuges. 30,000 are required to make weapons grade material. Iran has consistently averred it’s intention to stay within the Non Proliferation Treaty while asserting it’s right to pursue nuclear energy as an alternative to ecologically unsound fossil fuel. This position is endorsed by James Lovelock.
Vis a vis the alleged hanging. All societies have psychopaths. Need I cite the Kahui twins?
I would like to pose a question.
If Iran is intent on the destruction of Israel and hegemony in the region, where were the big bangs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon?
"If Iran is intent on the destruction of Israel and hegemony in the region, where were the big bangs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon? "
I dont believe Iran has nuclear weapons. And as you will no doubt know, there is a difference between having a nuke and having the means to develop it.
"The Taliban are an enemy of Iran and have engaged in regular assassinations of Iranian diplomats.
The Iranian regime considers al-Qa'ideh a terrorist organization.
Iranians held night long vigils to commemorate the victims of 9/11."
No shit. Al Qaeda is a sunni organisation, why would a Shiite power back it?
So Iran is about peace eh?
So then tell me
Why would Iran order and assualt against a Romainian Oil rig on the very day it was to issue its responce? I think to send a message
Why would Iran commence War games in the very weekend before it was due to announce its responce? I think to send a message.
The problem for the US is simple - there is fuck all they can do about it. UN sanctions will be limited, China and Russia dont want a bar of them.
This isnt about Nukes. It is about regional dominance - being the vanguard of Islamic resistance
Advisor: "Mr President, the Americans are threatening to attack us!"
Ahmadineajad: "I have a cunning plan. Send a ship to fire on that Romanian Oil rig the UAE is trying to hijack. That'll sort 'em out."
Advisor: "Mr President, why have you got the army out exercising? Is it because Mr Bush is threatening to attack us?"
Ahmadineajad: "'course not silly, I want to send a message. They didn't read the last letter I sent."
“So Iran is about peace eh?”
Help me SDM.
I have a fair idea how many sovereign nations America has attacked in the last 30 years.
Just refresh my memory on how many Iran has. The figure seems to have plum evaded me for the moment.
"This isnt about Nukes. It is about regional dominance -"
I quite agree. What we don't agree about is who the guys in the black hats are.
"Help me SDM.
I have a fair idea how many sovereign nations America has attacked in the last 30 years.
Just refresh my memory on how many Iran has. The figure seems to have plum evaded me for the moment. "
None. But thats not the point. If we are going to debate the morality of US foreign policy then we would find little that we dissagreed on. But this is Irans moment - why?
Iran and the US cooperated between 2001 and 2004. The reasons for this were that it backed the operations against the Taliban and the invasion of Iraq. Iran had a strategic interest in seeing Sadam removed from power. The Shia, being the largest group in Iraq, were seen to have the most to gain post Sadam
Ok so the question becomes, what does Iran want in Iraq. I actually think Iran is in a very strong position. Consider this: If a stable government was formed with the Shia controlling the south, then the Shiaa (who have pro-Iranian leanings) would allow passage by Iran to the Persian Gulf. Or, conversely, if Iraq stays in internal chaos, then the energy is directed within, sectarian violence if you will. They wont be threatnening Iran. Now i dont for a second believe that Iran wants a full scale civil war in Iraq lasting for decades, but whilst that war doesnt spill over into its territory it is quite happy.
As we know, the US is stretched at the moment. It doesnt have the military resources at the moment to pursue its political will against Iran. The recent war between Israel and Hezbollah demonstrates clearly the limitations of air power alone. And without the troop resources, the US cant have a crack at Iran.
So with Sadam gone, and the US limitations being obvious, this is a golden opportunity for Iran to position itself as the dominate player in the region
Are you possibly suggesting that this is all about who gets to swagger through the bazaar as you seemed to be saying about Hezbollah?
Let us suppose you are right. What does the “dominant player want? The annihilation of Israel? Is that an achievable goal?
Nope. That would mean show down time with the Israeli War Department – the U.S.
166 centifuges would have to spin about a hundred years to catch up with 25,000 fully developed warheads with proven delivery systems.
I think the best way to score a few brownie points in the Arab world would be to seize the opportunity to settle the Palestine question and put an end to Israel’s predation.
Ahmadineajad is playing against a three no-trump call. He knows he has Bush on wood and if he plays it right, maybe he might fluke the extra trick. Ahmadineajad knows Bush’s poll ratings better than bozo himself. If he can slow this play up he can come out a real winner.
The only way I can begin to understand where you come from is to assume that you attribute a fanatical terrorist mindset to all the Islamic players in this game. This, of course, is what the people at PNAC desperately want you to believe. That is the smoke. The mirror comes in when they describe their own actions, point to the opposition and cry:
"Look at what they're doing!"
Ahmadineajad is young, hip, has his own blog. He is a people's man. I know you like analogies so, for what it's worth he's a Che, Fidel, Cromwell whatever. He still takes a class in engineering, talks one to one with students, he is highly intelligent and informed. His ambitions are not in the material world. All he has to do is survive Bush to win. He knows that the real battle is in the U.S. and he knows that the tide over there has turned. If he can just parlay that up to a settlement in Palestine he's a made man.
I'd like to think he could pull it off.
Anyone reading this garbage from Bradbury or the BBC needs to read this blog: biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
And in particular read about the exploited for Orla Guerin, a BBC reporter, here: http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/orla-watch.html
"The only way I can begin to understand where you come from is to assume that you attribute a fanatical terrorist mindset to all the Islamic players in this game."
No, the only assumption I make is that actors are rational.
I dont have a lot of time this morning, but let me say this. In recent days/weeks a call has come from Iran for Sanctions to be placed on Saudi Arabia. This followed the Saudis condeming Hezbollah for its War against Israel, and the fact that they are a key ally of the US.
Lets put it all together in context.
1) Hezbollah, a shiia organization, stood up to Israel
2) The situation in Iraq is decending into chaos. This puts the US in a bind
3) Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons programme.
4) Heat is going on pro-US governments big time
When you put it all together Tehran has a logical coherent strategy. Its goal is to move power away from Israel/US to Tehran.
"3) Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons programme."
Evidence please. I have been unable to find any.
"Sanctions to be placed on Saudi Arabia"
Have you got a link for this story?
"power away from Israel/US to Tehran"
Power of opinion or firepower?
"If Iran is intent on the destruction of Israel and hegemony in the region, where were the big bangs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon? "
Didn't Iran supply Hezbollah with weapons?
Iran's nukes are in the same place as Saddam's WMD's... don't forget uncle Sam has 10,000 nukes too... and Uncle Sam threatens other nations with em... fuck that...
Yep. World War 2 vintage Katyusha rockets which were not fired until Israel attacked. An unknown number of guided missiles (only one of which was fired at an Israeli gunship) plus small arms and anti-tank materiel i.e. defensive weapons.
I make this point to counter the U.S./Israeli propaganda that tries to portray Hezbollah and Iran as the aggressors in this conflict. There is simply no evidence for this.
Anyone quoting this garbage
biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/orla-watch.html
needs to learn the difference between fact and opinion.
Anonymous......
and Uncle Sam is, to date, the only nation to use them.
...
Yo Neil!
"But Bomber Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map" - really? When did the president say that?
"I saw it on the news", you saw what on the news,
"Um, they said it", who said it?
"The news people I think". Right, you think you saw something the news media (some of whom are owned by the weapons makers who sell more guns when the media start wars) told you?
OK kids, well HERE is what the President ACTUALLY said - NOTE THAT HE DOESN'T SAY HE WANTS TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP - you sheep - he quotes the old bloke who had a nasty funeral whoopsy, Imam Khomeini, he doesn't call for it himself - are they wise words to speak? Well it depends if you saw the US as the great satan who sponsored a regime so brutal it could turn a secular society into a theocracy - kids, here is what the man said
"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
....
No neil - you go read
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
The west have misquoted Ahmadinejad on purpose to path the way ahead for public opinion for the invasion of Iran
I dare say that few of you have actually read the words of the Iranian President which can be found here:
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:v5RWPlOBK90J:news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_06ahmadinejadletter.pdf+Iran+letter&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=3
Here is an excerpt:
Mr President,
I am sure you know how, and at what cost, Israel was established. Many thousands were killed in the process, millions of indigenous people were made refugees, Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to children, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique, or at the very least extremely rare, in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ
I dare say that few New Zealanders have actually read the words of the Iranian President which can be found here:
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:v5RWPlOBK90J:news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_06ahmadinejadletter.pdf+Iran+letter&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=3
Here is an excerpt:
Mr President,
I am sure you know how, and at what cost, Israel was established. Many thousands were killed in the process, millions of indigenous people were made refugees, Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to children, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique, or at the very least extremely rare, in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ
Sorry about the duplication.
Here are Ahmadi-Najad's (I think this is the correct spelling) remarks on the holocaust:
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.
Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. The show old documents and globes and say, try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.
I tell them to study the history of WWI and II.
One of my students told me that during WWII, in which more than tens of millions of people perished, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
So why did Iran hide its nuclear programme for 18 years, if it *only* had peaceful ambitions?
Pull the other one....
Eh??
By 1975 U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Co-operation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue.
Though it is often claimed that Iran had "concealed" its enrichment programme from the IAEA "in violation of the NPT" until it was "caught cheating" in 2002, the fact is that Iran was not obliged to inform the Agency about those facilities at the time since according to Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA in force at the time, "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it." In fact, it was not even required to inform the IAEA of their existence until then, a point conceded by Britain at the March 2003 Board of Governors meeting. This `six months' clause was a standard part of all IAEA safeguards agreements. Nonetheless, Iran allowed intrusive inspections of the facilities by the IAEA pursuant to the Additional Protocol, and the IAEA concluded that the facilities were not related to any secret nuclear weapons programme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_nuclear_program#U.S.-Iran_nuclear_co-operation_in_the_1950s_and_60s
Just a few stories on Iran
Tehran, Iran, Aug. 03 – Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Thursday for the “elimination” of Israel.
Ahmadinejad was speaking at an emergency session of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Putrajaya, Malaysia, which had been organised to discuss Israeli attacks in Lebanon. His remarks were carried in full by the state-run news agency ISNA.
He described the Jewish state as “fake” and said that it lacked any “legal foundation or legitimacy”.
“The United States and Britain and a considerable number of Western government do not have any limits on the extent of their political, propaganda, financial, and military backing for this regime”, he said.
He said the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which has been in intense battle with Israel over the past three weeks, had become the “symbol of Muslim resistance”.
“The main solution is the elimination of the Zionist regime”, Ahmadinejad said.
He called on Arab and Islamic governments to immediately halt their overt and covert political and economic ties with Tel Aviv.
The hard-line Iranian president demanded that the U.S. and Britain pay compensation to Lebanon because they had supported the Israeli offensive. “These two governments must be held accountable for their crimes in Lebanon”, he said.
He called on the OIC to condemn the U.S. and Britain for their “key role” in the conflict, and added that the U.S. did not have “competence” to be a member of the United Nations Security Council.
Oh and whilst Brewer makes them out to be the peaceful white doves, and how we should all aspire to be like them, consider this
........
London, Jul. 27 – A young woman is at imminent risk of execution by stoning for adultery, according to the international human rights group Amnesty International.
Ashraf Kolhari, a 37-year-old mother of four has been held in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison for five years, Amnesty said in a statement on Thursday.
“On or around July 2006, she received the order for the implementation of her sentence, and is reportedly due to be executed by stoning by the end of July”, the rights group said.
Kolhari had an extra-marital affair after her divorce request was rejected by the court, reportedly on the basis that she had children, and therefore had to resume living with her husband, the statement said.
“She was sentenced on two charges; the first was for participating in the murder of her husband, for which she received a sentence of 15 years imprisonment; the second was for adultery as a married woman, for which she was sentenced to execution by stoning. Article 83 of the Iranian Penal Code stipulates that the penance for adultery by a married woman with an adult man is execution by stoning”, it said.
"elimination” of Israel"
You forgot the qualifying word which is REGIME. The Same word the U.S. uses all the time as in "Regime Change."
"He described the Jewish state as “fake” and said that it lacked any “legal foundation or legitimacy"
This is fact. The State of Israel was declared by Ben Gurion unilaterally and against the wishes of all interested nations.
“The main solution is the elimination of the Zionist regime”
See above.
With regard to the second part of your post, you provide no reference to these events so I cannot check out their veracity so you should consider thiIf the U.S. decided that NZ required regime change, how difficult would it be for disinformation agents to use Lily-Bing, Kahui, Rex Haig, our record breaking incarceration rate and refusal to join the nuclear club into a portrait of a bloodthirsty child killing, human rights abusing rogue state.
Your use of demonisation as a tactic does not do you credit.
consider thiIf the U.S.
Sorry, Got distracted. Should read:
consider this, if the U.S.
Im better at geopolitics than I am at discussing human rights, so ill stick too my area.
Oh Bush caused this with his Axis of evil speech. You name three countries you wanna go after, and then start on the first, Iraq - sure its gonna make Iran worried.
But I still think this whole thing is about regional influence.
Could Tehran be playing North Korea's game - "yeh bitch we a little crazy, we got some nukes, so you better give us what we want"
It all comes down to whats going on in Iraq. Tehran wants the Shittes to be the dominate player in Iraq, and thus the region. This is understandable - given the massive losses it received at the hands of a Sunni led Iraq in the 1980s.
If this nuclear chip can give them leverage, then why not do it?
I have rarely read anything emanating from a politician's mouth that sounds as sane as the utterances of Ahmadi-Najad. Have you read him?
Dominant player?? What for? Is Iran expansionist?
What Nuclear chip?
"Dominant player?? What for? Is Iran expansionist?"
Hegemonically, yes. It has a particulay brand of Islam it would be keen to be spread.
"What Nuclear chip?"
It clearly has nuclear weapons. The threat is probably bigger than the reality. It wants the West to fear its intentions - fear that a group with links with Iran may get a warhead and
opps sent too soon
It clearly has nuclear weapons. The threat is probably bigger than the reality. It wants the West to fear its intentions - fear that a group with links with Iran may get a warhead and detonate on US soil
And again, the fear is more real than the threat.
But why does Iran continue to block UN weapons inspectors if they have nothing to hidE?
...
Hold on Scott, have to pull you up there - I won't buy the concept that Iran would hand over their greatest chip, a nuclear bomb, to a terrorist group. This is the same dumb logic the US used to justify the invasion of Iraq. It's bullshit, why would Iran give away their leaverage to a group they don't control? They wouldn't it makes no sense. It didn't make any sense when we used it to invad Iraq, it doesn't make sense now
"It has a particulay brand of Islam it would be keen to be spread"
8% of Iran's population are Sunni. They don't make nasty with each other.
"It clearly has nuclear weapons."
After a month of research this is not clear to me. Evidence please.
But why does Iran continue to block UN weapons inspectors if they have nothing to hidE?
Is this what you are referring to?
November 19, 2005: The IAEA released a report saying that Iran was still blocking nuclear inspectors from the United Nations from visiting for a second time a site known as Parchin military complex, where Iran was not legally required to allow inspections at all.
Consider:
September 15, 2005: At a United Nations high-level summit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated Iran had the right to develop a civil nuclear-power programme within the terms of the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. He offers a compromise solution in which foreign companies will be permitted to invest and participate in Iran's nuclear programme, thus ensuring that it cannot be secretly used to make weapons. The majority of the U.S. delegation left during his speech, but the U.S./UN mission denied there was a walkout
(The above are both from Wikipedia)
"...
Hold on Scott, have to pull you up there - I won't buy the concept that Iran would hand over their greatest chip, a nuclear bomb, to a terrorist group. This is the same dumb logic the US used to justify the invasion of Iraq. It's bullshit, why would Iran give away their leaverage to a group they don't control? They wouldn't it makes no sense. It didn't make any sense when we used it to invad Iraq, it doesn't make sense now "
You miss the point. Iran wont do it because it knows that if it did it would be nuked back big time. But thats not the issue. As long as the PERCEPTION exists that Iran MIGHT do it, then Iran has leverage.
"
"It clearly has nuclear weapons."
After a month of research this is not clear to me. Evidence please"
My mistake - in a rush again. I should have said "it clearly has nuclear weapons intentions"
And yes, I do believe Tehran has an interest in increasing Shiite influence in the region.
William O. Beeman teaches Anthropology and directs Middle East Studies at Brown University. He has lived and conducted research in the Mideast for over 30 years. Here is what he says:
The second accusation, that Iran has "regularly hidden information about its nuclear program" is equally specious. Much of what the United States has called "concealment" was never concealed at all, when the reports of the United Nations inspection team are examined. Many of the U.S. charges about removing topsoil and bulldozing material at some of the research sites are unsupported by the United Nations. Moreover, even if one concedes that Iran did conceal some processes, this activity started 18-20 years ago, when the revolution was still young and Ayatollah Khomeini was still alive, under completely different political actors than are in power today.
Indeed, whatever Iran did or didn't do in the past, they are in compliance with the NNPT at present. Indeed, there would be no way to accuse them of anything if they had not been so compliant about responding to NNPT requests for information. The NNPT grants all signatories the right to pursue nuclear research for peaceful purposes of precisely the kind in which Iran is currently engaged.
The mantra "Iran must not get nuclear weapons" has been repeated so often now that most people have come to believe that Iran has them or is getting them. This implication is completely unproven. The tragedy would be that in the end, U.S. hostility may goad Iran into a real nuclear weapons program. http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ac517cce4e1b80d6fa76f4089315a243
The Nuclear Challenge from Iran
Foresight Magazine, May 2006
Philip H. Gordon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
Iran's decision last month to resume nuclear enrichment activities-a key step in the process of making nuclear weapons-is a direct challenge to the United States, Europe, and the world. For more than two years, Europe-with Washington's support-had been offering Tehran a reasonable deal: End the nuclear enrichment work it had been doing in secret for nearly two decades, and Europe would provide Iran with technical support for a civilian nuclear energy program as well as expanded economic and diplomatic ties.
Last month, however, the new Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made clear that the negotiation was over. In early February, Iran removed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals and cameras in its nuclear facilities and began feeding nuclear feedstock into centrifuges, the process required to enrich fuel for use in reactors-or bombs. On February 27, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, reported that while there was no evidence of Iran diverting nuclear material for building weapons, there were numerous causes for concern, including evidence that Iran had received information about casting uranium metal into hemispheres (for which there is no other purpose than making nuclear weapons). Iran has also announced that in addition to its small-scale "pilot" enrichment plant of around 1,000 centrifuges, it plans to build an industrial-scale plant that would contain 50,000. If nothing is done, many analysts estimate that Iran could build its first nuclear weapons within around 5 years.
But what can be done? Some observers accept Tehran's argument that it has a right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and believe that action by the international community would only backfire. While they would oppose an Iranian bomb, they argue that there is little we can do to prevent a determined Iran from building one eventually and that a nuclear-armed Iran can, in any case, be contained.
This view is too complacent, however. Allowing Iran to develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities-even under an international inspection regime-would remove the most important technical barrier to its acquiring nuclear weapons and leave the decision of going nuclear entirely in the hands of Ahmadinejad's radical Islamist government. If that government did build nuclear weapons, as is likely, then others in the region-perhaps including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey-might follow suit, knowing that a world that allowed Iran to build a bomb would surely allow them to do so as well. This would be a fatal blow to the already shaky nuclear nonproliferation regime, which for nearly 40 years has helped convince countries as diverse as Sweden, South Korea, Brazil and Ukraine that the costs of acquiring nuclear weapons outweigh the benefits. A nuclear-armed Iran, moreover, might pursue a more aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, knowing that it could deter the United States and others from responding if it did so. And allowing Iran to go nuclear would increase the risk of nuclear materials or even a weapon falling into the hands of a terrorist group.
As an alternative to simply accepting Iran's nuclear program, some recommend the use of military force. But this approach, too, is hugely problematic. Targeted U.S. air strikes probably could destroy Iran's critical nuclear facilities and set back the program a number of years. But as we learned in Iraq, U.S. intelligence is far from perfect, so we could never be sure of hitting the entirety of Iran's program, some of which might in any case be buried underground. A military attack against Iran would also undoubtedly generate strong public support among Iranians for an otherwise unpopular regime.
Even more problematic would be Iran's certain retaliation. Through its Shiite partners in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could wreak havoc on U.S. forces and undermine efforts to stabilize both countries. It could threaten oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and urge its terrorist friends to launch retaliatory strikes against America and its allies. The option of relying on Israel to strike Iranian targets would be even worse. The Israelis would conduct the operation less effectively because of their more limited military means, and the United States would bear the responsibility anyway, not least if it allowed the Israelis to fly over U.S.-controlled airspace in Iraq.
Given these bad options, what should the United States, Europe and Japan do instead? The best approach would be to rally international support to make Iran pay a high price if refuses to resume the suspension its uranium enrichment activities. Europe's offer to support an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program and to increase trade and investment with Iran should remain on the table, and the United States should offer new incentives of its own, such as regional security talks and the possible restoration of diplomatic relations. But if Iran continues to reject these offers and remains unwilling to reassure the international community that it is not developing nuclear weapons, the only hope is to impose significant economic and diplomatic penalties on Iran.
The most effective way of convincing Iran to cooperate would be through a tough and unified response at the UN Security Council. In the past, Iran has backed down whenever it has been faced with the prospect of united international action, and there is good reason to believe it would do so again in the face of a tough UNSC resolution. Ideally, such a resolution would be passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and require Iran to resume suspension of uranium enrichment. Such a step would make Iran's enrichment activities illegal (currently they are not) and would provide the basis for subsequent economic and diplomatic sanctions if Iran refused to comply. The Security Council would not initially need to spell out all the enforcement measures it was considering-which could include anything from freezing the assets or Iranian leaders to a ban on foreign investment in Iran or even an oil embargo-but it would make clear that Iran would face serious penalties if it refused to comply.
Tough Security Council action, of course, would require the agreement of Russia and China, which should not be ruled out as neither country wants to see an "Islamic bomb" near its borders. Moscow, moreover, is getting increasingly frustrated with Iran's lack of cooperation and transparency and knows that failing to provide at least minimal cooperation would have major consequences for its relationship with the West. China, meanwhile, sees Iran as an issue of only secondary importance and is unlikely to stand alone against the rest of the Security Council by blocking tough action against Iran.
But Russian and Chinese support for such measures will not be easy. Both have significant economic interests in Iran-Russia through arms sales and civilian nuclear energy contracts, and China through energy imports-and neither wants to give the United States a major diplomatic victory without getting something in return. Moscow and Beijing have thus already made clear that they will oppose significant enforcement actions, at least initially, and may not agree to anything stronger at the Security Council than a "presidential statement" calling on Iran to restore suspension. If that is the case, the United States and the European members of the Security Council will have to decide whether they prefer weak but widely supported action on Iran or whether to give up on Russia and China and take action on their own outside the Council. All signs are that initially at least they will go along with even relatively timid UN Security Council measures to preserve international unity, while hoping to get consensus for tougher action further down the road.
Even without Russia and China, action by the United States, Europe, and Japan could still have an impact and should not be ruled out. One of the most striking developments over the past year or so is the hardening of the positions of Britain, Germany and France. Having, in the name of the EU, taken the lead in the negotiations with Iran and been rebuffed, they feel their credibility is at stake, and they are standing firmly alongside the United States in insisting that Iran abandon its nuclear enrichment program.
There is no guarantee that making the threat of sanctions more credible or actually imposing them will have an immediate and positive effect, but given the alternatives it makes sense to find out. And even if sanctions don't work in the short term, they would still be useful to give future Iranian leaders an incentive to cooperate and to send a message to other potential proliferators. At the very least, serious sanctions would slow the nuclear program by squeezing the Iranian economy and cutting off key technologies, would further strain the already disgruntled middle classes who might one day push the current regime aside.
In the end, Iran must be presented with a clear choice: It can become an impoverished, isolated pariah state with nuclear weapons-like North Korea-or it can begin to reintegrate with the international community, meet the needs of its people and preserve its security in exchange for forgoing this capability. The choice will be for the Iranians to make. But a united international community can force them to make it.
Scott.
Do you want me to treat the above seriously? Have you not detected that to me the only value of statements from the Brookings Institution, Stratfor, International Institute of Forecasters, Debka et al is in that they tell me what the neo-cons are up to?
To save time I will just pick a few misleading statements from the above and let the facts reply..
"resume nuclear enrichment activities-a key step in the process of making nuclear weapons"
"The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb."
-from your friend Juan Cole
http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/iran-can-now-make-glowing-mickey-mouse.html
(Incidently, other sources specify 30,000 centrifuges)
"nuclear enrichment work it had been doing in secret for nearly two decades"
-see my post from Beeman above.
"evidence that Iran had received information about casting uranium metal into hemispheres"
This stems from this:
"Previous IAEA reports revealed the discovery in Iran of a DOCUMENT describing procedures for developing uranium metal into hemispheres in connection with the fabrication of nuclear weapons components."
-you can download such a document from the internet.
Do you get an idea of where Philip H. Gordon is coming from now? Do I have to highlight the spin phrases like:
"making nuclear weapons"
"use in reactors-or bombs."
"Ahmadinejad's radical Islamist government."
"wreak havoc on U.S. forces"
As David Lange said, "I can smell the uranium on his breath".
The Sunni/Shiite split.
I have tried to dodge this in the hopes that someone else would dispense with it. So while Scott is searching for another neo-con think-tank I suppose I better explain it. In my own opinion of course.
The difference between a Sunni and a Shiite is precisely the same as that between a Catholic and an Anglican. It even arose in the same way.
Catholics believe in Apostolic succession, i.e. there is an unbroken chain linking the Pope with St Peter. Anglicans reckon they’ve got the chain. In fact both are wrong but we won’t go there.
Sunni’s hold that the boss man should descend from the prophet by blood, Shiites prefer an elected chief. Apart from that there is little between them. The split started around 633AD and is about as important to most Moslems as the schism is to Catholics and prods. Of course those on the lunatic fringe might kill for it but there are some pretty weird goings on around the fringes of Christianity too.
The following is just a blog by a journalist who has spent a lot of time in the Middle East but it aligns with my own experience of Islamic countries.
“So I called an Iraqi friend who lives in the west of the city (Baghdad) yesterday to ask his views. He laughed over the phone. “It is funny you call me about this now. As we are speaking on the phone I have three workers here in my house, doing some construction work. I can see them through the window. One is a Sunni, another is Shiite and the third is a Kurd.” He chuckled again. “Oh, and the driver who is waiting for them outside - he is a Christian.”
Yes, he conceded, Iraqi politicians are exploiting the sectarian issue to increase their own power. And the insurgents are deliberately carrying out sectarian killings to make Baghdad less governable. But few ordinary Baghdadis are motivated by sectarian prejudice – for years this city has had extensive intermarriage, many mixed neighborhoods and an easy tolerance of the different religious and ethnic groups that make up Iraq – Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Christian, Turkoman, Armenian… Dividing Baghdad into religious ghettos would mean tearing flesh from flesh. It would be a long and horrendously violent process. And it would destroy the colorful multi-layered character of one of the main crossroads of the Middle East for the past 1,300 years. Simple solutions rarely look so easy close up.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/bizarrebazaar/2006/07/sectarian_myths.html
Woah now you have really taken the cake.
Yes "ordinary" people dont kill their neighbor because of a religious difference. But to say that there is no Sunni and Shiite split would be the most ignorant comment you have made.
The split is real - the sectarian voilence is real. The conflict between conservative Shiites in Iran and Wahabists in Saudi Arabia is real. To group them all into one happy family is incredible naive.
But then again, your world is black and white - Islamicsts good, US bad. YOu do what you accuse bush off, which is unfortunate..
I try and be objective, but because I dont believe the current regime in Iran are peaceniks I become a neo-con. Please....
The point of the above post was this.
"Iraqi politicians are exploiting the sectarian issue to increase their own power. And the insurgents are deliberately carrying out sectarian killings to make Baghdad less governable"
I have never denied a split. I just spent an hour or so composing the above piece on it. What I do dispute is the importance you seem to place on it. The schisms within Islam are many and from time to time, when territorial or economic disputes arise, the battle lines sometimes fall on sectarian lines. That is all.
Warfare 101. Division. Ahmadi-Najad is way too smart for that. There is a chauvinistic quality to your thinking that belongs back in the first half of the last century. These people don't take fright at elevators anymore. They've got degrees from the best Western universities, they've forgotten more about political theory than your favourite stooge Buchanan ever learned. To invoke religion as anything but a tool in this conflict is to swallow the neo-con/Israeli line hook line and sinker. If you think that Bin Laden was about "Caliphate" you haven't been listening. If you think Israel is about peace you haven't been watching.
When I studied Politics and History in the sixties there was a lot of talk about Geopolitical strategy and chandelier theory. It was valid then. We held our breath until the split between China and the U.S.S.R brought the whole thing into balance. That thinking is now obsolete. The collapse of the Soviet Union and China's shift to the right has left one power. As a consequence there has been a massive world-wide swing to the right which has ushered in a U.S. administration packed with paranoid psychopathic personality types who actually boast about pre-emptive war - a war crime under the Geneva Convention.
My world is certainly not black and white. The U.S. is not my target just as the Israelis are not. My enemy is the faction that I have watched in the ascendent during the past 30 or 40 years and is most easily described as the Neo-cons and the growth of the predatory state.
Do I think it's all fucked? No I do not. The pendulum has always come back. It is just that the arc has been wider this time. I am beginning to detect a swing in the U.S.
Congressmen and Senators from both sides are beginning to speak out. That means that pressure from the left is loosening AIPAC's grip on the U.S. political process. If it reaches critical mass, the voter swing will landslide and the succeeding Democrat administration might seize the moment and get loose for good and all. It's nearly Magna Carta time.
So there. You think it's about Sunni and Shii splits and geopolitical whatever and I think it's about what it's always been about. Left and Right.
Thats a very good post
Definately there is a left/right element at play. One could even take the Marxist "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" approach, which I think has considerable merit. There is a lot to be interested in in the mid terms, which the democrats should regain some ground. The next presidential election I believe McCain will win, because I still dont believe the democrats can field a candidate that will win nationally. Although, all they have to do is win the states that Kerry did, plus either Florida or Ohio and they are home.
You have made me think. Clearly there is a split between Tehran and al Qaeda. Iran backed US operations against the Taliban, which proves the point. Indeed relations between the US and Iran were relatively harmonous between 2001 and 2004. I still think there is competition to be the "vanguard of resistence" - all parties profess to wanting a "united Islam" - the question is who will lead it.
The other interesting thing is that al Qaeda have issued 18 tapes this year, more than any of the previous few years. I would argue that in aaddition to Iran getting more vocal, so is al Qaeda, which is extremely interesting.
"The pendulum has always come back."
YES - except i think the politics of the middle east are shifting away from Israel to Tehran. ANd the Iranians are smart - they are ttrying to split US from Russia and China, splitting the so called group of six.
We live in fascinating times.
Thank you for the kind words. I have felt from time to time that I might be losing you as I have appeared to dismiss the post-modern point of view out of hand. This is perhaps the fault of the medium. In an oral debate there would be time and space to concede this or that point and reach a consensus. If you look at the post above my last one you will see why I have felt the need to dispense with the nuances and concentrate on the main themes.
I am a classicist.
I believe musicians should understand music, I think writers should understand language and I believe politicians, political theorists and military strategists, everyone who has a vote in fact, should know the history.
A classicist's world is far from black and white however. I was born three years after WW2. The generation who fought in that conflict were still young men in my childhood and early adulthood. They are nearly all gone now but I remember their stories.
My thoughts of WW2 are coloured black and grey. Korea will always be Khaki and white, Suez - blue and grey. Vietnam and indo-china green and biege (the true colour of agent orange). The six-day war, Yom Kippur, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq are all desert tones but Lebanon has always been multi-hued. All that laundry hanging out apartment balconies in the vain hope that it will dry before the bomb or shell hits. The bright colours of domestic furniture and household goods cascading from broken buildings after it has.
It takes forty or fifty years before one unifying colour emerges. The red/black of congealed blood, a colour I now associate with lies.
I came across this the other day and I guess it defines what I see as the real battleground.
“Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance.”
-Eric Hoffer The True Believer
It would please me greatly to see a comment from SDM on my blog or Truthout. You have made me think also. I hope there are a few more out there on the sidelines who have been inspired to question their leaders and media.
Happy days.
I guess I am somewhat new to blogs, and have just dived in if you will, but I will venture over to your blog soon.
Im 24 years old. I am a (neo)realist. I resent post modernism - i detest how the left has abandoned its roots of reason, objectivity and logic in favour of contestable truth - its all bullshit.
I am a university graduate, doing my masters in politics with a focus on security and geopolitics.
I believe, like you, that history is so important. By knowing where we have come from, we know where we are, and where we can go.
My attempt has been, always, to look at the actors and provide as accurate and objective analysis as I can. Value judgements are for other people.
I view all actors, be it Osama, Bush, Ahmadinajad, Olmert, whoever as rational. And I make comment from there
Scott
sdm, you need to be more specific when you say 'parties' are competing to be the vanguard of the resistance. Who do you mean? states, groups, individuals? Are we to assume that all these parties have a common goal in wanting to lead this 'resistance' (to what, whom?) and that this is their primary objective?
sdm, the fact that Iran backed the US agaist the Taliban does not prove that there is a split between Tehran and al-Qaeda. This is elementary and doesn't need to be proved. They are mutually hostile, and the same is true for the Taliban.
Anon
"sdm, the fact that Iran backed the US agaist the Taliban does not prove that there is a split between Tehran and al-Qaeda. This is elementary and doesn't need to be proved. They are mutually hostile, and the same is true for the Taliban. "
How does it not prove it? If the Iranians supported al Qaeda why would they back the US operations against Afghanistan? They even tolerated the early invasiono of Iraq, because they saw Sadam as an enemy. al Qaeda is Sunni, Wahabist - Tehran is not.
" Are we to assume that all these parties have a common goal in wanting to lead this 'resistance' (to what, whom?) and that this is their primary objective? "
Well objectives are different - I do believe that Tehran wants to be the regional hegemon, for instance. Look at the conflict in Iraq - Sunni/Shiite - their goals are vastly different
Post a Comment
<< Home