The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: Iran Has a Secret Nuke Plant
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Iran Has a Secret Nuke Plant

Iran has been building a clandestine, underground nuclear enrichment facility, the Tehran regime has admitted. President Obama said the plant, and the larger Iranian nuclear program, was “threatening the stability and the security of the region and of the world.”

The plant — built in an underground tunnel complex on the grounds of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Base near the holy city of Qom, 100 miles southwest of Tehran — is not yet complete. Nor has any nuclear material has been introduced into the “pilot” facility, according to International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Marc Vidricaire. In a letter to the IAEA, Tehran “said the plant would not enrich uranium beyond the 5 percent level suitable for civilian energy production. That would be substantially below the threshold of 90 percent or more needed for a weapon,” the Associated Press reports.

The plant, however, would be in violation of international nuclear-control agreements, and the latest example of Iran’s attempts to hide parts of their atomic program from the world.

“As the international community knows, this is not the first time Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program. Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people. But the size and the configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,” President Obama just said at a meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh.

“The level of deception by the Iranian government and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments will shock and anger the whole international community. And it will harden our resolve,” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown added. “Confronted by the serial deception of many years the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand… We are prepared to offer further and more stringent sanctions.”

The Iranians “have cheated three times,” one senior administration official told the New York Times last night. “And they have now been caught three times.”

The official was referring to the revelations by an Iranian dissident group that led to the discovery of the underground plant at Natanz in 2002, and the evidence developed two years ago — after Iran’s computer networks were pierced by American intelligence agencies — that the country had secretly sought to design a nuclear warhead.

http://www.wired.com...ret-nuke-plant/




The revelation that Iran has a clandestine nuclear facility has the pundits asking: How far will Israel go to prevent Iran from getting the bomb? Over the weekend, über-strategist Anthony Cordesman crunched the numbers in a provocative essay for the Wall Street Journal.

“One of the fundamental problems dogging Israel, especially concerning short-ranged fighters and fighter-bombers, is distance,” he wrote. “Iran’s potential targets are between 950 and 1,400 miles from Israel, the far margin of the ranges Israeli fighters can reach, even with aerial refueling. Israel would be hard-pressed to destroy all of Iran’s best-known targets.”

We’ve been down this path before: This spring, the Center for Strategic and International Studies prepared a detailed assessment of what would an Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities might look like. It concluded that a strike by Israeli air force jets (along the lines of the 1981 bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq), or an Israelli ballistic missile attack against key Iranian facilities might at least set the Iranians back a few years. But the assessment also acknowledged the potential political fallout: The regional turmoil that might follow an Israeli attack, the study suggested, might further destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

Writing yesterday in the New York Post, Danger Room’s Sharon Weinberger notes another problem: Iran’s nuclear program is — quite deliberately — geographically dispersed. Sharon and I visited Iran in February 2007, and the politicians and scientists we spoke to were quite open about Iran’s deliberate plan to spread nuclear facilities around the map.

As Rahman Ghahremanpour, an analyst at a think-tank affiliated with Iran’s ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani, told us: “You cannot be assured about the destruction of all Iranian nuclear technology. … The nuclear technology activities are distributed within Iran. If you want to destroy the nuclear technology totally, you should attack all the cities.” :LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:


It’s going to be an interesting week. Earlier today, Iran ratcheted up the tension with a test-firing of its Shahab-3 missile, which potentially puts Israel within range. The launch — which was preceded by the testing of shorter-range missiles — comes ahead of nuclear talks on Thursday in Geneva between an Iranian delegation and representatives of the five permanent members of the UN, plus Germany.

http://www.wired.com...uclear-program/

It’s going to be an interesting week. No Shit.
Quote:The Iranians “have cheated three times,” one senior administration official told the New York Times last night. “And they have now been caught three times.”
That guy should have just said that they've been caught 3 times ... no telling how many times they actually cheated ... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smoke.gif" alt="Smoke" title="smoke" />
Well, if someone doesnt do something other then talk about how disappointed they are that they have done this, they are going to keep doing stuff like this.
I posted on this as well in the Ahmadinejewdead thread in the news section,
my take:

Quote:The question is how will the west respond?
sanctions?
sheee-it man...try and get Russia and China on board.
sanctions?
With Israel holding 200-400 nuclear weapons?
I doubt that Israel will ever give up it's nuclear superiority in the light of Obama's
international call to reduce this weaponry completely from all stockpiles.
As a matter of fact , this new nuclear site in Iran just gives Israel
more of a green light to attack and dismantle the plant
with
US made bunker busters supplied by the US for just that reason and situation.

The takedown of the Iranian nuclear plant is inevitable.
Do not forget that Israel took out the Syrian nuclear site and nobody retaliated.
Iran will retaliate,
and they will be hammered badly in a war.


a Washington post comment:
Quote:And if there is one clandestine facility, most likely there are others.

V sez
Quote:The US and Britain have every inch of Iran under surveillance by satellite.
That is why they knew that this plant was there and saved the opportunity
to expose it at the timing here of the UN and G 20 meetings.

Can the Iranians be trusted.
Hell no.
So what to do?
Sanctions?
lol.
Me-thinks the Israeli's are going to flip out some day soon,
and hopefully it won't be by false flag event created for exclusively a retaliation against Iran
leading the entire region into an expanded conflict.
Quote:The revelation that Iran has a clandestine nuclear facility has the pundits asking: How far will Israel go to prevent Iran from getting the bomb?
Getting? It's really a question of how many they have, and the delivery system. They wouldn't be so cocky if they didn't already have nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Quote:The revelation that Iran has a clandestine nuclear facility has the pundits asking: How far will Israel go to prevent Iran from getting the bomb?
Getting? It's really a question of how many they have, and the delivery system. They wouldn't be so cocky if they didn't already have nuclear weapons.

I'm not convinced. For some reason the story of the military industrial complex that cried wolf keeps going through my head. As for being cocky, Almondinerjacket knows the war machine is coming now matter what he does, so why not bluff that he has them? Also, the only thing that's been changed in that 8 year old script was a 'Q' to an 'N' and 'WMD' to 'NUKE'.

Peace
Quote:Getting? It's really a question of how many they have, and the delivery system. They wouldn't be so cocky if they didn't already have nuclear weapons.

If they have gotten the full capacity they might have a prototype that needs testing,
but I doubt they have a ready to deploy capaility.
but you have a point,
they may be a lot closer to the final product than anybody is ready for.

Starlord's article raises an interesting problem for the Israeli's,

Quote:Over the weekend, über-strategist Anthony Cordesman crunched the numbers
in a provocative essay for the Wall Street Journal.

“One of the fundamental problems dogging Israel,
especially concerning short-ranged fighters and fighter-bombers, is distance,” he wrote.

“Iran’s potential targets are between 950 and 1,400 miles from Israel,
the far margin of the ranges Israeli fighters can reach,
even with aerial refueling.
Israel would be hard-pressed to destroy all of Iran’s best-known targets.”

then

Quote:Iran ratcheted up the tension with a test-firing of its Shahab-3 missile,
which potentially puts Israel within range.
The launch — which was preceded by the testing of shorter-range missiles —
comes ahead of nuclear talks on Thursday in Geneva
between an Iranian delegation
and representatives of the five permanent members of the UN, plus Germany.

I need a Pennywise emoticon with Ahmadinejad's face in it.
I will work on it and see what I can get.
This missile testing action is typical of North Korean clowns and Iranian Dick Taters.

The Israeli's are going to use bunker busters,
and regardless of how dispersed the Iranian nuclear technology is,
you can bet that each and every site is targeted already for an ........aerial blitzkrieg.
I personally think every Fucking Country should have a Secret under ground Base/whatever

that said

We can Now bring HOME the Troops

and Start building under ground bases Here

better yet

Bring the Troops Home and buildup Hospitals full of Medical staff

no insurance needed!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x1747368

Quote:"The above image is a scan of a piece of Trinitite. This is desert sand that was underneath the explosion of the world's first Atomic bomb in New Mexico as part of project TRINITY, hence the name Trinitite. The heat from that blast melted the sand into a green glass, not unlike the Fulgurites that result when lightning hits sandy soil.

Now, imagine an entire nation looking like the above sample, melted into green glass. Buried in the green glass are the charred remains of the people of that nation. It's not an idle fantasy. The US spent $5 trillion dollars (1950s dollars) building a nuclear deterrent capability that can actually do that; melt any nation and it's people into a giant slab of green glass. The USSR knew it, the world knows it, Saddam knew it. The government of Iran knows it.

Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction (which we now know they did not), and even if Iraq had the long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they did not), Iraq would still not have been a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
"
snip ... continue ...

"Now the target has shifted to Iran. And once again, we are being warned that Iran, while it does not actually have nuclear weapons, might be close to building one, and this justifies another invasion. The theory is that if Iran has a nuclear power station, they will build bombs with it. Iran hasn't planned to build bombs with it, and invites inspections to prove that they are not making bombs, but the theory is that Iran will make bombs with their reactor and fool the inspectors, because, well, to be blunt about it, that's what Israel did at Dimona while they clandestinely built the world's 6th largest nuclear arsenal."

No one can deny the logic in this article. The science and math are for debate if someone needs to.

We must do something about our Congress and Europe. They have said YES to Carlyle, PNAC, the barons. All OUR leaders want to take THEIR leader out and the innocents are to be done away with. They are declaring that they need to own the people who survive in Iran and the U.S. - Your Senators, Your Congresspeople - ask them if it's too late. Ask them if they signed off on WWIII with China? Russia?

Link: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trinitite.html
Quote:We can Now bring HOME the Troops

and Start building under ground bases Here

That's right,
and bullshit on sending more troops to Af-paki-stan.
The generals will ask for over a hundred thousand total.

Quote:I need a Pennywise emoticon with Ahmadinejad's face in it.

Ha!

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />

International Criminal Clown War Buffoon
"...zero nukes..."
[Image: pennytater.jpg]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts273.html

Another War in the Works
America Is Led and Informed by Liars

by Paul Craig Roberts

Does anyone remember all the lies that they were told by President Bush and the "mainstream media" about the grave threat to America from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? These lies were repeated endlessly in the print and TV media despite the reports from the weapons inspectors, who had been sent to Iraq, that no such weapons existed.

The weapons inspectors did an honest job in Iraq and told the truth, but the mainstream media did not emphasize their findings. Instead, the media served as a Ministry of Propaganda, beating the war drums for the US government.

Now the whole process is repeating itself. This time the target is Iran.

As there is no real case against Iran, Obama took a script from Bush’s playbook and fabricated one.

First the facts: As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which carefully monitors Iran’s nuclear energy program to make certain that no material is diverted to nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has monitored Iran’s nuclear energy program and has announced repeatedly that it has found no diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program. All 16 US intelligence agencies have affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned interest in nuclear weapons years ago.

In keeping with the safeguard agreement that the IAEA be informed before an enrichment facility comes online, Iran informed the IAEA on September 21 that it had a new nuclear facility under construction. By informing the IAEA, Iran fulfilled its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The IAEA will inspect the facility and monitor the nuclear material produced to make sure it is not diverted to a weapons program.

Despite these unequivocal facts, Obama announced on September 25 that Iran has been caught with a "secret nuclear facility" with which to produce a bomb that would threaten the world.

The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation. Between the end of 2004 and early 2007, Iran voluntarily complied with an additional protocol (Code 3.1) that was never ratified and never became a legal part of the safeguards agreement. The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility. Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007, most likely because of the American and Israeli misrepresentations of Iran’s existing facilities and military threats against them.

By accusing Iran of having a secret "nuclear weapons program" and demanding that Iran "come clean" about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" to set up Iraq for invasion.

The US media, even the "liberal" National Public Radio, quickly fell in with the Obama lie machine. Steven Thomma of the McClatchy Newspapers declared the non-operational facility under construction, which Iran reported to the IAEA, to be "a secret nuclear facility."

Thomma, reported incorrectly that the world didn’t learn of Iran’s "secret" facility, the one that Iran reported to the IAEA the previous Monday, until Obama announced it in a joint appearance in Pittsburgh the following Friday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkoszy.

Obviously, Thomma has no command over the facts, a routine inadequacy of "mainstream media" reporters. The new facility was revealed when Iran voluntarily reported the facility to the IAEA on September 21.

Ali Akbar Dareini, an Associated Press writer, reported, incorrectly, over AP: "The presence of a second uranium-enrichment site that could potentially produce material for a nuclear weapon has provided one of the strongest indications yet that Iran has something to hide."

Dareini goes on to write that "the existence of the secret site was first revealed by Western intelligence officials and diplomats on Friday." Dareini is mistaken. We learned of the facility when the IAEA announced that Iran had reported the facility the previous Monday in keeping with the safeguards agreement.

Dareini’s untruthful report of "a secret underground uranium enrichment facility whose existence has been hidden from international inspectors for years" helped to heighten the orchestrated alarm.

There you have it. The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best – lying through their teeth. The US "mainstream media" repeats the lies as if they were facts. The US "media" is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications. Apparently, the media’s main interest is to please the US government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations.

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a rare man of principle who has not sold his integrity to the US and Israeli governments, refuted in his report (September 7, 2009) the baseless "accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran’s nuclear programme. I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith."

As there is no legal basis for action against Iran, the Obama regime is creating another hoax, like the non-existent "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." The hoax is that a facility, reported to the IAEA by Iran, is a secret facility for making nuclear weapons.

Just as the factual reports from the weapons inspectors in Iraq were ignored by the Bush Regime, the factual reports from the IAEA are ignored by the Obama Regime.

Like the Bush Regime, the Middle East policy of the Obama Regime is based in lies and deception.

Who is the worst enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?

September 29, 2009

Peace
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009 ... urprise-2/

September ‘Surprise’

Iranian nuke facility revelation: countdown to war begins…
by Justin Raimondo, September 28, 2009

What did the U.S. government know about the "secret" Iranian nuclear research facility at Qom and when did it know it? That’s the question that isn’t on everyone’s lips, as the chatter about Iranian "intransigence" on nuclear issues reaches a crescendo in the run-up to Oct. 1, the date negotiations with Tehran are scheduled to start. Practically no one wants to ask let alone answer this question, because it torpedoes the American narrative that is being carefully constructed by the Obama administration and its media fan club, which runs something like this: the Iranians have been actively deceiving us all along and simply can’t be trusted – the only solution, therefore, is to initiate a series of escalating sanctions, up to and including military action.

The Obama-worshippers in the punditocracy are telling us that this is an example of the Dear Leader’s genius: unlike George W. Bush and the neocons, whose crude unilateralism and unmitigated arrogance was a turnoff to our allies and a boon to our enemies, Obama wisely held back and waited until he had the Iranians just where he wanted them, and then, as one of the more unhinged Obama maniacs put it, "Ka-pow!"

"And so you see the Obama mojo again. Look at the moves of the last month. He scraps the missile defense in Eastern Europe, pleasing Russia, and moves the focus of defense to the Mediterranean, pleasing Israel.

"He pwns [sic] Ahmadinejad at the UN by being the first president of the U.S. to preside over the resolution to enforce nuclear non-proliferation.

"He corrals the rhetorical support of the developing world, isolating Tehran still further. He hangs back a little and allows Brown and Sarkozy to do the heavy hitting on NoKo and Iran this past week, again revealing that the desire to curtail Ahmadinejad’s nukes is not only an American project.

"And then, this morning… kapow!"

This tale of heroic cunning and diplomatic derring-do is largely a product of Sullivan’s hero-worshipping imagination – the same tendency to idolatry that moved him to praise George W. Bush as little short of the second coming of Winston Churchill back in the day. It is, however, based on even less substance this time around, for it turns out that the U.S. has known about this "secret" facility for years, as CNN reports:

"The United States was aware of Iran’s unfinished uranium enrichment site for several years, senior U.S. officials told CNN on Friday. U.S. officials have known about the facility since President George W. Bush’s administration, according to the officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations."

Yes, the Bushies knew about it, too, and said nothing – but why not? After all, George W. was not exactly known as an apologist for the Iranian regime, and he was no less eager than his successor to tag Tehran as a serial deceiver. The CIA knew about it when they issued that now inconvenient National Intelligence Estimate [.pdf] averring that Iran had abandoned all efforts to militarize its nuclear research in 2003. Were they trying to protect the Iranians, too? And, of course, Obama knew all about it – and decided to make use of it, in spite of the fact that (a) the Qom facility is not operational and (b) there is no evidence it is being used to create a nuclear weapon.

We are told the Iranians only recently discovered that we knew about Qom, which is why they chose to reveal its existence in a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – but, really, since the Iranians had a direct line to our most closely guarded secrets, via Ahmed Chalabi, in the days of the Bush administration, it’s hard to make that case with absolute assurance. In any case, they did admit the existence of the Qom facility and have now invited in the inspectors – and all of Obama’s stern admonitions to the Iranians to "come clean" cannot obfuscate Tehran’s transparency in this matter.

In his UN oration, Obama declared “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," a manifestly untrue statement that nonetheless went largely unchallenged. Because "all nations" apparently doesn’t include the state of Israel, which has as many as 200 nuclear weapons and is no doubt developing more.

Obama hailed efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and singled out Iran and North Korea as two examples of nations that "choose to ignore international standards" and "put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people." These two miscreants, he intoned, "must be held accountable."

There is one other miscreant, however, that is never to be held accountable, either by the president of the United States or by anyone who works in "mainstream" journalism, on pain of being charged with a hate crime. Israel’s nukes are common knowledge. Yet the Jewish state not only refuses to acknowledge its possession of weapons of mass destruction, it also disdains efforts by the international community to monitor their development and placement.

Israel has always steadfastly refused to join the NPT, and when the possibility that they could be pressured to do so was raised as the Obamaites were flocking to Washington to take power, the idea was quickly shot down. That a U.S. government official had even mentioned Israel in relation to its well-known possession of nukes was denounced by the Israelis and their American amen corner as a "violation" of a supposedly 40-year agreement between the U.S. and Israel that Washington would not only give the Israelis a pass, but would refrain from even referring to the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

Which means: quite apart from evidence – or the absence of it – that the Iranians are actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons, we aren’t allowed to even talk about why they would possibly want them.

Israel has been threatening Iran with military action for quite some time, and, armed as the former is with a formidable nuclear arsenal, the Iranians would be foolish not to take the Israelis seriously. However, the biggest weapon in the Israeli quiver isn’t nukes, it’s their "special relationship" with the U.S., and the Iranians know it.

The devastation and occupation of Iraq had barely begun when Ariel Sharon publicly stated that America’s next target must be Iran, and the U.S. has dutifully taken up this charge, in spite of Obama’s guff about engaging in "dialogue" with Tehran. That’s just window-dressing for the liberals who supported him on account of his antiwar credentials.

And so it begins: phase two of the American project for the transformation of the Middle East into an environment that guarantees "security" for Israel as she represses her Palestinian helots [.pdf], expands her borders willy-nilly, and defies the standards and benchmarks that all civilized nations are expected to adhere to.

Change? You’ve got to be kidding! What we’re getting from this administration in the foreign policy department is an uncanny repetition of the same folly engaged in by the Bush administration, complete with "weapons of mass destruction" and the hosannas of the Establishment pundits as they march in lockstep to war. The only difference is that many of these very same pundits were singing a far different tune when it was Republicans doing the warmongering.

We are told by the pro-Obama foreign policy analysts that the president’s efforts to negotiate with Tehran have put the military option "on the back burner." Really? What’s on the front burner is a proposal – guaranteed to sail through the U.S. Congress – to impose draconian sanctions on Iran, including petroleum products. What this would amount to is a blockade of Iranian ports, i.e., an act of war.

Iran has the right to the production of peaceful nuclear power under the terms of the NPT, a treaty the Israelis refuse to sign. Why are they being held "accountable," and not the Israelis? Everybody in the Middle East knows the answer to this question – as they do in Washington, although the rules of political correctness won’t permit them to utter it.

This whole campaign against Iran for supposedly harboring a desire to nuke Israel is absurd from beginning to end. A nuclear attack on Israel would not only annihilate the Israelis, but also the Palestinians – which one has to assume the Iranians have no desire to do. It would also invite massive retaliation from the U.S. and universal condemnation. The myth that Israel is going to be the site of a second Holocaust if we don’t stop the Iranians first is one that is being energetically pushed by Israel and her American lobby – and it is a very crude and easily refutable lie. Which doesn’t mean they won’t try to pull it off. After all, the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although absurd on its face, was relentlessly repeated by the Bushies during the run-up to the Iraq war, and there’s no reason, at this point, to suspect that the new guys in charge are above such tactics.

Indeed, we are fast learning that they aren’t – that’s what the Qom kerfuffle shows us, and we ought to be prepared for more, and much worse, in the coming months. The Obamaites are going into the October talks guns blazing, and you can be sure that, although this process of baiting Iran is going to go on for many months, if not years, this first phase will be relatively short-lived: the War Party is hoping for an Iranian walkout, and I suspect they’ll get their wish.

Peace
OK, the Iranians sent a letter to the IAEA on Sept 21 is what Uni's articles state..
They have had the facility in operative construction for years.
So they did not comply with fundamental standard reporting procedures,
and in that vein Obama and his allies were correct,
and the Iranians did keep it a sectret.

so what if the US knew about the site years ago?
That is the US military job to know,
and political policy to see what unfolds and to watch for compliance in disclosure.
By saying nothing, and letting the Iranians come clean on their own,
we see that the Iranians did not do that and only recently admit to the site existence,
most likely because they knew that the exposure of the site existence
was most likely impending with the upcoming negotiations.

Certainly this was a propaganda play by the western allies to disclose at the UN meetings
and just prior to the Iranian negotiations,
but the fact remains that the Iranians could have disclosed the nuclear site existence
at any point in the process of construction,
or what the construction could accomplish in nuclear production at any point in time therein.
Obama and the French and English entourage disclosing this information
is a chess game pawn play in the upcoming negotiations and there is nothing wrong with that.

Both articles are lame and feeble in scope and have their own share of propagandizing.

The only positively valid premise they present is that the Israeli's
have huge numbers of nuclear weapons,
and refuse to admit that or allow inspections on their territory,
and in essence are more of a rogue state in nuclear era politics than Iran.

We are supposed to believe that the Israeli's are competently capable of controlling their ownership
of vast nuclear war potential and power,
and will maintain a "defensive stature".
Israeli defensive stature was well displayed in the Lebanon invasion,
and they reduced the economic infrastructure of the country to ruins
while testing their own military and their drones, tanks, air strike capabilities etc,
at the expense of civilian populations in Lebanon.
If you remember,
at the time I had Israeli premier Ehud Olmert compared to Shemp,
and called the war there..the Shempageddon.

In this vein of reality of "Israeli defensive stature"
and unaccountable nuclear weaponry production and power,
one cannot blame the Iranians for sweeping every nuclear process they initiate
right under the carpet.
However,
this still does not excuse Ahmadinejewdead the Dick Tater and his actions at home
in totalitarian despotisms squashing the "revolution" mercilessly
or his standard Death to America and Israel rhetoric.

Make no mistake,
the current Iranian leadership in possession of nuke weapons would not be good.
If they had the capacity to deploy by missile to the US,
they would be threatening us with that reality and with impunity.

So what to do?
Obama's future world of a global community free of nuclear weapons is a pipe dream
because the Israeli's will never give their nuclear weaponry power base up,
unless an alternate weapon of mass destruction that can be monopolized is employed
both on the propaganda front and on the military reality of Mutual Assured Destruction
in which the Israeli's will assure themselves of a lesser impact on their own destruction.


I don't like nuclear weaponry and all that it implies,
but I view the Chinese as a serious threat in the future.
The entire pantomine of reducing nuclear stockpiles probably fits into this equation
of pressuring Iran right now at the negotiating table.
I seriously doubt that Russia, China, or the US will ever eliminate nukes,
and if so the advantage goes straight to the Chinese globally and militarily.

The Israeli economy is based on hi tech militarism.
They produce their own tanks, jets, nukes, drones, etc,
and have developed all facets of futuristic militarism production with nanotech,
and they are selling their products all over the world.

You can beat up on Iran,
but you can't beat up on the Big Boys, and Israel is one of the Big Boys.
Being Bad Big Boys,
they {and everybody else} don't want Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejerkoffs in the
Big Boy sand box building nuclear sand castles.
IAEA just called Iran's non compliance with reporting the Nuke plant as illegal.
well...
so what eh?
Like anything changes.

If I were Iranian military I would want nuclear weapon capabilities.

My take is that the current buildup of US forces in Af-Paki-stan
and the request by McChrystal for 40000 additional troops beyond the scheduled
increase
is a contingency plan to have an invasion force ready to attack Iran,

and thus positioned in Afghanistan the US military would have less political resistance
as they would in attack from Iraq.
But then with armies on both fronts the US has a squeeze play onto Iranian territory.

Do I advocate an invasion?
hell no,
just talking about the politics and strategies as discussion perspective.

Starlord you started this thread,
what do you think?
I don't believe Obama will go after Iran. It won't happen. But... he won't stop Israel from doing the deed. So if the Israeli's decide to go in, Obama will be able to say, "Oh, those bad Iranians, look what they made Israel do. Naughty Israelis, stop bombing Iran." Israel, after bombing 14 Iranian nuke sites, "Ok. We'll stop." Our nose is clean. Action is over. Iran is set back a few years.

Meanwhile, back in Afgakistan, how do we keep the crazies from gaining control?
Quote:I don't believe Obama will go after Iran. It won't happen. But... he won't stop Israel from doing the deed. So if the Israeli's decide to go in, Obama will be able to say, "Oh, those bad Iranians, look what they made Israel do. Naughty Israelis, stop bombing Iran." Israel, after bombing 14 Iranian nuke sites, "Ok. We'll stop." Our nose is clean. Action is over. Iran is set back a few years.

Meanwhile, back in Afgakistan, how do we keep the crazies from gaining control?

if Israel attacks Iranian nuclear sites
Iran will retaliate.
US will put in effect a sea and shipping blockade first.
The troops in Af=paki-stan are there for a multitude of contingencies in planning.
Once there are 100,000 + troops there, the numbers will be plentiful enough to stage
land invasions if that becomes necessary in the eyes of the US military.

basically there will have to be an event to trigger the war,
allowing the Israeli's their convenient excuse.
Nobody said peek a boo when Israel took out the syrian nuke plant by air attack.
It will be different with Iran.

Quote:Meanwhile, back in Afgakistan, how do we keep the crazies from gaining control?

First thing is to get rid of the crazies in control....Karzai and his criminal cadre.

.........watch for pandemics in that area.........

The other non solution is 150,000 US troops.

if you want to eliminate the Taliban,
you have to go in the mountains and clean them out.
Drone wars can only accomplish so much.

The US is lucky that the Paki's are exerting most of the war effort right now creating a two front war for the Taliban to address,
and it is the one thing keeping the Taliban in check right now.
Quote:Meanwhile, back in Afgakistan, how do we keep the crazies from gaining control?


Put them to work planting more Poppies.
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Obama has given Iran 2 weeks to comply to inspections

interesting video claims that Iran
has agreed to ship 1200 kilograms of their "low" enriched uranium to Russia,
to be enriched for medical usage.....
thus theoretically reducing any capacity to produce nuclear weaponry.

check it out:

[video:3501hnl2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyBF3B91Uos&feature=player_embedded[/video:3501hnl2]


so,
if "low enriched uranium"
is enriched to ...medical grade uranium...in Russia
then shipped back to Iran,
can't medical grade be reconverted to weapons grade?
Rofl
Iran agrees to freeze its enrichment of uranium,
while the big powers agree to freeze international economic sanctions on Iran
at the level now in place.

Then, the goal would be moving beyond a freeze
to an actual suspension of Iran's enrichment program.
If things get that far, defining the terms will be tricky. \
Does suspension mean permanent suspension,
including destruction of enrichment equipment?
Would Iran indeed be given nuclear fuel from the outside?

More difficult still will be deciding how long to let this process unfold
before deciding whether it's working.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy
has suggested a deadline of year's end,
at which point the outside powers would move to impose new sanctions
if things aren't working out.

The classic fear about such negotiations is that they become an end in themselves --
that the goal of talking becomes continued talking.
That's a particularly acute concern now,
because of worries that Iran may string out the process
precisely so it can keep enriching uranium,
or that an impatient Israel will conclude it has to take military action
to stop a nuclear threat that's only being enabled by diplomacy.[/quote]
Why screw Iran when there is a much greater nuclear threat from Pakistan?


The US government as well as other Western nations have always had double standards. Pakistan is one of the biggest nuclear proliferators in the world and is busy expanding its plutonium separation capability at the New Labs section of the Pakistan Institute of Science and Technology (PINSTECH) near Rawalpindi.

A series of commercial satellite images from February 2002 through September 2009 show the construction of what appears to be a second plutonium separation plant adjacent to the original one suggesting that Pakistan is increasing its plutonium separation capacity in anticipation of an increased supply of spent fuel from new heavy water reactors.

The plutonium separated from the spent fuel is usable in nuclear weapons.

In addition, Pakistan may have also restarted construction of a partially built plutonium separation plant at its Chashma nuclear site, approximately 70 kilometers west of Khushab.

Quote:"In the current climate, with Pakistan's leadership under duress from daily acts of violence by insurgent Taliban forces and organized political opposition, the security of any nuclear material produced in these reactors is in question," said an April 23 report by the Institute for Science and International Security."

Now here we have a situation that threatens the entire world. There's clear and present danger.

Quote:Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, said the United States "hasn't engaged Pakistan . . . in years" in discussions on the expansion of its nuclear weapons program. He said the Obama administration should make it a priority to convince Pakistan to join international negotiations on a global agreement to end the production of nuclear weapons fuel.

"There are (U.S. officials) who are convinced that things aren't so good. There has just been a happy face put on it," he said.

"No one has an incentive to embarrass the Pakistanis" when their cooperation on fighting al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups takes priority, he said.

That's the mantra for the US Government. It's always been so. They never want to see beyond their little noses as long as it serves their interest!

So why keep screwing Iran when there is a much greater nuclear threat from Pakistan?

Oh well, because Pakistan is with them in their so called war on terror. That's utter tripe when we all know that the Pakistan Army is fighting the Pakistani Taliban and NOT the Afghan Taliban who the Americans are fighting against! Instead, the Pakistan Army is providing material and logistics support to the Afghan Taliban including training and funding through the ISI.

Billions of dollars given as aid to Pakistan by America for helping it in the so called war against terror, has been clandestinely used for arming the Afghan Taliban, and buying high tech weaponry to be used against its arch enemy, India. This has been admitted by none other than the erstwhile prez of Pakistan, Gen Musharraf himself!

In other words the American's tax payers money is being used to kill America soldiers in Afghanistan!! What an irony! And America always looks the other way where Pakistan is concerned!

What a tragedy! It's a big sham and America is being taken for a jolly good ride! Pakistan has always managed to do that - making the world greatest super power hop to its tunes!!
Worship

Cheers! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smoke.gif" alt="Smoke" title="smoke" />


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/67379.html
Quote:Why screw Iran when there is a much greater nuclear threat from Pakistan?

Because Pakistan already has a Rockefeller/Rothschild controlled central bank.

Peace
Well, driving the Tallies out of Afghanistan into Pakistan probably didn't help any.

Pakistan will get their turn, Pakistan and Iran are all we need to complete PNAC's Monopoly for a Dream Pipeline Route from Iraq and Iran flowing into India and Asia. I think between Michael Moore and Mother Jones, enough was spelled out to see where this is supposed to go.

If we follow through with this looney plan, we will eventually make back some of the money from China that we borrowed from them for this in the first place - if we change course now, we're out big bucks. Notice how we just edge closer and closer to making Cheney's dreams come true even when he's outta there?

It sure is weird, though, hearing all this hollering about the nukes that Iran doesn't have yet even after hearing that Paki nukes were only minutes away from Taliban hands. Notice the number of people you hear clamoring for Pakistan to disarm on this account, eh?

That's okay, those will be a fundamental reason for the U.S. invading Pakistan before this is over.

Meanwhile, I just love the warmonger rhetoric. "Secret" facility, uh-uh. They told the IEAE about it. Secret... Just have to hope that Admadinejad will recognize that the hot air coming out of Obama's mouth is the same species of hot air that comes out his own. Posturing at the posturers. Or that Obama is on the level with recognizing Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear material, which is something that the previous administration flat-out refused to recognize.
Quote:Instead, the Pakistan Army is providing material and logistics support
to the Afghan Taliban including training and funding through the ISI.

I don't think so.
That is propaganda rhetoric.
They certainly used to provide supplies and logistics through factions within their military,
but that is not happening anymore since Mushar-rat was retried, or if it is,
it is at a reduced level that is negligable, and even further underground
within rogue elements of their military which were supposedly purged prior to the Paki army
going after the
"Paki Taliban"

I see no real difference between Paki Taliban and Af-Paki Taliban.
Those border areas are a homogeny of Taliban cooperatives.
At this point,
any Paki Taliban are utilizing whatever support they can get from Af-Paki Taliban
to organize resistance to the Paki army that is kicking their asses.

On the issue of nuclear material in Pakistan ending in Taliban hands,
it would be apparent that if the Taliban most likely never got any of it,
or it would have been used by now.
One dirty bomb in Kabul,
like near the US embassy,
and the whole country destabilizes dramatically much to the Taliban benefit.

On the issue of allowing Pakistan to maintain possession of nuclear power and weaponry,
how do you go in and find it all, take it all, and control their future capacity to produce weaponry?

Certainly the Paki military has foreseen a possibility of "international forces"
aspiring to liquidate the Paki nuclear arsenal,
and any competent military strategy from within Pakistan would be to hidey hole away a parcel of their nuclear weapon capacity,
mainly due to fears of the historic animosities between Pakistan and India.

It will take a major catalytic event to trigger the US to invade Pakistan
and remove the nuclear "threat".
That event would be accompanied by an Indian invasion
as the event would most likely target India.
A ground invasion by India would hold back Russian and Chinese interference to a minimum,
and allow a US accompaniment in the process of invasion and cleanout.

That is an interesting post by LT,
the prospect of oil pipelines to China fueling part of the overall US political war strategy
in money futures is considerably valid.
And disgusting.
Fuck the Chinese, they are brutally murdering and repressing the moslem Uigher population
in Xinchiang province in their own holocaust.

so Obama wants to limit troop surges and concentrate on drone warfare
isolating and killing "Al Queada leaders",
who hide in the Af-Paki border areas.
Inevitably this entails major "accidental" civilian killings that will cause a backlash
within the populations themselves.
People get tired of Taliban oppression, but they really do not want to tolerate invisible death
raining from the skies in drone missile attacks repeatedly killing women and children.
Ultimately a ground surge is the only thing that will eliminate the Taliban,
or a convenient bird flu pandemic.
No vaccine for the Af-Paki Taliban...

Hey let the fucking Chinese invade Af-Paki-stan and put in their own goddam pipeline.

McChrystal called the absence of his requested troop surge creating a future "Chaos-is-stan".

Like it is anything different than that now.
They plan on being there for 10-20 years.

soon enough a UN nuclear weapons control army ..... global energy security army...will be built
to police and enforce future nuclear activities,
in order to facilitate what Putin called for in:
"global energy security"
specifically to include protection of global oil and gas pipelines.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=15456

Key facts to keep in mind while opposing war against Iran

by Phil Wilayto

Global Research, September 29, 2009

Representatives of Iran and six of the world's most powerful countries are scheduled to meet this week in Geneva, one of a series of events that increasingly looks like a rerun of the build-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

As we prepare for a barrage of anti-Iranian media spin, it would be good for anti-war activists to remember five basic facts:

One: There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

Two: The U.S. has not discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran.

Three: The recent Iranian tests of long-range missiles is a purely defensive exercise.

Four: Despite what we all have repeatedly heard, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust. (Please see quotes below.)

Five: Iran has a lot of oil. A whole lot.

On Oct. 1, a senior Iranian diplomat is to meet with representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the U.S., U.K, France, Russia and China, plus Germany, a group dubbed the G-5-plus-1. These will be the first international talks to address Iran's nuclear program in more than a year.

During these negotiations, Iran will attempt to discuss a wide range of issues. The six countries – or at least the U.S., U.K., France and Germany – will make demands on Iran's nuclear program that they already know will be rejected. These four most powerful Western nations will then move to impose even harsher sanctions than the three sets they have already rammed through the U.N. Security Council.

There may even be a military attack on Iran by Israel, a move already given the green light by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

And this will all be in violation of international law.

Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?

Iran has a program to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes. Part of that program involves enriching uranium to power nuclear reactors. Enriched uranium is also an essential component in building a nuclear bomb, but the enrichment process is so different that it would be virtually impossible to conceal it, and Iran is the most inspected country in the world.

Further, Iran was one of the first countries to sign the U.N.'s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it renounced the right to build nuclear weapons in return for not only the right to develop nuclear power, but to receive help in doing so from the world community.

There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. None. Zip. Not from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, the U.N. body charged with making sure NPT members abide by that treaty. Not from the U.S. and its 16 separate intelligence agencies, nor from Israel and its Mossad intelligence agency nor from counter-revolutionary Iranian organizations such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), all of which have been working overtime to come up with any fact, report, material or rumor with which to indict Iran.

Meanwhile, of course, none of the G-5, G-5-Plus-1, G-20 or G-We-Rule-the-World countries are saying “boo” about Israel's estimated 200 nuclear weapons, let alone the U.S. with its 10,000.

It's true that Iran has a lot of oil, but oil is a finite resource. Even Iran's vast reserves will someday run out. So it's developing alternative sources of energy, including solar and wind, as well as nuclear.

The U.S and other Western powers are opposed to Iran developing nuclear power because that would ensure Iran can remain independent. And strong. And influential in its own region. And that is unacceptable to the world's former colonizing powers.

Iran, like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Sudan and many other countries, rejects the status of a “second-tier” country. These countries refuse to accept the authority of the Empire.

They have thrown off the yoke of colonial oppressors and have charted their own independent courses on the world stage. Their peoples are like runaway slaves who have established their own modern maroon colonies and as such are viewed as a threat to the orderly administration of the New World Order.

And they must be brought back under control, lest they serve as dangerous examples for those peoples still enslaved.

That's why keeping those countries from developing technologically is a prime goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Has the U.S. discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran?

On Sept. 21, the Iranian government sent a letter to the IAEA in Vienna describing the construction of a plant designed to enrich uranium, up to 5 percent in purity, sufficient for energy production but well below the 90 percent level required for weapons-grade material. “Further complementary information will be provided in an appropriate and due time,” the letter stated.

According to the provisions of the NPT, Iran and other treaty signatories are required to inform the IAEA six months before a uranium enrichment facility becomes operational. President Ahmadinejad later told a news conference that the new facility won’t be up and running for 18 months.

In other words, Iran was a year early in fulfilling its treaty obligations to provide notice to the IAEA.

But on Sept. 25, U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy interrupted their G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to hold a press conference at which they charged Iran with constructing a secret nuclear fuel facility.

Sarkozy, whose country depends on nuclear power for 80 percent of its energy needs, detailed intelligence information that Brown said would “shock and anger the whole international community.” Obama charged Iran with “breaking rules that all nations must follow ... and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.”

The next day, Iran announced it would place the plant under the IAEA's supervision.

So: Iran built a nuclear facility. Then, fully one year before the required deadline mandated by the U.N.'s NPT, it informed the IAEA about the plant's existence. But, just days before the Oct. 1 seven-nation negotiations, the leaders of the U.S., U.K. and France decided to hold a dramatic press conference to denounce Iran for breaking the rules.

A Sept. 26 story in The Washington Post noted that “the rapidly escalating confrontation provided (Obama) with a fresh opportunity to project toughness and success on the world stage. Obama's detractors have long called him naive for his willingness to engage diplomatically the nation's adversaries, including Iran. Republicans say his decision to change the deployment of a missile shield for Eastern Europe demonstrates weakness, and critics have chastised him for taking time to weigh a decision on sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

“The announcement also provided a boost for the CIA at a time when the agency is facing harsh attacks - and possible prosecution - for detainee interrogations.”

Are the recent Iranian missile tests an offensive move?

Starting on Sept. 26, Iran began testing a number of missiles, including its medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 and, on Sept. 28, its longer-range Shahab-3. The latter missiles are believed to have a range of up to about 1200 miles, far enough to reach Israel, U.S. bases in the Middle East and parts of Europe.

So the question is, are the missiles meant to be defensive or offensive?

Defensive, according to Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, as quoted by the semi-official Fars News Agency: “As a result of this capability, those who used to speak of attacking Iran are now declaring that they entertain no such desires or thoughts, for they have realized that attacking Iran is an extremely dangerous act.”

It's a little hard to argue with that logic, since Israeli officials have now toned down their threats to attack Iran, citing an increased international concern after the revelation that Iran had been building a new uranium enrichment facility.

Yes, the missiles could be used to attack as well as defend or retaliate. But Iran hasn't attacked another country for hundreds of years. For it to launch a war now against nuclear-armed opponents would be a complete departure from 30 years of foreign policy into the realm of insanity, something for which there is no recent historical precedent.

Does President Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust?

Every time I read somewhere that President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust, I try and go back and find his original quote. That's not easy, because most of the time the alleged denial is paraphrased or partially quoted.

This month, I finally got a break.

On Sept. 24, Steve Inskeep, host of National Public Radio's Morning Edition program, interviewed President Ahmadinejad at his hotel in New York. The transcript (see
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 5352&ps=rs) says Ahmadinejad's remarks were delivered via a translator.

Here's the relevant section of that interview:

...

INSKEEP: We have, in a previous interview, discussed how you feel (the Holocaust) is being used unjustly to justify Israel, so we need not cover that ground again. But if you would like to describe to me what specifically you believe happened between 1942 and 1945, I would be interested.

AHMADINEJAD: But then 1942 to 1945 is still about the Holocaust, right? I do raise a couple of questions about the Holocaust, and you are a member of the media, and I believe that you should actually tell people what these questions are, and try to receive answers from them as well.
The first question is, is the Holocaust a historical event or not? It is a historical event. And, having said that, there are numerous historical events. So the next question is, why is it that this specific event has become so prominent? Normally, ordinary people and historians pay attention to historical events. Why are politicians giving so much attention to this particular event? Why are they so biased about it? Does this event effect what is happening on the ground this day, now? What we say is that genocide is the result of racial discrimination. Sometimes we look at history to learn the lessons of history.

INSKEEP: Are you acknowledging that millions of people were killed? Millions of Jews, specifically, were killed during World War II?

AHMADINEJAD: If you bear with me so that I can complete my statements, you will receive your answer. I'm asking, and I'm asking a number of serious questions. And I'm not addressing these questions to you, but to a wider audience — everyone — anyone who cares about the fate of humanity; who care about human beings and the rights of people. These are serious questions. If we are looking at history with the aim to learn — derive lessons from it, then what this indicates is that in the future, we should not carry out the same mistakes that were done in the past. While I personally was not alive 60 years ago, I happen to be alive now, and I can see that genocide is happening now under the pretext of an event that happened 60 years ago. So the fundamental question I raise here is that, if this event happened, where did it happen? As a form of an objection question, who was it carried by? Why should the Palestinian people make up for it?

...

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently pointed out that, before the European Conquest, the Americas were home to some 90 million indigenous people. A few hundred years later, there were 4 million.

Up to 100 million Africans died as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

Surely these also were “holocausts.”

Six million Jews were systematically murdered in what has come to be known as The Holocaust. And, although it is rarely mentioned, that diabolically efficient mass murder also took the lives of up to 5 million political prisoners, trade unionists, communists, gays and Roma people. Truly, this was one of the world's great atrocities – an atrocity committed in Europe, by Europeans, against Europeans.

It had absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. Or Iran.

So why, after being elevated to a status above all other mass murders in history, is it used to justify the establishment of what basically is a European colony on Arab land?

Ahmadinejad isn't calling the Holocaust a myth – he's asking why the mythology that has been built up around it is used as a weapon against the Palestinian people and those who support their struggle for self-determination.

Iran has oil

Iran has a lot of oil. And that oil has been off-limits to the world's private oil companies since it was nationalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Huge potential profits are at stake. Further, whoever controls the flow of oil – whether or not that involves actual ownership – can control the development of world production, commerce and politics. And the U.S is determined that, rather than allow a multi-polar world to develop, it will be the only country to play that role.

Tasks facing the U.S. anti-war movement

After an unfortunate year-long ebb, the anti-war movement in the U.S. is again beginning to show signs of life. This October there will be many local and regional protests against the U.S-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most will also address the expanding war in Pakistan and the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

While some of these protests also will demand no war against Iran, there seems to be less enthusiasm for addressing this issue. The barrage of media attacks, charges and misinformation has taken its toll. The controversy around the Iranian presidential elections and their aftermath have also played a role. Taken together, these factors have to a certain extent disarmed the anti-war movement, even as the possibility of a new war grows ever more serious.

Now is the time to reaffirm this one simple principle that ought to be the bedrock of our movement: every country that has been oppressed by U.S imperialism has the right to determine its own destiny. It has the right to determine its own form of government, choose its own leaders, decide on its own relations with the rest of the world. And the U.S., as the world's foremost imperialist power, ought to be the last country on earth to presume to dictate to any other how to conduct itself.

It's not necessary to agree with every pronouncement of the leaders of oppressed countries in order to demand loudly and determinedly “No war, sanctions or internal interference!” If we were anti-slavery activists in the 1800s, would we stand by as Nat Turner or John Brown were about to be hung, arguing about tactics or controversial statements? Or would we defend the oppressed and their defenders?
This is how we need to approach the issue of defending Iran.

This October, as we denounce the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people, we must also raise our voices loud and clear to demand “No war, no sanctions, no internal interference in Iran!”

Peace
that article has some lame stuff unibonger.

Quote:Three: The recent Iranian tests of long-range missiles is a purely defensive exercise.

For evidence he quotes:
Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />

Quote:So the question is, are the missiles meant to be defensive or offensive?

Defensive, according to Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari,
commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps,
as quoted by the semi-official Fars News Agency:
“As a result of this capability,
those who used to speak of attacking Iran
are now declaring that they entertain no such desires or thoughts,
for they have realized that attacking Iran is an extremely dangerous act.”


Even if construed to be a defensive posture,
the missiles are useless in a real war with any super power to include Israel.
Iran will be mince meated in a war.
military capacities:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... index.html

The entire missile program has to be offensive in that it's only real effectiveness
would be if the missiles could be fitted with nuclear warheads.



then

Quote:Five: Iran has a lot of oil. A whole lot.

but they can't refine enough because they invested in nuclear research technology
instead of refining capacity
such that they have to export most of the oil to be refined,
and re-import the bulk of it.


Wook
I remember that Ridder video
when he first was televised in 06.
his contention is that the US will have to use ground nuclear weapons on Iran
"when 40000 troops get trapped there on the ground"
during the invasion.
US troops are certainly not going to be trapped by the podunkatollah Iranian army.

I don't think troops are going in until most of, or the entire infrastructure there is toast,
burnt in the Israeli air force toaster.
Quote:that article has some lame stuff unibonger.

(snip)

then

Quote:Five: Iran has a lot of oil. A whole lot.

but they can't refine enough because they invested in nuclear research technology
instead of refining capacity
such that they have to export most of the oil to be refined,
and re-import the bulk of it.

Yeah, but that's not what PNAC plans to do with it and the NeoClowns are the ones who've set the tone on foreign policy the last eight years. Even with Obama saying extremely un-Bush-like stuff like "all nations have a right to peaceful use of nuclear power" he's still required to pound his chest like Tarzan and dish out the big verbal spanky just like George and Condi.

I mean, obviously if you can see where that might get you somewhere in negotiations to stop acting like Iran having an atom of uranium is the smoking gun that they're going to make a crater out of Israel, why all this b.s. in the air about sanctions? It's like just more stuff from Cheney that's taken on a life of its own, and more stuff that sounds like Obama trying to surf the wave from it rather than part the waters.

I haven't much doubt myself that item #5, oil, is where all of our recent Middle Eastern involvement begins and ends (and a lot of our earlier involvement also).

Also, sure - almost any and every missile belongs to the offensive category, but we wrote the book ourselves on how that's "defensive" - don't put us on the defensive or we'll get very offensive. We've got enough to reduce the earth to ashes umpteen time over - purely in self-defense of course.
More Fear Mongering or actual facts?:

By George Friedman
Related Special Topic Page

* The Iranian Nuclear Game



Two major leaks occurred this weekend over the Iran matter.

In the first, The New York Times published an article reporting that staff at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear oversight group, had produced an unreleased report saying that Iran was much more advanced in its nuclear program than the IAEA had thought previously. According to the report, Iran now has all the data needed to design a nuclear weapon. The New York Times article added that U.S. intelligence was re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007, which had stated that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The second leak occurred in the British paper The Sunday Times, which reported that the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s highly publicized secret visit to Moscow on Sept. 7 was to provide the Russians with a list of Russian scientists and engineers working on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The second revelation was directly tied to the first. There were many, including STRATFOR, who felt that Iran did not have the non-nuclear disciplines needed for rapid progress toward a nuclear device. Putting the two pieces together, the presence of Russian personnel in Iran would mean that the Iranians had obtained the needed expertise from the Russians. It would also mean that the Russians were not merely a factor in whether there would be effective sanctions but also in whether and when the Iranians would obtain a nuclear weapon.

We would guess that the leak to The New York Times came from U.S. government sources, because that seems to be a prime vector of leaks from the Obama administration and because the article contained information on the NIE review. Given that National Security Adviser James Jones tended to dismiss the report on Sunday television, we would guess the report leaked from elsewhere in the administration. The Sunday Times leak could have come from multiple sources, but we have noted a tendency of the Israelis to leak through the British daily on national security issues. (The article contained substantial details on the visit and appeared written from the Israeli point of view.) Neither leak can be taken at face value, of course. But it is clear that these were deliberate leaks — people rarely risk felony charges leaking such highly classified material — and even if they were not coordinated, they delivered the same message, true or not.


The Iranian Time Frame and the Russian Role

The message was twofold. First, previous assumptions on time frames on Iran are no longer valid, and worst-case assumptions must now be assumed. The Iranians are in fact moving rapidly toward a weapon; have been extremely effective at deceiving U.S. intelligence (read, they deceived the Bush administration, but the Obama administration has figured it out); and therefore, we are moving toward a decisive moment with Iran. Second, this situation is the direct responsibility of Russian nuclear expertise. Whether this expertise came from former employees of the Russian nuclear establishment now looking for work, Russian officials assigned to Iran or unemployed scientists sent to Iran by the Russians is immaterial. The Israelis — and the Obama administration — must hold the Russians responsible for the current state of Iran’s weapons program, and by extension, Moscow bears responsibility for any actions that Israel or the United States might take to solve the problem.

We would suspect that the leaks were coordinated. From the Israeli point of view, having said publicly that they are prepared to follow the American lead and allow this phase of diplomacy to play out, there clearly had to be more going on than just last week’s Geneva talks. From the American point of view, while the Russians have indicated that participating in sanctions on gasoline imports by Iran is not out of the question, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev did not clearly state that Russia would cooperate, nor has anything been heard from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on the subject. The Russian leadership appears to be playing “good cop, bad cop” on the matter, and the credibility of anything they say on Iran has little weight in Washington.

It would seem to us that the United States and Israel decided to up the ante fairly dramatically in the wake of the Oct. 1 meeting with Iran in Geneva. As IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei visits Iran, massive new urgency has now been added to the issue. But we must remember that Iran knows whether it has had help from Russian scientists; that is something that can’t be bluffed. Given that this specific charge has been made — and as of Monday not challenged by Iran or Russia — indicates to us more is going on than an attempt to bluff the Iranians into concessions. Unless the two leaks together are completely bogus, and we doubt that, the United States and Israel are leaking information already well known to the Iranians. They are telling Tehran that its deception campaign has been penetrated, and by extension are telling it that it faces military action — particularly if massive sanctions are impractical because of more Russian obstruction.

If Netanyahu went to Moscow to deliver this intelligence to the Russians, the only surprise would have been the degree to which the Israelis had penetrated the program, not that the Russians were there. The Russian intelligence services are superbly competent, and keep track of stray nuclear scientists carefully. They would not be surprised by the charge, only by Israel’s knowledge of it.

This, of course leaves open an enormous question. Certainly, the Russians appear to have worked with the Iranians on some security issues and have played with the idea of providing the Iranians more substantial military equipment. But deliberately aiding Iran in building a nuclear device seems beyond Russia’s interests in two ways. First, while Russia wants to goad the United States, it does not itself really want a nuclear Iran. Second, in goading the United States, the Russians know not to go too far; helping Iran build a nuclear weapon would clearly cross a redline, triggering reactions.

A number of possible explanations present themselves. The leak to The Sunday Times might be wrong. But The Sunday Times is not a careless newspaper: It accepts leaks only from certified sources. The Russian scientists might be private citizens accepting Iranian employment. But while this is possible, Moscow is very careful about what Russian nuclear engineers do with their time. Or the Russians might be providing enough help to goad the United States but not enough to ever complete the job. Whatever the explanation, the leaks paint the Russians as more reckless than they have appeared, assuming the leaks are true.

And whatever their veracity, the leaks — the content of which clearly was discussed in detail among the P-5+1 prior to and during the Geneva meetings, regardless of how long they have been known by Western intelligence — were made for two reasons. The first was to tell the Iranians that the nuclear situation is now about to get out of hand, and that attempting to manage the negotiations through endless delays will fail because the United Nations is aware of just how far Tehran has come with its weapons program. The second was to tell Moscow that the issue is no longer whether the Russians will cooperate on sanctions, but the consequence to Russia’s relations with the United States and at least the United Kingdom, France and, most important, possibly Germany. If these leaks are true, they are game changers.

We have focused on the Iranian situation not because it is significant in itself, but because it touches on a great number of other crucial international issues. It is now entangled in the Iraqi, Afghan, Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese issues, all of them high-stakes matters. It is entangled in Russian relations with Europe and the United States. It is entangled in U.S.-European relationships and with relationships within Europe. It touches on the U.S.-Chinese relationship. It even touches on U.S. relations with Venezuela and some other Latin American countries. It is becoming the Gordian knot of international relations.

STRATFOR first focused on the Russian connection with Iran in the wake of the Iranian elections and resulting unrest, when a crowd of Rafsanjani supporters began chanting “Death to Russia,” not one of the top-10 chants in Iran. That caused us to focus on the cooperation between Russia and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on security matters. We were aware of some degree of technical cooperation on military hardware, and of course on Russian involvement in Iran’s civilian nuclear program. We were also of the view that the Iranians were unlikely to progress quickly with their nuclear program. We were not aware that Russian scientists were directly involved in Iran’s military nuclear project, which is not surprising, given that such involvement would be Iran’s single-most important state secret — and Russia’s, too.
A Question of Timing

But there is a mystery here as well. To have any impact, the Russian involvement must have been under way for years. The United States has tried to track rogue nuclear scientists and engineers — anyone who could contribute to nuclear proliferation — since the 1990s. The Israelis must have had their own program on this, too. Both countries, as well as European intelligence services, were focused on Iran’s program and the whereabouts of Russian scientists. It is hard to believe that they only just now found out. If we were to guess, we would say Russian involvement has been under way since just after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, when the Russians decided that the United States was a direct threat to its national security.

Therefore, the decision suddenly to confront the Russians, and suddenly to leak U.N. reports — much more valuable than U.S. reports, which are easier for the Europeans to ignore — cannot simply be because the United States and Israel just obtained this information. The IAEA, hostile to the United States since the invasion of Iraq and very much under the influence of the Europeans, must have decided to shift its evaluation of Iran. But far more significant is the willingness of the Israelis first to confront the Russians and then leak about Russian involvement, something that obviously compromises Israeli sources and methods. And that means the Israelis no longer consider the preservation of their intelligence operation in Iran (or wherever it was carried out) as of the essence.

Two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Israelis no longer need to add to their knowledge of Russian involvement; they know what they need to know. And second, the Israelis do not expect Iranian development to continue much longer; otherwise, maintaining the intelligence capability would take precedence over anything else.

It follows from this that the use of this intelligence in diplomatic confrontations with Russians and in a British newspaper serves a greater purpose than the integrity of the source system. And that means that the Israelis expect a resolution in the very near future — the only reason they would have blown their penetration of the Russian-Iranian system.
Possible Outcomes

There are two possible outcomes here. The first is that having revealed the extent of the Iranian program and having revealed the Russian role in a credible British newspaper, the Israelis and the Americans (whose own leak in The New York Times underlined the growing urgency of action) are hoping that the Iranians realize that they are facing war and that the Russians realize that they are facing a massive crisis in their relations with the West. If that happens, then the Russians might pull their scientists and engineers, join in the sanctions and force the Iranians to abandon their program.

The second possibility is that the Russians will continue to play the spoiler on sanctions and will insist that they are not giving support to the Iranians. This leaves the military option, which would mean broad-based action, primarily by the United States, against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Any military operation would involve keeping the Strait of Hormuz clear, meaning naval action, and we now know that there are more nuclear facilities than previously discussed. So while the war for the most part would be confined to the air and sea, it would be extensive nonetheless.

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow’s actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.

The least that can be said about this is that the Obama administration and Israel are trying to reshape the negotiations with the Iranians and Russians. The most that can be said is that the Americans and Israelis are preparing the public for war. Polls now indicate that more than 60 percent of the U.S. public now favors military action against Iran. From a political point of view, it has become easier for U.S. President Barack Obama to act than to not act. This, too, is being transmitted to the Iranians and Russians.

It is not clear to us that the Russians or Iranians are getting the message yet. They have convinced themselves that Obama is unlikely to act because he is weak at home and already has too many issues to juggle. This is a case where a reputation for being conciliatory actually increases the chances for war. But the leaks this weekend have strikingly limited the options and timelines of the United States and Israel. They also have put the spotlight on Obama at a time when he already is struggling with health care and Afghanistan. History is rarely considerate of presidential plans, and in this case, the leaks have started to force Obama’s hand.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091005 ... t=readmore
Quote:that article has some lame stuff unibonger.

No shit. However, it's certainly no lamer than using the exact same excuse to invade Iran that they used to invade Iraq.

I posted the story mainly for

Quote:On Sept. 21, the Iranian government sent a letter to the IAEA in Vienna describing the construction of a plant designed to enrich uranium, up to 5 percent in purity, sufficient for energy production but well below the 90 percent level required for weapons-grade material. “Further complementary information will be provided in an appropriate and due time,” the letter stated.

According to the provisions of the NPT, Iran and other treaty signatories are required to inform the IAEA six months before a uranium enrichment facility becomes operational. President Ahmadinejad later told a news conference that the new facility won’t be up and running for 18 months.

In other words, Iran was a year early in fulfilling its treaty obligations to provide notice to the IAEA.

But on Sept. 25, U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy interrupted their G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to hold a press conference at which they charged Iran with constructing a secret nuclear fuel facility.

Sarkozy, whose country depends on nuclear power for 80 percent of its energy needs, detailed intelligence information that Brown said would “shock and anger the whole international community.” Obama charged Iran with “breaking rules that all nations must follow ... and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.”

The next day, Iran announced it would place the plant under the IAEA's supervision.

So: Iran built a nuclear facility. Then, fully one year before the required deadline mandated by the U.N.'s NPT, it informed the IAEA about the plant's existence. But, just days before the Oct. 1 seven-nation negotiations, the leaders of the U.S., U.K. and France decided to hold a dramatic press conference to denounce Iran for breaking the rules.

This story was the first time I've seen that. If anyone has the time to hunt through the IAEA's website to verify or deny this info, I would be quite interested since I don't have the time right now.

FWIW V, I'm not supporting Iran, it's just that I find it extremely hard to believe the US/UK/French war propaganda when they are using the same old, tired excuses. Especially when those three countries are all in the top 5 weapons producers. They are doing this to make money pure and simple http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/ I would have also added reason number six as Iran doesn't have a Rothchilds/Rockefeller controlled central bank. Anytime they want to publish anything that even remotely looks like real evidence, I'll look at it. However, all they've given us is propaganda and hearsay.

Peace
in the 60's we had civil defense training
now we have smoke/mirrors up the wazzu
all bs
new motto of USA of strike first and then steal the oil is morally wrong
either drill here or don't use gas and oil.
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />

Iran's Nuclear Threat Is A LIE
By John Pilger
10-6-9

Obama's "showdown" with Iran has another agenda. The media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war

In 2001, the Observer published a series of reports that claimed an "Iraqi connection" to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media "revelations", the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. "Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant", declared the Guardian on 26 September. "Showdown" is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has "put paid to the Bush years". An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: "Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq". Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian "plan" to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year - a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is "psy-ops", the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its "nuclear threat": a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

The threat is one-way

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran's "nuclear status" had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with "high confidence" that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda derives from Obama's announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia's border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the "redundant" missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. "President Bush was right," said Obama, "that Iran's ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US]." That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world's superpower virtually ensconced on Iran's borders.

Iran's crime is its independence. Having thrown out America's favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a "right to exist" in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington's behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear "deterrence", it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel "deplores" UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Preparing for endless war

Obama's "showdown" with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America's NBC. The goal is control of the "strategic prize" of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran - in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing "us" that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal's spurious claim that Iran "is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups" is as desperate as Brown's pathetic echo of "a line in the sand".

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a "first-strike" doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama's media rhetoric about "a world without nuclear weapons". In fact, he is the Pentagon's most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush's secretary of "defence" and arch war- maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with stepped-up wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush's America, Obama's America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?
Quote:
UN/FED/G 20/ WHOTHEFUCKEVER wants one currency
Damned
way past time to be Muaha
and everybody gets along so well in the world
Hmm2
to live peace> in pieces
Naughty
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
[quote author="Wook"]in the 60's we had civil defense training
now we have smoke/mirrors up the wazzu
all bs
new motto of USA of strike first and then steal the oil is morally wrong
either drill here or don't use gas and oil.
Cheers
LonesomeTrail,

I think it boils down to two main things.
War = $$$ / Profits

&

We'd rather use THEIR OIL first and leave our reserves alone.
Pages: 1 2