Iran - Sanctions - Blockades - War - Treaties - to name a few possibilities
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Interesting article on Iran and the US
I hope he has the right take on this situation
Iranian nukes and polls: Wink or blink | The Economist
Iranians are a subtle people. They are used to things not being what they seem, and to words not meaning what they appear to say. Still, it must seem odd that just when some Western leaders have been rattling sabres louder than ever (see Lexington), Western diplomats suddenly proposed, on March 6th, to resume suspended talks with the Islamic Republic over its vexed nuclear programme. It must seem equally strange that Iran’s leaders, who in February bluntly barred the UN’s nuclear inspectors from visiting a particularly suspect site, now suddenly say they are welcome to a tour.
The obvious conclusion is that tough talk on both sides has masked quieter efforts to reach a compromise. A year ago Iran broke off negotiations with a contact group that includes the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany, angered by what it called their narrow focus on nuclear proliferation. In the interim Iran has spewed bellicose rhetoric while accelerating uranium enrichment. Its biggest snub was the denial of access to a military base at Parchin, south-east of the capital, Tehran, where the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says it may have tested detonators suitable for nuclear bombs. Recent satellite images shown to the agency by Western intelligence services are said to reveal signs of a belated clean-up at the site, raising further concerns.
Yet in other respects Iran has continued, grudgingly, to co-operate with the inspection regime. In February Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, reiterated that the Islamic Republic “has never and will never” pursue nuclear weapons because it considers them sinful. Iran’s nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, also suddenly deigned to answer a letter, sent to him in October by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign-policy chief, requesting renewed talks with the six-nation contact group.
Less publicly, Iran has shown that it is beginning to be rattled by increasingly punitive international sanctions. It has, for instance, sharply increased imports of grain, in what looks like an effort to pre-empt future food shortages. Its officials have also dropped their tone of bluster about the economic impact of sanctions, with even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quietly admitting that they hurt.
Perhaps what Iran needs is a face-saving way to climb down. This may explain a recent efflorescence of bravado in official statements. The foreign ministry, for instance, advised Iran’s enemies to “bow before the grandeur and dignity of the Iranian people”. Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, the interior minister, declared that Iran had recently dealt those enemies a “slap in the face” and a “punch in the mouth”.
I hope he has the right take on this situation
Iranian nukes and polls: Wink or blink | The Economist
Iranians are a subtle people. They are used to things not being what they seem, and to words not meaning what they appear to say. Still, it must seem odd that just when some Western leaders have been rattling sabres louder than ever (see Lexington), Western diplomats suddenly proposed, on March 6th, to resume suspended talks with the Islamic Republic over its vexed nuclear programme. It must seem equally strange that Iran’s leaders, who in February bluntly barred the UN’s nuclear inspectors from visiting a particularly suspect site, now suddenly say they are welcome to a tour.
The obvious conclusion is that tough talk on both sides has masked quieter efforts to reach a compromise. A year ago Iran broke off negotiations with a contact group that includes the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany, angered by what it called their narrow focus on nuclear proliferation. In the interim Iran has spewed bellicose rhetoric while accelerating uranium enrichment. Its biggest snub was the denial of access to a military base at Parchin, south-east of the capital, Tehran, where the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says it may have tested detonators suitable for nuclear bombs. Recent satellite images shown to the agency by Western intelligence services are said to reveal signs of a belated clean-up at the site, raising further concerns.
Yet in other respects Iran has continued, grudgingly, to co-operate with the inspection regime. In February Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, reiterated that the Islamic Republic “has never and will never” pursue nuclear weapons because it considers them sinful. Iran’s nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, also suddenly deigned to answer a letter, sent to him in October by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign-policy chief, requesting renewed talks with the six-nation contact group.
Less publicly, Iran has shown that it is beginning to be rattled by increasingly punitive international sanctions. It has, for instance, sharply increased imports of grain, in what looks like an effort to pre-empt future food shortages. Its officials have also dropped their tone of bluster about the economic impact of sanctions, with even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quietly admitting that they hurt.
Perhaps what Iran needs is a face-saving way to climb down. This may explain a recent efflorescence of bravado in official statements. The foreign ministry, for instance, advised Iran’s enemies to “bow before the grandeur and dignity of the Iranian people”. Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, the interior minister, declared that Iran had recently dealt those enemies a “slap in the face” and a “punch in the mouth”.
Gunboats, Super-Torpedoes, Sea-Bots: U.S. Navy Launches Huge Iran Surge | Danger Room | Wired.com
the writing on the wall?? What is it with the US warmongers ??? It looks like they tasted blood and LIKE IT.
At the same time both US and Israeli intelligence agencies believe Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/w...wed-difficulty-of-assessing-nuclear-data.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/w...wed-difficulty-of-assessing-nuclear-data.html
We all know that intelligence agencies are correct all the time, too.
I'm thinking that when Iran first refused to allow inspectors in to survey the issue, they may have been delaying so they could hide any evidence of nuclear armament.
Personally, I'm the sit back and wait to see if any more evidence pops up one way or the other, but definitely keep an awfully careful watch on any activities and be ready for any possibilities. And I wouldn't be swallowing everything I heard, saw, or read from the media. They have one single motive - sensationalism; because it brings in the money and one of its tools is conjecture. Another is taking comments out of context. There are lots more tools.
I'm thinking that when Iran first refused to allow inspectors in to survey the issue, they may have been delaying so they could hide any evidence of nuclear armament.
Personally, I'm the sit back and wait to see if any more evidence pops up one way or the other, but definitely keep an awfully careful watch on any activities and be ready for any possibilities. And I wouldn't be swallowing everything I heard, saw, or read from the media. They have one single motive - sensationalism; because it brings in the money and one of its tools is conjecture. Another is taking comments out of context. There are lots more tools.
Gunboats, Super-Torpedoes, Sea-Bots: U.S. Navy Launches Huge Iran Surge | Danger Room | Wired.com
the writing on the wall?? What is it with the US warmongers ??? It looks like they tasted blood and LIKE IT.
Both sides are posturing. I prefer Obama's way - He started by reaching out to Iran if you recall. What was the result.
Indeed. Same is being reported on BBC. This seems even more convoluted now with all the spin than the pre-Iraq build up to elective invasion.
ONe has to wonder what the underlying hatred of Iran is all about. Seems it is a lot more comlex than the propaganda machine is revealing.
Perhaps because many people think that they are crazier than North Korea and having Nukes would just cause more problems in an area that is a tinderbox.
Any chance you've gone over my last thread on N Korea?
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i.../104982-north-korea-missles-bisquits-nat.html
Any chance you've gone over my last thread on N Korea?
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i.../104982-north-korea-missles-bisquits-nat.html
Just went over it. Russia is having problems with China on a long term gas deal/ pipeline etc are they not?
NG from NA will be on the market as well.
China is also developing their NG fracking tech in partnership companies that have been doing this for a number of years. So how much gas will China need from Russia/Canada/US??
Well, it has gotten pretty darn hard to know what is FACT , what is propaganda with underlying political motives, What are blatant lies and IF there is even a grain to truth to what we the public of the world are told.
It has also gotten so easy to start wars .......and that is a dangerous path to get into......as other options which are usually more difficult , and time consuming ....are less likely to be considered.
the pounding rhetoric repeating some vague and unsubstatiated threat is enough to convince the masses of just about anything. --Particularly if they are prone to war and terrorizing via war.
Suspect that regardless of what is stated the motives are basic. More POWER and CONTROL.....be it of the planets resources and/or geography.
the big problem of course is the lack of credibility the USG has. It lied about invading Iraq....(stockpiles of WMD ) and so many other things........that it is impossible to believe anything it says now. Even if it actually told the truth about a real threat and provided evidence........it would still be suspect.
When a so called powerful nation .......which thinks it is a world leader loses credibility......things can go from bad to worse rather quickly.
The US , Israel can accuse Iran of whatever they think will work or justify another major invasion... but the lack of credibility will continue to be a stain. on their reputation.
It has also gotten so easy to start wars .......and that is a dangerous path to get into......as other options which are usually more difficult , and time consuming ....are less likely to be considered.
the pounding rhetoric repeating some vague and unsubstatiated threat is enough to convince the masses of just about anything. --Particularly if they are prone to war and terrorizing via war.
Suspect that regardless of what is stated the motives are basic. More POWER and CONTROL.....be it of the planets resources and/or geography.
the big problem of course is the lack of credibility the USG has. It lied about invading Iraq....(stockpiles of WMD ) and so many other things........that it is impossible to believe anything it says now. Even if it actually told the truth about a real threat and provided evidence........it would still be suspect.
When a so called powerful nation .......which thinks it is a world leader loses credibility......things can go from bad to worse rather quickly.
The US , Israel can accuse Iran of whatever they think will work or justify another major invasion... but the lack of credibility will continue to be a stain. on their reputation.
Last edited:
Nope. The line has been up and running for quite sometime. Japan is in desperate need of the Russian gas.
China is also partnered up with Iran to supply Pakistan, India and Bangledesh.
Are nukes the real target or is it the gas fields?
India still welcome to join IPI pipeline project: Pakistani official - Xinhua | English.news.cn
The IPI line is in direct competition with US backed TAPI line.
How much more "axis of evil" crap are you willing to swallow?
Four dead Iranian nuclear scientists?
Four Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in the past two years in what Iran – and many others in the international community – believe are operations by the Israeli secret services, or its proxy agents, as part of a covert war.
Iran 'trying to attack Israeli targets in retaliation for scientists' deaths' | World news | guardian.co.uk
Dec 15, 2009
The White House Tuesday defended President Barack Obama's open hand policy towards Iran, after Hillary Clinton said nearly a year of offering dialogue to the Islamic state had achieved little progress.
Obama's open offer was more like an ultimatum. Iran has an NPT right to enrich uranium to 20%. Pure enough to create medical isotopes and generate power, but not pure enough to make a bomb.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 - passed on 31 July 2006. Demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, but did not invoke Chapter VII or impose sanctions.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 - passed on 23 December 2006. Banned the supply of nuclear-related materials and technology and froze the assets of key individuals and companies related to the program.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 - passed on 24 March 2007. Imposed an arms embargo and expanded the freeze on Iranian assets.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 - passed on 3 March 2008. Extended the asset freezes and called upon states to monitor the activities of Iranian banks, inspect Iranian ships and aircraft, and to monitor the movement of individuals involved with the program through their territory.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1835 - Passed in 2008.
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 - passed on 9 June 2010. Banned Iran from participating in any activities related to ballistic missiles, tightened the arms embargo, travel bans on individuals involved with the program, froze the funds and assets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, and recommended that states inspect Iranian cargo, prohibit the servicing of Iranian vessels involved in prohibited activities, prevent the provision of financial services used for sensitive nuclear activities, closely watch Iranian individuals and entities when dealing with them, prohibit the opening of Iranian banks on their territory and prevent Iranian banks from entering into relationship with their banks if it might contribute to the nuclear program, and prevent financial institutions operating in their territory from opening offices and accounts in Iran.
Sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iran has an NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology. Nuke weapon possessing nations have an NPT obligation to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Iran is compliant with the npt. The US, China, Russia, The UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel are not compliant with the NPT.
According to arrangements in force at the time for implementation of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA,[75] Iran was not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into that facility. At the time, Iran was not even required to inform the IAEA of the existence of the facility. This "six months" clause was standard for implementation of all IAEA safeguards agreements until 1992, when the IAEA Board of Governors decided that facilities should be reported during the planning phase, even before construction began. Iran was the last country to accept that decision, and only did so 26 February 2003, after the IAEA investigation began.
To address concerns that its enrichment program may be diverted to non-peaceful uses,[22] Iran has offered to place additional restrictions on its enrichment program including, for example, ratifying the Additional Protocol to allow more stringent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, operating the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as a multinational fuel center with the participation of foreign representatives, renouncing plutonium reprocessing and immediately fabricating all enriched uranium into reactor fuel rods.[23] Iran's offer to open its uranium enrichment program to foreign private and public participation mirrors suggestions of an IAEA expert committee which was formed to investigate the methods to reduce the risk that sensitive fuel cycle activities could contribute to national nuclear weapons capabilities.[24] Some non-governmental U.S. experts have endorsed this approach
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
U.S. and allies agree: Iran does not have a nuclear bomb, may not want one and is far from building one | News | National Post
U.S. and allies agree: Iran does not have a nuclear bomb, may not want one and is far from building one
By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON — The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.
Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
“They’re keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it,” a U.S. administration official said.
Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran’s nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.
That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had “high confidence” that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.
Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of UN nuclear inspections.
They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.
These intelligence findings are what underpin President Barack Obama’s argument that there is still time to see whether economic sanctions will compel Iran’s leaders to halt any program.
The Obama administration, relying on a top-priority intelligence collection program and after countless hours of debate, has concluded that Iranian leaders have not decided whether to actively construct a nuclear weapon, current and former officials said.
There is little argument, however, that Iran’s leaders have taken steps that would give them the option of becoming a nuclear-armed power.
U.S. and allies agree: Iran does not have a nuclear bomb, may not want one and is far from building one
By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON — The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.
Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
“They’re keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it,” a U.S. administration official said.
Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran’s nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.
That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had “high confidence” that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.
Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of UN nuclear inspections.
They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.
These intelligence findings are what underpin President Barack Obama’s argument that there is still time to see whether economic sanctions will compel Iran’s leaders to halt any program.
The Obama administration, relying on a top-priority intelligence collection program and after countless hours of debate, has concluded that Iranian leaders have not decided whether to actively construct a nuclear weapon, current and former officials said.
There is little argument, however, that Iran’s leaders have taken steps that would give them the option of becoming a nuclear-armed power.
"There is little argument, however, that Iran’s leaders have taken steps that would give them the option of becoming a nuclear-armed power."
That's right. A nuclear break out capability. Iran has that now, so they don't need nukes for a nuclear deterrent. just the idea that Iran could build and test a nuke in a relatively short time is the equivalent of a nuclear deterrent..
Also Iran is working on a "space program" to put satellites in space. Just like peaceful nuclear energy, rocket booster technology can have a dual purpose. The same rockets boosters which put satellites in space can also carry warheads across continents. However, the technology isn't a "threat" until Iran actually put a warhead on one of these rockets and prove it works. Until then its a potential threat.
I would also support Iran having their rocket program similarly monitored as their nuclear program. Feel free to put all the satellites into space you want. But put a single war head on one and test it and you get the same consequences as testing a nuclear weapon.
That's right. A nuclear break out capability. Iran has that now, so they don't need nukes for a nuclear deterrent. just the idea that Iran could build and test a nuke in a relatively short time is the equivalent of a nuclear deterrent..
Also Iran is working on a "space program" to put satellites in space. Just like peaceful nuclear energy, rocket booster technology can have a dual purpose. The same rockets boosters which put satellites in space can also carry warheads across continents. However, the technology isn't a "threat" until Iran actually put a warhead on one of these rockets and prove it works. Until then its a potential threat.
I would also support Iran having their rocket program similarly monitored as their nuclear program. Feel free to put all the satellites into space you want. But put a single war head on one and test it and you get the same consequences as testing a nuclear weapon.
I'm not going to pretend to have done anything more than skim the article, but in doing so, it seems to rely considerably on that 2007 report, which I'm pretty sure I recall reading, has been all but torn up and tossed on the trash heap of bad intelligence.
I think they may be papering things over - But possibly not. More reports will come out. The meeting planned with Iran - This report will be looked at by many and I will wait to see what they bring up.
I bolded the areas where you can see some differences on this.
There are also blind spots in U.S. and allied agencies’ knowledge. A crucial unknown is the intentions of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Another question is exactly how much progress Iran made in designing a warhead before mothballing its program. The allies disagree on how fast Iran is progressing toward bomb-building ability: the U.S. thinks progress is relatively slow; the Europeans and Israelis believe it’s faster.
U.S. officials assert that intelligence reporting on Iran’s nuclear program is better than it was on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which proved to be non-existent but which President George W. Bush and his aides used to make the case for the 2003 invasion.
That case and others, such as the U.S. failure to predict India’s 1998 underground nuclear test, illustrate the perils of divining secrets about others’ weapons programs
Israel, which regards a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, has a different calculation. It studies the same intelligence and timetable, but sees a closing window of opportunity to take unilateral military action and set back Iran’s ambitions. Israel worries that Iran will soon have moved enough of its nuclear program underground — or spread it far enough around the country — as to make it virtually impervious to a unilateral Israeli attack, creating what Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently referred to as a “zone of immunity.”
While Israel would not be able to launch an effective offensive in this analysis, the U.S., with its deeper-penetrating bombs and in-air refueling capability, believes it could still get results from a military strike.
Israel has not publicly defined how or when Iran would enter this phase of a nuclear weapons program. Barak said last month that relying on an ability to detect an order by Khamenei to build a bomb “oversimplifies the issue dramatically.”
The 2007 report gummed up efforts by the Bush administration to persuade the UN Security Council and others to add pressure on Iran with more sanctions. It was greeted with disbelief by Israel and some European allies.
“It really pulled the rug out of our sanctions effort until we got it back on track in 2008,” recalled Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to Bush.
Overlooked by many was that the report said Iran had been pursuing a nuclear weapon and was keeping its options open for developing one, he said. “The problem was that it was misinterpreted as an all-clear when it wasn’t that at all,” Hadley said.
So really Goober who is messing with who? Surely you would agree that the persons involved in the first link are acting as enemies of the state of Syria to the point of committing treason and just who are the Lebanese that were caught working for, several have been arrested as Israeli spies in the recent past.
Army Intercepts Two Vehicles Carrying Arms in al-Qaa
The 2nd link would seem that Israel has been at war with Iran for several years, all illegal of course but who gives a **** about their transgressions against neighbors?
Israeli Soldiers Reportedly Already Active in Iran :
Army Intercepts Two Vehicles Carrying Arms in al-Qaa
The 2nd link would seem that Israel has been at war with Iran for several years, all illegal of course but who gives a **** about their transgressions against neighbors?
Israeli Soldiers Reportedly Already Active in Iran :