Iranian regime ‘frightens me,’ Harper says

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

They have been pushing and pushing Iran to suspend enrichment, without any basis for doing so. They continuously quote "an unnamed member nation" as a source of supposed intelligence about supposed experiments, but of course, we cannot see it.

I'd prefer that the guys who have the ability to kill millions with a nuclear strike have a shred of sanity. You can criticize the United States or even the Soviets in their heyday, but the fact remains that they managed to keep those missiles in their silo's. Iran's crazy government, it's fanatical religious caveman can't be trusted and therefore pose a real risk.

 

[earth_as_one]

I'd prefer that the guys who have the ability to kill millions with a nuclear strike have a shred of sanity. You can criticize the United States or even the Soviets in their heyday, but the fact remains that they managed to keep those missiles in their silo's. Iran's crazy government, it's fanatical religious caveman can't be trusted and therefore pose a real risk.

The only thing that kept those missiles in their silos was MAD. Any nuclear attack by either side would be followed up by Mutual Assured Destruction.

I imagine, Iranians would sleep easier knowing that if the US or Israel attacked Tehran, that Iran could retaliate against Washington or Tel Aviv. Currently the US and Israel can and do attack countries without nuclear weapons with the security of knowing that if their war goes badly, they can always stop the war with a few nukes. If Iraq had a few nukes and the ability to deliver them to downtown Los Angeles, then hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians might still be alive.

 

[captain morgan]

MAD might just replaced with MID (Million Iranians Dead) if Tehran thinks that they have a hope in hell on taking on the big boys.

 

[earth_as_one]

Thanks for the info by the way.

I actually read the IAEA reports on Iran, they make them publicly available on their webpage. Although you really have to dig to find them. You can read the latest here: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) :: IAEA and Iran :: IAEA Reports.

You are quite correct though. They have been pushing and pushing Iran to suspend enrichment, without any basis for doing so. They continuously quote "an unnamed member nation" as a source of supposed intelligence about supposed experiments, but of course, we cannot see it.

Also, their unwillingness to name the source is damning, in my view. Seeing as how the US lied about Iraq seeking nuclear weapons, it is clear that their intelligence organizations are willing to manufacture evidence, and present that evidence to the international community.

I've come to the conclusion that the bulk of the intel did not support allegations that Iraq possessed WMD stockpiles. The Office of Special Plans cherry picked the intel and only supporting evidence was made public. Intel which did not support the case for war was suppressed.

Also, this report by UN Chief Weapon Inspector Hans Blix to the UNSC 13 days before the US invaded Iraq proves the US had no case for war:

>>>
SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003
Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC
Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix

....UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

Security Council 7 March 2003

>>>
13 days later.... 20 Mar 2003 – Bush Declares War on Iraq

Most of the cherry picked intel supporting the case for war came from the Office of Special Plans:

The Office of Special Plans was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
Special investigation: The spies who pushed for war on Iraq | World news | The Guardian

Selective Intelligence
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
by Seymour M. Hersh
May 12, 2003

They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans...
Annals of National Security: Selective Intelligence : The New Yorker

 

[Sparrow]

If everybody would leave Iran alone they would stew in their own soup.

 

[Cliffy]

If everybody would leave Iran alone they would stew in their own soup.

But that is not good for the business of war mongering.

 

[earth_as_one]

MAD might just replaced with MID (Million Iranians Dead) if Tehran thinks that they have a hope in hell on taking on the big boys.

I am unsure of the point you are trying to make.

It almost sounds like you are making a case in favor of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons so that they can defend themselves from existing nuclear powers which represent an existential threat. But I suspect your point is that Iranians should get comfortable with a constant nuclear threat hanging over their heads and just passively accept that the US and Israel will always be able to start unprovoked wars which kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people because they can always resort to their nuclear arsenals and kill millions of innocent people.

BTW, as per the mandatory part of the NPT, nuke weapon possessing countries are required to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. That's what the non-nuke possessing countries expected when they ratified the NPT. So far not a single nuke nation has renounced their nukes. Instead every one of them has continued to possess nukes and develop new types of nukes in violation of the NPT. How long should Iran and other non-nuke nations wait for the nuke possessing nations to comply with the NPT, before they tire of a constant nuclear threat hanging over their heads and become justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent so that they can defend themselves from belligerent "big boys" with a history of starting unprovoked wars and threatening non-nuke nations with their nuclear weapons?

>>>>

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
US government policies continue to rely on nuclear weapons for security. Plans for "modernizing" the nuclear weapons complex by building new nuclear warhead production facilities are moving ahead. The US has thus far failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, although a unilateral testing moratorium has been in place since 1992. The US Nuclear Posture Review, leaked to the press in January 2002, included contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, five of which are non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the NPT, in direct contradiction to long-standing security assurances given to countries without nuclear weapons.
NAPF - Nuclear Weapons Issues
>>>

As Bush threatens Iraq with nukes,
US ramps up its own biowarfare research
Bush threatens Iraq with nukes

If everybody would leave Iran alone they would stew in their own soup.

I suspect that eventually Iranians will overthrow their Theocracy. Wait until the next election. If its not free and fair, I suspect the country will descend into chaos...

 

[lone wolf]

Careful about that "just like Canada" reference. CANDU reactors are heavy-water moderated natural uranium reactors that can be used effectively for weapon-grade plutonium production.

India's Nuclear Weapons Program - Present Capabilities

 

[TenPenny]

I don't trust Iran's leaders. But so far, their statements are supported by the known evidence.

That would depend on what you choose to believe, I suppose.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

MAD doesn't apply to the insane.

 

[ironsides]

Is with us. ;-)

 

[Niflmir]

I'd prefer that the guys who have the ability to kill millions with a nuclear strike have a shred of sanity. You can criticize the United States or even the Soviets in their heyday, but the fact remains that they managed to keep those missiles in their silo's. Iran's crazy government, it's fanatical religious caveman can't be trusted and therefore pose a real risk.

I'm sorry, I don't think there is anything to be afraid of. Why anyone would feel the need to run for a bomb shelter before Iran even has a nuclear bomb is a mystery to me. Pakistan has far stronger proven ties to terrorism, is in an active war with another nation, is run by a totalitarian military government, and has nuclear weapons. So I just don't see your point.

Also, why the fixation on the US and Russia? There are more nations with nuclear weapons than 2.

 

[Spade]

When I was a very young lad, I was convinced I saw vampires in the darkness. I took to wearing a cross as protection. When I was older, I realized they were but shadows.

 

[darkbeaver]

Nuclear World War 1 dsn't scare this PM but failure to help it occur very certainly does.He's calculated the repercussions of failure. I wonder what our history books will say fifty years out?

 

[mentalfloss]

U.S. rejects Israeli assessment that Iran sanctions are ineffective

A senior U.S. official said Wednesday that Iran sanctions are effective, contrasting a recent statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the current sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic are insufficient to curb its nuclear program.

In a briefing to reporters on Wednesday morning, ahead of the arrival of U.S. military chief Martin Dempsey to Israel, a senior State Department official rejected the Israeli government's assessment that the sanctions on Iran are not working.

The State Department official maintained that sanctions on Iran must be gradual, and clarified that the U.S. administration has a clear plan and deadlines for the implementation of unprecedented sanctions, including on Iran's central bank.

She stressed that the U.S. is working to avoid a sudden jump in oil prices, thus sanctions must be imposed gradually.

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that the U.S. military is fully prepared to deal with any threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, adding that no "special steps" were being taken at this point to bolster American forces in the region.

Asked at a Pentagon news briefing whether Iran's threats had prompted a repositioning of U.S. forces in the region, Panetta said: "We are not [taking] any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation."

"Why? Because frankly we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now," Panetta said.
On Sunday, Netanyahu said that the current Iran sanctions are ineffective and said that unless further sanctions would be imposed on its central bank and oil industry, Iran's nuclear program will not be stopped.

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on that Israel was "very far off" from a decision about an attack on Iran over its nuclear program.

Barak was speaking on Israel's Army Radio ahead of a planned visit this week by U.S. armed forces chief General Martin Dempsey that has triggered speculation Washington would press Israel to delay any action against Tehran's nuclear program.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that Israel was "very far off" from a decision about an attack on Iran over its nuclear program.

Barak was speaking on Israel's Army Radio ahead of a planned visit this week by U.S. armed forces chief General Martin Dempsey that has triggered speculation Washington would press Israel to delay any action against Tehran's nuclear program.

U.S. rejects Israeli assessment that Iran sanctions are ineffective - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

 

[earth_as_one]

Which is why Israel's leaders have started murdering Iranian scientists....

Iran's nuclear scientists are not being assassinated. They are being murdered

Killing our enemies abroad is just state-sponsored terror – whatever euphemism western leaders like to use

Monday 16 January 2012 21.29 GMT

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, the Iranian nuclear scientist killed in Tehran on January 11, with his son, Alireza. Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images

On the morning of 11 January Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, the deputy head of Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, was in his car on his way to work when he was blown up by a magnetic bomb attached to his car door. He was 32 and married with a young son. He wasn't armed, or anywhere near a battlefield.
Since 2010, three other Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in similar circumstances, including Darioush Rezaeinejad, a 35-year-old electronics expert shot dead outside his daughter's nursery in Tehran last July. But instead of outrage or condemnation, we have been treated to expressions of undisguised glee...
Iran's nuclear scientists are not being assassinated. They are being murdered | Mehdi Hasan | Comment is free | The Guardian


If Iran's leaders murdered Israeli scientists, I'm pretty sure our news and political leaders would have little trouble identifying these crimes as acts of terrorism...

 

[ironsides]

OK. Looks like something out of a spy movie plot.

 

[earth_as_one]

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage - torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians - which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side...
George Orwell might have been describing almost exactly the Western response to the murder spree currently underway in Iran.

 

[L Gilbert]

"Iranian regime ‘frightens me,’ Harper says"
lol I bet a lot of things frightens him. Science, for instance; atheism, agnosticism, etc., too.

 

[In Between Man]

"Iranian regime ‘frightens me,’ Harper says"
lol I bet a lot of things frightens him. Science, for instance; atheism, agnosticism, etc., too.