Iran - Sanctions - Blockades - War - Treaties - to name a few possibilities
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Not sure what to make of this piece yet, perhaps it is tied to an earlier statement, also posted here.
BREAKING NEWS: Israel backing down from Iran threats
Israel is backing down from her threats to bomb Iran.
In a scathing loss of face for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, diplomatic sources in Israel have revealed that President Shimon Peres will meet privately with President Obama at the White House before - repeat before Netanyahu.
High level sources in Israel have just leaked a sanitized version of the President's plan to the Israeli press. But, there is much more to the story. In his meeting at the White House, Peres will inform Obama that Netanyahu has performed poorly in his handling of the Iran nuclear crisis and that bellicose statements from the Prime Minister's cabinet have been both self-intimidating and self-destructive.
Then after meeting with Peres, Obama will address AIPAC and finally meet with Netanyahu to counsel him on the sad fact of the self-inflicted damage to the diplomatic credibility of his right-wing government. More on the diplomatic kabuki in due course.
According to a report in Haaretz, by Yossi Verter (February 22, 2012), entitled Peres to tell Obama Israel should not strike Iran soon,
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday accused Iran of "exaggerating" progress on its disputed nuclear program a day after Tehran unveiled what it said was its first domestically-produced 20-percent enriched uranium.
"The Iranians are continuing to progress but what they presented yesterday was a show. There are many things which have been presented in an exaggerated manner, partly to dissuade the world from going after them," he told public radio by telephone from Tokyo.
His remarks were made a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled what was billed as Tehran's first domestically-produced, 20-percent enriched nuclear fuel for its research reactor.
He also said Tehran had installed another 3,000 centrifuges to increase its uranium enrichment abilities and was stepping up exploration and processing of uranium yellowcake.
"The Iranians are boasting of successes they have not achieved and they still have much to do to reach the second or third generation of centrifuges," said Barak.
Barak Says Iran 'Exaggerating' Nuclear Advances
BREAKING NEWS: Israel backing down from Iran threats
Israel is backing down from her threats to bomb Iran.
In a scathing loss of face for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, diplomatic sources in Israel have revealed that President Shimon Peres will meet privately with President Obama at the White House before - repeat before Netanyahu.
High level sources in Israel have just leaked a sanitized version of the President's plan to the Israeli press. But, there is much more to the story. In his meeting at the White House, Peres will inform Obama that Netanyahu has performed poorly in his handling of the Iran nuclear crisis and that bellicose statements from the Prime Minister's cabinet have been both self-intimidating and self-destructive.
Then after meeting with Peres, Obama will address AIPAC and finally meet with Netanyahu to counsel him on the sad fact of the self-inflicted damage to the diplomatic credibility of his right-wing government. More on the diplomatic kabuki in due course.
According to a report in Haaretz, by Yossi Verter (February 22, 2012), entitled Peres to tell Obama Israel should not strike Iran soon,
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday accused Iran of "exaggerating" progress on its disputed nuclear program a day after Tehran unveiled what it said was its first domestically-produced 20-percent enriched uranium.
"The Iranians are continuing to progress but what they presented yesterday was a show. There are many things which have been presented in an exaggerated manner, partly to dissuade the world from going after them," he told public radio by telephone from Tokyo.
His remarks were made a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled what was billed as Tehran's first domestically-produced, 20-percent enriched nuclear fuel for its research reactor.
He also said Tehran had installed another 3,000 centrifuges to increase its uranium enrichment abilities and was stepping up exploration and processing of uranium yellowcake.
"The Iranians are boasting of successes they have not achieved and they still have much to do to reach the second or third generation of centrifuges," said Barak.
Barak Says Iran 'Exaggerating' Nuclear Advances
Bullies always do, sad thing is bullies aren't eternal, they rise and then they fall.
BTW did that gas price hike happen, it was $0.04/ltr more here.
Why would that be? Perhaps you are referencing my warmongering 'fellow citizens'.
Is anything mortal eternal? Besides that's just an opinion of your's with regards to bullying.
But we are out there and there is not a thing you can do! S-ucks eh?
Heck yeah it did!
Because you're obsessed with war and ache for it. Especially any potential war with Iran. You are dying for someone... ANYONE to attack Iran. That is why I asked you to contact your own government and petition for a war with Iran.
Nations don't fit the definition of being mortal, too bad that would make the world an easier place to live in.
Herper is setting things in motion to attack, some ploy to get out bi-planes (at least they are in working order) in Germany, once we take them out. It's up and away to Iran after that and then who knows, might as well punt Israel at the same time.
Herper is setting things in motion to attack, some ploy to get out bi-planes (at least they are in working order) in Germany, once we take them out. It's up and away to Iran after that and then who knows, might as well punt Israel at the same time.
Last edited:
Iran nuclear program: Tehran seeks further IAEA talks despite 'very long and fruitless' negotiations | News | National Post
VIENNA — Iran wants more talks with the UN nuclear watchdog, its ambassador to the body said, despite what one Western envoy called “very long and fruitless” negotiations this week on addressing growing suspicions about Tehran’s atomic activities.
The relatively upbeat comments by Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were in stark contrast to a terse statement issued by the UN agency on Wednesday after the two days of discussions in Tehran
Our position is that we are going to continue the talks for cooperation with the agency and we hope that this process will be successfully going on,” said Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh.
“We need a quiet environment, a calm environment to continue our professional work with the agency,” he told Reuters late on Thursday.
The IAEA, a Vienna-based UN agency, said no further meetings with Iran are planned, signaling frustration at the lack of progress in two rounds of talks this year.
The setback increased worries about a downward spiral towards conflict between Iran and the West, and sent oil prices higher.
Western diplomats suspect Iran is merely seeking “talks about talks” in an attempt to ease outside pressure on the Islamic state while it presses ahead with nuclear work which the United States and its allies believe has military links.
Iran says allegations of nuclear weapons aims are baseless.
“We try to be cooperative,” said Soltanieh. “We are dealing with the questions and we are trying to remove ambiguities.”
What Would John Adams Do About Iran? - By James Traub | Foreign Policy
Today's president, Barack Obama, as firmly committed to the principle of engagement as Adams was to the principle of neutrality, is still giving diplomacy a chance. But the bugles are sounding. Israeli officials openly and urgently talk about the need for military action; Iran has apparently responded with a barrage of assassination attempts abroad; and polls show that a majority of Americans are prepared to use force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The president is under pressure, not from his own party, but from his adversaries, to issue an ultimatum to Iran. We may be only one stupid mistake away from the point where an attack becomes unavoidable.
Most Americans Distrust Sanctions Would Use Force - Global Agenda - News - Israel National News
week ago Israel National News reported on a Rasmussen poll showing that nearly half of the American people were willing to use force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Now polls produced by the Gallup Institute and the Pew Research Center have revealed that this trend is accelerating. According to Pew, 58% of the respondents support using force to prevent Iran from getting nukes. This broke down into 74% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats and 55% of independents.
When it came to the question of supporting an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program 62% of the Republicans favored such support as compared with 33% for Democrats and Independents. Support for Israel was lowest amongst women and younger voters.
Another important finding of the Pew poll was that by a whopping 64 to 21% Americans do not believe that the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped by economic sanctions.
Gallup reveals that after international terrorism the military power of Iran is considered a critical threat by most (61%) of Americans. Again there is a significant gap in terms of age. At least 63% of Americans 30 years and older believe Iranian military power constitutes a threat as compared with only 47% of Americans 18 to 29 years old.
A significant finding of the Gallup poll shows that the number of Americans viewing the
49% of US Voters: Use Force against Iranian Nuke - Middle East - News - Israel National News
Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that the U.S. should help Israel if it attacks Iran.
According to this week’s The Hill Poll, 49 percent said military force should be used to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while 31 percent said it should not. Twenty percent were not sure.
Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about the possibility Iran would carry out a terrorist strike on the U.S., while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.
Opposing view
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/post...terest_to_go_to_war_against_iran_anytime_soon
So an attack is counter to all our long-term objectives. We are having more effect right now through economic pressure than ever before.
There is no doubt [that there is a huge divergence between U.S. interests and those of Israel]. We want to stop Israel from attacking so the issue is how to persuade Israel that we are serious about stopping Iran from having a weapon-like a congressional finding that we will take all steps necessary to stop Iran. It means we will define red lines that can't be crossed.
But the bottom line is, I don't know a single person in government, civilian or in uniform, who thinks it is in our national interest to go to war with Iran now.
If we do go to war, it will not be small. Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program in maybe five years, but if we go after its abilities to project military power, we'd open a 15-year window."
Today's president, Barack Obama, as firmly committed to the principle of engagement as Adams was to the principle of neutrality, is still giving diplomacy a chance. But the bugles are sounding. Israeli officials openly and urgently talk about the need for military action; Iran has apparently responded with a barrage of assassination attempts abroad; and polls show that a majority of Americans are prepared to use force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The president is under pressure, not from his own party, but from his adversaries, to issue an ultimatum to Iran. We may be only one stupid mistake away from the point where an attack becomes unavoidable.
Most Americans Distrust Sanctions Would Use Force - Global Agenda - News - Israel National News
week ago Israel National News reported on a Rasmussen poll showing that nearly half of the American people were willing to use force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Now polls produced by the Gallup Institute and the Pew Research Center have revealed that this trend is accelerating. According to Pew, 58% of the respondents support using force to prevent Iran from getting nukes. This broke down into 74% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats and 55% of independents.
When it came to the question of supporting an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program 62% of the Republicans favored such support as compared with 33% for Democrats and Independents. Support for Israel was lowest amongst women and younger voters.
Another important finding of the Pew poll was that by a whopping 64 to 21% Americans do not believe that the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped by economic sanctions.
Gallup reveals that after international terrorism the military power of Iran is considered a critical threat by most (61%) of Americans. Again there is a significant gap in terms of age. At least 63% of Americans 30 years and older believe Iranian military power constitutes a threat as compared with only 47% of Americans 18 to 29 years old.
A significant finding of the Gallup poll shows that the number of Americans viewing the
49% of US Voters: Use Force against Iranian Nuke - Middle East - News - Israel National News
Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that the U.S. should help Israel if it attacks Iran.
According to this week’s The Hill Poll, 49 percent said military force should be used to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while 31 percent said it should not. Twenty percent were not sure.
Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about the possibility Iran would carry out a terrorist strike on the U.S., while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.
Opposing view
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/post...terest_to_go_to_war_against_iran_anytime_soon
So an attack is counter to all our long-term objectives. We are having more effect right now through economic pressure than ever before.
There is no doubt [that there is a huge divergence between U.S. interests and those of Israel]. We want to stop Israel from attacking so the issue is how to persuade Israel that we are serious about stopping Iran from having a weapon-like a congressional finding that we will take all steps necessary to stop Iran. It means we will define red lines that can't be crossed.
But the bottom line is, I don't know a single person in government, civilian or in uniform, who thinks it is in our national interest to go to war with Iran now.
If we do go to war, it will not be small. Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program in maybe five years, but if we go after its abilities to project military power, we'd open a 15-year window."
According to Britain's new national newspaper The Sun on Sunday, which was launched today, Britain is drawing up plans for war with Iran.
Britain is planning on sending hundreds of troops and an extra nuclear submarine, armed with Tomahawk cruise missile, to the Gulf.
HMS Daring, one of the Royal Navy's new destroyers, arrived in the region last month to join the Royal Navy ships which are already there - the Type 43 destroyer HMS Argyll and the minesweepers HMS Pembroke, HMS Quorn, HMS Middleton and HMS Ramsey.
British defence chiefs say it is a matter of WHEN not IF war breaks out - with 18 to 24 months the likely timescale.
Britain’s battle plan for war with Iran
Plans ... British army, subs and jets ready
Exclusive
By TOM NEWTON DUNN, Political Editor
The Sun on Sunday
26th Feb 2012
BRITAIN is drawing up plans to send hundreds of troops and an extra nuclear sub to the Gulf as tension mounts with Iran.
Defence chiefs are convinced the UK will be swiftly sucked into any new conflict with Tehran's fanatical regime.
They say it is a matter of WHEN not IF war breaks out - with 18 to 24 months the likely timescale.
The Army, Royal Navy and RAF will have crucial roles if hostilities are triggered by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear stand-off with the world.
The UK will first fly an INFANTRY battalion to the United Arab Emirates, our strong ally in the region, The Sun can reveal.
The move would be a public show of support, demonstrating that Britain is ready to defend the UAE it it comes under attack from Iran. The UAE is separated from Iran by just 34 miles of sea across the Strait of Hormuz.
Further troops could follow if our other allies Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar ask for help.
The Royal Navy has already quietly gathered seven WARSHIPS in the Gulf. HMS Daring — one of its newest and most powerful destroyers — arrived in the region last month to join Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll.
Minesweepers Pembroke, Quorn, Middleton and Ramsey are based in Bahrain and a nuclear submarine is lurking in the area.
Under the war plan, a second sub armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles would be deployed.
The RAF would send Typhoon and Tornado JETS to reinforce helicopter and transport plane crews already stationed in Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the UAE. A senior Whitehall official said: "MoD planners went into overdrive at the start of the year. Conflict is seen as inevitable as long as the regime pursue their nuclear ambitions.
"Britain would be sucked in whether we like it or not, probably via Iranian attacks on our forces in Afghanistan next door to them."
The senior source added: "We also have some very important allies in the region and we stand ready to help them with troops."
Tensions were ratcheted up by the announcement of US and EU sanctions on Tehran's oil to take effect in July. It will lead to Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz — cutting off much of the world's oil.
Air strikes by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities are seen as the most likely trigger for conflict.
Former First Sea Lord and Security Minister Lord West said: "A plan for Iran and the protection of the Strait of Hormuz has been around for quite a long time.
"It's quite right they should be dusting it off and looking at every aspect of what should be done."
Foreign Secretary William Hague has told MPs that a military option must not be taken off the table.
A MoD spokesman said: "We conduct contingency planning for numerous possible scenarios around the world. We want a negotiated solution, not a military one."
Britain’s battle plan for war with Iran | The Sun |News|Politics
Britain is planning on sending hundreds of troops and an extra nuclear submarine, armed with Tomahawk cruise missile, to the Gulf.
HMS Daring, one of the Royal Navy's new destroyers, arrived in the region last month to join the Royal Navy ships which are already there - the Type 43 destroyer HMS Argyll and the minesweepers HMS Pembroke, HMS Quorn, HMS Middleton and HMS Ramsey.
British defence chiefs say it is a matter of WHEN not IF war breaks out - with 18 to 24 months the likely timescale.
Britain’s battle plan for war with Iran
Plans ... British army, subs and jets ready
Exclusive
By TOM NEWTON DUNN, Political Editor
The Sun on Sunday
26th Feb 2012
BRITAIN is drawing up plans to send hundreds of troops and an extra nuclear sub to the Gulf as tension mounts with Iran.
Defence chiefs are convinced the UK will be swiftly sucked into any new conflict with Tehran's fanatical regime.
They say it is a matter of WHEN not IF war breaks out - with 18 to 24 months the likely timescale.
The Army, Royal Navy and RAF will have crucial roles if hostilities are triggered by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear stand-off with the world.
The UK will first fly an INFANTRY battalion to the United Arab Emirates, our strong ally in the region, The Sun can reveal.
The move would be a public show of support, demonstrating that Britain is ready to defend the UAE it it comes under attack from Iran. The UAE is separated from Iran by just 34 miles of sea across the Strait of Hormuz.
Further troops could follow if our other allies Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar ask for help.
The Royal Navy has already quietly gathered seven WARSHIPS in the Gulf. HMS Daring — one of its newest and most powerful destroyers — arrived in the region last month to join Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll.
Minesweepers Pembroke, Quorn, Middleton and Ramsey are based in Bahrain and a nuclear submarine is lurking in the area.
Under the war plan, a second sub armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles would be deployed.
The RAF would send Typhoon and Tornado JETS to reinforce helicopter and transport plane crews already stationed in Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the UAE. A senior Whitehall official said: "MoD planners went into overdrive at the start of the year. Conflict is seen as inevitable as long as the regime pursue their nuclear ambitions.
"Britain would be sucked in whether we like it or not, probably via Iranian attacks on our forces in Afghanistan next door to them."
The senior source added: "We also have some very important allies in the region and we stand ready to help them with troops."
Tensions were ratcheted up by the announcement of US and EU sanctions on Tehran's oil to take effect in July. It will lead to Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz — cutting off much of the world's oil.
Air strikes by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities are seen as the most likely trigger for conflict.
Former First Sea Lord and Security Minister Lord West said: "A plan for Iran and the protection of the Strait of Hormuz has been around for quite a long time.
"It's quite right they should be dusting it off and looking at every aspect of what should be done."
Foreign Secretary William Hague has told MPs that a military option must not be taken off the table.
A MoD spokesman said: "We conduct contingency planning for numerous possible scenarios around the world. We want a negotiated solution, not a military one."
Britain’s battle plan for war with Iran | The Sun |News|Politics
Tell that to the now-extinct USSR.
Possibly.
I don't think anyone is interested in war, except perhaps Iran and Israel (at least not a nuclear war). Well, and perhaps the UK: --->
You are aware Putin is an x-KGB chief right? Somewhat reformed but if you saw his circumcision joke you know he hasn't forgotten anything he was taught. Most of it just turns out to be somewhat counter productive an too expensive to do indefinitely.
In related news sort of. This is the way Syria should handle trials once all the arrests have been made.
(in part)
The Egypt trial of dozens of democracy activists including Americans on charges of receiving illegal funding began in a packed courtroom on Sunday, despite Washington's insistence that the charges be dropped.
A prosecutor in the court in a Cairo suburb read out the charges against the defendants, saying their acceptance of illicit foreign funds had "detracted from the sovereignty of the Egyptian state."
An official with one of the targeted U.S. groups, who requested anonymity, said that only seven of the American defendants are still in the country, the others apparently having left before a travel ban was imposed on the suspects.
Most of the 43 defendants did not show up in court. An Agence France Presse correspondent said the 14 defendants who appeared denied they had committed crimes when asked by the judge.
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/31347-trial-of-foreign-egyptian-activists-begins-in-cairo
... and France and any other NATO member who makes any sort of money in the arms or oil industry.
In related news sort of. This is the way Syria should handle trials once all the arrests have been made.
(in part)
The Egypt trial of dozens of democracy activists including Americans on charges of receiving illegal funding began in a packed courtroom on Sunday, despite Washington's insistence that the charges be dropped.
A prosecutor in the court in a Cairo suburb read out the charges against the defendants, saying their acceptance of illicit foreign funds had "detracted from the sovereignty of the Egyptian state."
An official with one of the targeted U.S. groups, who requested anonymity, said that only seven of the American defendants are still in the country, the others apparently having left before a travel ban was imposed on the suspects.
Most of the 43 defendants did not show up in court. An Agence France Presse correspondent said the 14 defendants who appeared denied they had committed crimes when asked by the judge.
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/31347-trial-of-foreign-egyptian-activists-begins-in-cairo
Last edited:
Blackleaf's celebration of war past, present, and future helps define a peculiar proclivity for violence that detracts from any semblance of civilization that generation of Britons lays claim to. Not only in Britain you say? Pity...
Rule by force is as old as violence itself, was the club defensive or offensive on it's very first use?
A volcano doesn't go off because it wants to conquer a land for it's riches, a volcano is likely to deposit riches.
Fish do hunt fish, that is why minnows hide.
I'll read them later. I smell food cooking. Me hungry.
Irrelevant. Erupting volcanoes are violent. Volcanoes are not sentient, hence there is no motive to rule anything.
Fish are violent. The reason fish are violent is because the need food to survive. They aren't violent so they can rule anything.