• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

'United States planning a military strike against Iran'

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran was giving the IAEA access to their sites and they were referred to the UN. Once the referral took place, Iran stopped playing by the rules.

It wasn't like Iran was not following the rules of the IAEA. In fact they were.

Iraq wasn't letting the IAEA go to certain sites and was being shady. Iran allowed full access to the IAEA including those sites the U.S called military sites.

The IAEA referred Iran because no deal had been reached on enriching their uranium. Under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich their own uranium.
Click to expand...
That won't stop the drums of war, though. When a deal is finally reached, there will be more and more talk about Iran helping fuel the insurgency in Iraq (which has already begun).

Bolton wasn't sent to the UN to reach a diplomatic resolution with Iran.

 
Israel 'US not doing enough to stop Iran'

The United States has until now not done enough to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, a senior Defense Ministry official has told The Jerusalem Post while expressing hope that Wednesday's referral of the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council would prove to be effective.

"America needs to get its act together," the official said. "Until now the US administration has just been talking tough but the time has come for the Americans to begin to take tough action."

The only real way to stop Teheran's race to obtain the bomb apart from military action was through tough economic sanctions that caused the Iranian people to suffer. "Once the people understand that their government is bringing upon them a disaster will they realize that the [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's regime needs to be replaced," the official said.

Iran, the official said, was doing all it could to stall for time, including holding "pointless" talks with Russia concerning the enrichment of its uranium. "They are just trying to get more time and they will continue lying and deceiving the international community while simultaneously trying to obtain nuclear power," he said.

While it was complicated to overthrow the current regime in Teheran, "it is not impossible," the official said. If the world stopped refining Iranian oil, the official said as an example, the country would not have gas for its cars. "If the people start to suffer then they will understand that a change in government is needed." But if the diplomatic course failed, Israel and the US needed to be prepared, the official said, to take military action against Teheran. "This option may be needed but it should only be used as a last resort," he said.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told reporters in Germany on Wednesday that Israel had all it needed to defend itself against Iran. Asked by reporters if Israel had a military plan handy in a desk drawer to strike Iran, Mofaz said: "Israel has many drawers containing everything it needs to defend its citizens." Israel, Mofaz told senior German officials, would not stand by idly while its very existence was at risk. "We do not plan to turn a blind eye to these threats and we will do everything possible to make sure they do not materialize."
Click to expand...

Eh, Israel going to take the unilateral approach and pull a 1981?
 
Well, the US broke up the compromise deal brokered between Iran and Russia. Of course the US isn't doing enough. It wants a war.

Gotta keep feeding the military industrial complex. Have to keep Halliburton's stock price moving up and keep feeding the Carlyle Group.



"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear."
 
Bush says diplomacy way to tackle Iran

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday called Iran a "grave national security concern," but said he sought a diplomatic way to cap its nuclear goals.

A hard-line Iranian cleric told a Friday prayers congregation in Tehran earlier that Bush was using the nuclear issue to further his goal of overthrowing the Islamic Republic.

The United Nations Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions on Iran but is unlikely to do so soon, has begun to tackle Iran's case after the U.N. nuclear watchdog sent the 15 members a report on Wednesday saying it could not verify that Iran's atomic activities were peaceful.

The five council powers with veto rights were working on a statement they hope the full council can consider next week. The statement is expected to call on Iran to suspend all uranium-enrichment activities.

Bush said U.S. concerns were the result of Iran's stated desire to destroy Israel and Washington's belief that Tehran wants to build nuclear bombs -- something the Iranians deny.

"You begin to see an issue of grave national security concern," Bush told a newspaper group.

"Therefore it's very important for the United States to continue to work with others to solve these issues diplomatically, deal with these threats today," he said.

The Security Council will not rush into sanctions. It is likely first to urge Iran to accept International Atomic Energy Agency demands that it halt all uranium enrichment work.

Iran, which has fought to avoid being taken to the council, suspects Bush is only using the nuclear issue as a pretext.

"Bush talks of regime change or change of its behavior, which is the same. It means no Islamic regime," said senior cleric Ahmad Khatami in a sermon in which he also denounced the European Union as a "puppet of U.S. policies."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said diplomacy must continue, but Iranian leaders should not be allowed to "play for time."

"It's time that we take this up in the Security Council," she told reporters traveling with her to Chile.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana spoke for the first time publicly of possible sanctions against Iran.

"I do not rule out sanctions, but it depends on what kind of sanctions they are," Austria's Der Standard daily quoted him as saying. "We certainly do not want to hurt the Iranian people."

However, asked if EU foreign ministers meeting in Salzburg, Austria, would discuss the issue, Solana told reporters: "No. We are talking about a gradual approach to give some room still for diplomacy."

TARGETED SANCTIONS

British Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to pursue Iran's case through the Security Council, saying a failure by Tehran to meet its global obligations would lead to "a serious situation."

European diplomats say if Iran does not respond to U.N. demands, council measures might start with foreign travel bans and asset freezes aimed at Iranian leaders and their families.

The United States, which has its own sweeping sanctions in place against Iran, has pressed for tougher international action to isolate the Islamic Republic. Iran has threatened to retaliate by inflicting "harm and pain" on the United States.

Bush said he assumed the threat was related to the U.S. need for imported energy resources. "For national security purposes we have got to become ... not addicted to oil," he added.

The International Energy Agency said it would be able to plug the gap in global oil supply for several months if Iran, the world's No. 4 oil exporter, halted oil exports.

"The IEA would be capable of compensating for a number of months," President Claude Mandil said. "According to my knowledge, OPEC would not be able to compensate in totality."

Ambassadors from the Security Council's five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- were to meet again on Friday on drafting a statement. The Western powers would like the statement to call on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities and for a report, perhaps in two weeks or a month, on whether Tehran has done so.

After the statement, divisions are expected to emerge, with Russia and China strongly opposing any escalation of measures, including sanctions against Iran.

The EU wants to keep the focus on the widely shared goal of stopping Iran acquiring nuclear bomb technology.

"Our goal is political, not at all punitive," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said when asked about sanctions.

The EU, led by France, Britain and Germany, started talks with Iran in 2003 in the hope of persuading it to scrap uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for power plants or weapons, in exchange for economic and political incentives.

The talks collapsed in August after Iran resumed uranium conversion. The latest bid to revive them failed last Friday.

EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said there was still room for a negotiated solution based on a Russian proposal for Iran to enrich uranium on Russian soil.

Iran, which concealed its nuclear work from the IAEA for 18 years, insists it should be able to carry out some enrichment at home.
Click to expand...
 
All they want is something to come out of the UN and when they don't get it (like they didn't last time), then they'll let loose the Tomahawks.


Transparent as hell this time.
 
West wants 2-week deadline on Iran N-issue

VIENNA: The United States and Europe want the UN Security Council to give Iran a two-week deadline to halt nuclear work that could be weapons-related, according to a draft text for Council action obtained by AFP.

The draft, which was written by European states on the Security Council, marks the beginning of the process by Council members to agree on a presidential statement in what would be its first action against Iran's nuclear programme, diplomats said.

It does not mention sanctions, which diplomats said was never going to be the first Security Council measure, and expresses the conviction that a negotiated solution can be found that guarantees Iran's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that the Iranian crisis must now go to the Security Council, rejecting a Russian call for international talks outside the world body.

Russia, a key trading partner of Iran, is trying to broker a compromise for Iran to enrich uranium on Russian soil in order to give it nuclear fuel but keep it from getting bomb technology. Tehran however refuses to give up enriching uranium on its own.

The draft says the Security Council should "call upon Iran without delay: to re-establish full, sustained and verifiable suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing (for plutonium) activities."

It says the Vienna-based UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency should "report to the Council within 14 days on the implementation by Iran of the actions it has requested."
Click to expand...

 
Iran builds a secret underground complex as nuclear tensions rise

Iran's leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Teheran as they prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear programme, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.

The complex of rooms and offices beneath the Abbas Abad district in the north of the capital is designed to serve as a bolthole and headquarters for the country's rulers as military tensions mount.

Iran uses small attack boats to simulate assaults on US warships
The recently completed command centre is connected by tunnels to other government compounds near the Mossala prayer ground, one of the city's most important religious sites.

Offices of the state security forces, the energy department and the Organisation of Islamic Culture and Communications are all located in the same area.

The construction of the complex is part of the regime's plan to move more of its operations beneath ground. The Revolutionary Guard has overseen the development of subterranean chambers and tunnels - some more than half a mile long and an estimated 35ft high and wide - at sites across the country for research and development work on nuclear and rocket programmes.

The opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) learnt about the complex from its contacts within the regime. The same network revealed in 2002 that Iran had been operating a secret nuclear programme for 18 years.

The underground strategy is partly designed to hide activities from satellite view and international inspections but also reflects a growing belief in Teheran that its showdown with the international community could end in air strikes by America or Israel. "Iran's leaders are clearly preparing for a confrontation by going underground," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, the NCRI official who made the 2002 announcement.

America and Europe believe that Iran is secretly trying to acquire an atomic bomb, although the regime insists that its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes.

As the United Nations Security Council prepares to discuss Iran's nuclear operations this week, Teheran has been stepping up plans for confrontation. Its chief delegate on nuclear talks last week threatened that Iran would inflict "harm and pain" on America if censured by the Security Council.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline president who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", also said that the West would "suffer" if it tried to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. As the war of words intensified, President George W Bush said that Teheran represents a "grave national security concern" for America.

In Iraq, which Mr Ahmadinejad hopes will develop into a fellow Shia Islamic state, Iran is already using its proxy militia to attack British and American forces, often with Iranian-made bombs and weapons. As tensions grow, Teheran could order Hizbollah - the Lebanese-based terror faction that it created and arms - to attack targets in Israel.

The regime is also reviewing its contingency plans to attack tankers and American naval forces in the Persian Gulf and to mine the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 15 million barrels of oil (about 20 per cent of world production) passes each day. Any action in the Gulf would send oil prices soaring - a weapon that Iran has often threatened to wield.

The Pentagon's strategic planning is focused on the danger that Iran might try to mine the strait and deploy explosive-packed suicide boats against its warships. In May, American vessels in the Gulf will take part in the Arabian Gauntlet training exercise that deals with clearing mines from the strait, which has a navigable channel just two miles wide.

The naval wing of the Revolutionary Guard has in recent years practised "swarming" raids, using its flotilla of small rapid-attack boats to simulate assaults on commercial vessels and United States warships, according to Ken Timmerman, an American expert on Iran.

The Pentagon is particularly sensitive to the dangers of such attacks after al-Qaeda hit the USS Cole off the Yemen with a suicide boat in 2000, killing 17 American sailors. Last month the White House listed two foiled al-Qaeda plots to attack ships in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

US intelligence believes that if Iranian nuclear facilities were attacked by either America or Israel, then Teheran would respond by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz with naval forces, mines and anti-ship cruise missiles.

"When these systems become fully operational, they will significantly enhance Iran's defensive capabilities and ability to deny access to the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz," Michael Maples, the director of the Defence Intelligence Agency testified before the Senate armed services committee last month.

A senior American intelligence officer said that the US navy would be able to reopen the strait but that it would be militarily costly. Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former Iranian intelligence officer, recently told Mr Timmerman that the Iranian navy's Strategic Studies Centre has produced an updated battle plan for the strait.

Its most devastating options would be to use its long-range Shahab-3 missiles to attack Israeli or American bases in the region or to deploy suicide bombers in Western cities under its strategy of "asymmetric" response.

"The price to the West for standing up to Iran is clear," Gen Moshe Ya'alon, the former Israeli defence chief said last month in Washington. "It includes terror attacks, economic hardship? and consequences resulting from fluctuations in Iranian oil production. Indeed, the regime believes that the West - including Israel - is afraid to deal with it."
Click to expand...
 
'Iran not willing to use oil as weapon'

Iran opts out of Russian enrichment plan

TEHRAN: Iran is not willing to use oil as a bartering weapon in its foreign policy, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Sunday.

"Iran is willing not to use oil (as a weapon) in its foreign policy and remain a reliable (energy) source," Mottaki said during a conference in Tehran.

Mottaki's remarks were in contradiction to Saturday's warning by Interior Minister Mustafa Pourmohammadi to keep all options open with regard to Iran's energy resources and control of "the sensitive global energy route" that is the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

Mottaki told reporters that he still believed Iran could gain the right to pursue civilian nuclear technology through international channels "but if Iran reached a stage where international means could no longer maintain Iran's interests, then the country would revise its stance".

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi caused some confusion on Sunday after first saying that the reporting of the Iranian nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council automatically excluded Russia's uranium enrichment proposal, but later revised his own remarks.

"As we had predicted, the Iranian nuclear case has eventually been politicised in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and reported to the Security Council and therefore the Russian plan is no longer on our agenda," Assefi had said during a conference in Tehran.

Tehran and Moscow have held several rounds of talks on a Russian plan to enrich converted Iranian uranium on Russian territory. Iran had warned that, in the case of a UN referral, the Russian plan would be dropped.

But in an interview with the news agency ISNA later on Sunday, Assefi said that Iran would continue talks with the Russians "although a new situation has emerged following the UN reporting".

"We, however, told the Russians that we will not drop (small-scale uranium enrichment within) our research and development plan," Assefi told ISNA.

He also rejected speculation that Iran would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and branded press reports in this regard as incorrect.

Asked when Iran would start uranium enrichment on an industrial scale, Assefi said Iran would wait "two or three days" before deciding on the issue.

Iran is considered by nuclear experts of not yet being capable of starting large-scale enrichment within the next two years.
Click to expand...

Oil or no oil as a weapon.... Backing off the Russian proposal will certainly make talks a bit more interesting for the SC.
 
Senators: Force remains option in Iran dispute

Presidential hopefuls Allen, Biden say Tehran should not have nukes

WASHINGTON - The United States probably can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons without military action, but use of force, subject to congressional approval, is still an option, U.S. lawmakers said Sunday.

?I think we can stop them from having a nuclear weapon short of war,? Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said on NBC?s ?Meet The Press.?

Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia said on the same show: ?Ultimately, you never want to take military action off the table. But you never want it to get that far. But if necessary, it is an option. But it is not one that is desirable.

?We can?t allow them to have a nuclear weapon. It would be too dangerous for us, for our allies, and for the rest of the world,? Allen said.

Biden and Allen, both potential U.S. presidential candidates in 2008, agreed that Washington must work with other countries to deal with Iran, and that Bush would need congressional approval before the United States participates in military action to curb Iran?s nuclear weapons program.

?He has to do that,? Biden said.

?I believe he should, and I believe he would if necessary,? said Allen.

Russian deal appears dead
The U.N. Security Council was due to take up Iran?s case this week after the International Atomic Energy Agency sent the council a report saying it could not verify that Iran?s nuclear plans were purely peaceful.

Iran Sunday said it was no longer considering a Russian compromise deal intended to overcome the international dispute over whether Tehran is seeking to build an atomic bomb.

Russia had proposed making nuclear fuel for Iran to ensure uranium was enriched only to the low level needed for power stations. But Iran was unwilling to surrender its right to enrich uranium on its own soil.

While en route to Indonesia from Chile, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran?s announcement was not a surprise.

?They were interested, but they have never really demonstrated that they were interested in the Russian proposal as the Russians had actually put it forward,? Rice said.

President Bush said Friday that Iran is a ?grave national security concern,? but said it was important to use diplomatic means to deal with Iran?s uranium enrichment-related activities.

Iran, which has fought to avoid being taken to the U.N. Security Council, suspects Bush is using the nuclear issue as a pretext for promoting a change in the Islamic republic?s government.

The possibility of sanctions against Iran was mentioned late last week by Javier Solana, the foreign policy chief at the European Union, which an Iranian senior cleric denounced as a ?puppet of U.S. policies.?

Ambassadors from the Security Council?s five permanent members?the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China ? met Friday on drafting a statement. The British and French ambassadors both said the consultation would continue, an indication the five had not agreed on a text.

The Western powers would like the statement to call on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment-related activities and to seek a report, perhaps in two weeks or a month, on whether Tehran has done so.

Divisions are expected to emerge after the statement, with Russia and China strongly opposing any escalation of measures, including sanctions, against Iran.
Click to expand...
 
Pentagon examining chances of Israeli strike against Iran

The Pentagon is looking into the possibility of Israel launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In the past months there were several working-level discussions trying to map out the possible scenarios for such an attack, according to administration sources who were briefed on these meetings.

The discussions, which were describes as intelligence-oriented and not policy-oriented, examined the likelihood of an Israeli pre-emptive attack against Iran and the method in which such an attack could be carried out. One of the main questions presented in these discussions was whether Israel would inform the US in advance in case such an attack is to take place and when would such an advance notice be given.

The sources pointed out that it is clear that Israel would have to coordinate with the US forces air control any attempt to fly over Iraq on the way to Iran, if Israel chooses to attack using the shortest route.

Last week, former Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon said in Washington that the West does have a military option against Iran and that a joint US-NATO-Israeli air strike against dozens of nuclear facilities in Iran could set back Teheran's nuclear programs for several years.

The sources stresses that Ya'alon's remarks were not the trigger for the Pentagon consultations about a possible Israeli attack but added that there is a sense in the administration that the Iranian issue is gaining urgency.

The Washington Post reported Monday that the Bush administration has made Iran a top priority issue and that the president and his team had several meetings on the issue to discuss Iran's nuclear plans.

The Pentagon discussions, according to the sources, did not lead to any conclusion regarding the plausibility of an Israeli attack against Iran, nor did it recommend any action by the US.

Israeli and US sources have said in the past weeks that the US did not convey any message to Israel in which it asked to refrain from an attack and has not raised the issue in bilateral discussions with the Israelis. Both countries share intelligence on the situation in Iran and the advance of the nuclear program, but do not discuss - according to sources who took part in bilateral talks - the possibility of using military force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The American assumption, according to the administration sources, is that an Israeli decision on attacking Iran is not imminent and that in any case it would not be taken before the Israeli elections, scheduled for March 28.

One of the questions Pentagon analysts are grappling with is how an Israeli attack - if launched - would affect the US and its forces in the region and whether it would force the US to follow with further strikes in order to complete the mission. The US is also discussing what could be the possible avenues of retaliation Iran would take against US's forces and interests in the region.

US Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that all options are "on the table" regarding Iran and on Sunday leading senators pointed out in TV interviews that the US can stop Iran's nuclear program. Senator George Allen (R-VA) said, relating to the question of using military force against Iran, that it is not the preferable route, but "if necessary, it is an option", and Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) stressed that he believed that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped "short of war".

The UN Security Council is expected to take on the Iranian issue this week. During the weekend consultations continued between the US and European representatives and those from Russia and China in attempt to reach an agreement on the language of a Security Council presidential declaration regarding Iran.

The Americans would like to include a clause that would give Iran a 14 day ultimatum to accept the international community's conditions, before moving ahead with sanctions. Western diplomats said Monday that it is not clear if Russia and China would agree to such an ultimatum and speculated that they might insist on a month's period instead of the proposed 14 days.
Click to expand...

Israeli ran attack looking more the possibility, with 14 days to a month ultimatum, just a matter of time imho.
 
Hmmm...an "ultimatum" already? What about diplomacy?

Oh, well, we can't have that Iranian oil bourse running based on the Euro and we need something to distract the cessation of the publication of M3 (both of which occur by the end of March).


How quaint.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Hmmm...an "ultimatum" already? What about diplomacy?

Oh, well, we can't have that Iranian oil bourse running based on the Euro and we need something to distract the cessation of the publication of M3 (both of which occur by the end of March).
How quaint.
Click to expand...

yayyyy for Conjie! postcount+1!
 
ya, i have something to add "on topic"...

If and when we do go into Iran, or bomb them back to the stoneage, whichever; please try, just this once, to let the real men and women of this country handle it this time... without filling the airwaves and blogs with all of your leftist sniveling and whining; and ultimately, getting in our way!

Let us fight and win without interference from the left, and alllll will be swell. cool? good. now step aside...

good leftie.. woof!

---

Stop trolling or stop posting. If you cannot do the first option, we can and will enforce the second one.

AnandTech Moderator
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya, i have something to add "on topic"...

If and when we do go into Iran, or bomb them back to the stoneage, whichever; please try, just this once, to let the real men and women of this country handle it this time... without filling the airwaves and blogs with all of your leftist sniveling and whining; and ultimately, getting in our way!

Let us fight and win without interference from the left, and alllll will be swell. cool? good. now step aside...

good leftie.. woof!
Click to expand...

Wow. He showed you, conjur. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya, i have something to add "on topic"...

If and when we do go into Iran, or bomb them back to the stoneage, whichever; please try, just this once, to let the real men and women of this country handle it this time... without filling the airwaves and blogs with all of your leftist sniveling and whining; and ultimately, getting in our way!

Let us fight and win without interference from the left, and alllll will be swell. cool? good. now step aside...

good leftie.. woof!
Click to expand...
Wow. He showed you, conjur. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yeah...that one left a mark (I was laughing so hard I split my gut.)
 
Iran has a deathwish. Let them continue to posture..

The Iranian government is seeking to give their citizens exactly what they want. A government that speaks for them, by spouting out beliefs that most of the Muslim world believes, yet is too scared to speak publicly. Remember, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, it wouldn't suprise me if 90% of the Saudi population agreed with everything the Iranian government has been saying, from their Holocaust Denial Convention to their blind hatred of the West. About damn time we heard a true message coming from an Arab regime.. Most of the other governments in the region hide behind their language and rhetoric, at least the Iranians are honest.

Lets see how the rest of the world reacts, I'm thinking this will be the flash point in the next World War.
 
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Iran has a deathwish. Let them continue to posture..

The Iranian government is seeking to give their citizens exactly what they want. A government that speaks for them, by spouting out beliefs that most of the Muslim world believes, yet is too scared to speak publicly. Remember, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, it wouldn't suprise me if 90% of the Saudi population agreed with everything the Iranian government has been saying, from their Holocaust Denial Convention to their blind hatred of the West. About damn time we heard a true message coming from an Arab regime.. Most of the other governments in the region hide behind their language and rhetoric, at least the Iranians are honest.

Lets see how the rest of the world reacts, I'm thinking this will be the flash point in the next World War.
Click to expand...

Very well, could be the case. I'm certainly hoping that it isn't.
 
Iran Leader: Nuclear Path 'Irreversible'

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

TEHRAN, Iran Mar 14, 2006 (AP)? Iran's supreme leader issued a tough line on his country's suspect nuclear program Tuesday, saying it is "irreversible" and any retreat would endanger the Islamic republic's independence.

The confrontational tone from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, set Iran on a collision course with the West as the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council debated how to deal with fears Tehran is seeking to develop atomic weapons.

After meeting Tuesday at the United Nations, the Security Council powers remained divided over how strong a statement to make on Iran's nuclear program. A British-French draft demands that Iran halt all uranium enrichment, which can be used to make nuclear arms, and calls for a report within weeks on Iran's progress toward answering questions about its nuclear program.

Russia and China, which have strong economic ties with Tehran, say the draft does not leave enough room for diplomacy and focuses too much on possible action by the council, which could impose sanctions.

The White House said the calls by Moscow and Beijing for a negotiated end to the crisis do not mean the end of U.S. hopes for a strong statement from the 15-nation council.

"That's premature to get into that kind of discussion," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The discussions are ongoing."

McClellan said Iran wants to divert attention from the real issue, but that "all nations understand the importance of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. ? This is about the regime's behavior."

At the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the Bush administration wants to move "as quickly as we can," although he added that it wants to maintain the unity of the five permanent council members that wield veto power.

"Every day that goes by is a day that permits the Iranians to get closer to a nuclear weapons capability," Bolton said.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also called for a "robust and determined" stance from the United Nations and said his country would consider pushing for a weapons embargo against Iran if efforts to force it to clear up questions about its nuclear intentions fail.

Khamenei's comments further dimmed already fading hopes for a compromise proposal by Moscow that called for uranium enrichment to take place entirely on Russian soil and was seen as the last chance for averting a standoff at Security Council over Iran.

Tehran has been giving conflicting signals on the proposal, announcing over the weekend that it was no longer being considered, then saying talks with Russia were still under way.

Khamenei intervened Tuesday to lay down the one of his strongest statements on the nuclear issue, apparently aimed at ending any compromising tone from moderates within the Iranian government.

He told Iranian diplomats who were called home for consultations that there would be no backing down.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue ? as breaking the country's independence which will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," Khamenei said, according to state television.

"This path is irreversible and the foreign policy establishment has to bravely defend Iran's rights," he told the diplomats.

In a nationally televised speech, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also vowed to resist pressure from the Security Council, saying "no power" can take nuclear technology from Iran.

"They should know that through propaganda, political pressures and games they play nowadays ? (they) can't prevent the Iranian nation from pursuing its path," he said, referring to the West.

Russian negotiators held talks with an Iranian delegations Tuesday in Moscow, urging a diplomatic solution to the standoff. The Iranians left the Russian capital after the talks, with no announcement of any progress. Moscow has appeared increasingly frustrated with Iran, a longtime ally that Russia is helping to build its first nuclear reactor.

In another sign Tehran was preparing for the worst, officials told editors of Iran's newspapers in recent meetings that editorials criticizing the government's nuclear policies won't be tolerated, according to an internal newsletter of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, Iran's largest reformist party.

The nuclear program is a source of national pride in Iran, and even pro-reform figures have supported its pursuit.

But criticism has been growing among reformists of Ahmadinejad's foreign policy performance. The Islamic Iran Participation Front said in its newsletter this week that Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" last year rang alarm bells in Western capitals and unnecessarily provoked the West against Iran.

The United States and some in Europe accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its program aims only to use nuclear reactors to generate electricity. It insists on its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to fully develop peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

The United States and its European allies want Iran to permanently abandon uranium enrichment, because the process can produce not only fuel for a reactor but also the material for a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

This is headed for full fledged disaster.
 
He's posturing to the hard liners in the Iranian gov't. Much like Saddam bluffed the non-existence of WMDs to achieve some level of fear throughout the Middle East to provide cover for the reality of his weakened military capabilities.

Trouble is, this administration and the M$M are playing right into the fear-mongering.

Just tune into CNN tomorrow with Lou Dobbs and catch Bolton (co-founding PNAC fvck).
 
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
The only way to be safe from American aggression is to possess nukes... could you blame ANY nation for wanting to protect itself against what we see in Iraq ?
America can't allow Iran to have nukes for two reasons:
1) It tips the M.E. balance of power too far back towards the people who actually live there instead of the US and it's ally Isreal.
2) It's against Israel's national interests.
Click to expand...


you forgot the most important one....
it stops the mad ayatollahs from holding the world hostage

i's let Israel hold a gun to my head before I would let the Iranians get their hands on Swiss army knives.... at least the Israelis are rational
 
Originally posted by: DeeKnow
.... at least the Israelis are rational
Click to expand...

This is a joke right? *taps sarcasm meter*

You DO know the sh1t their government does to women and children, like putting them in camps and stuff..killing them..bulldozing houses...right?

There is nothing rational imo about either side of that mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top