It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran recalls Ambassadors

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I hope this isn't a portent of something coming. Should this start sending alarms or not?

www.znbc.co.zm...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recalled a string of ambassadors from high-profile postings.

Tehran's senior diplomats in the UK, France, Germany and at the United Nations in Geneva are being replaced.

Heard on Global News that they will be replaced by hardliners. I think the temperature in the world political waters are starting to cool.

www.heraldsun.news.com.au...

Beginning next week, the Iranians will start a new phase of uranium conversion at Isfahan," a European diplomat familiar with the result of inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog said.

"They will begin feeding a new batch of uranium into the plant."

The move comes after Iran's hardline Government announced the removal of 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of warmer ties with the West.



[edit on 3-11-2005 by valkeryie]

[edit on 3-11-2005 by valkeryie]




posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Iran is seriously going too far. They think the U.S. and E.U. will do nothing to them. Its really not a matter of IF we can stop them but its more of a matter of WILL we stop them.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
Iran is seriously going too far. They think the U.S. and E.U. will do nothing to them. Its really not a matter of IF we can stop them but its more of a matter of WILL we stop them.


I think perhaps, you may be reacting overly alarmist. When DPRK spouted on with their Anti-Western/Anti-US rhetoric, most of us realized it was just that, rhetoric. The fact that they seem to be more open to negotiations is evidence of that.

More than likely, Iran saw DPRK's success with that, and by way of imitation, assumes it will receive the same treatment. Only problem *I* see with that is my doubts about how finely and with such precision that Iran can walk the political line as North Korea knows how to do. Also, Iran is bordered by more of the US's less warm politcal allies than North Koreas proximity with South Korea.

However, back to the main topic of discussion, Im sure there is need for constant monitoring and perhaps tying some things together from a logistics standpoint to assess what their intent COULD be, and lay out all the possible scenarios, but I doubt that there is a need to start sounding the defcon alarms .... YET.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by alphabetaone]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
alphabetaone, you made some good points but North Korea's nuc program had nothing to do with Isreal and you know what was said last week about Isreal by Irans president.

Isreal is the wild-card here and they won't march off to the "showers" so easily again. Irans hardline government stepped way over the line with its threat and this bonehead move. Its days are numbered.....even all of Irans neighbors are alarmed after also being threatened for recognizing Isreal.

Maximu§



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
The first thing I would do before I attacked or started agression would be to recall my diplomats....

Lets recall the last few months timeline:

- Iran announces breakthrough in solid rocket tech. Israel now within missile range
- Defies the world and pushes forward with uranium enrichment
- Irans President calls for the nation of Israel to be "wiped off the map"
- Calls for the death of America
- Starts to recall diplomats

Anybody see a pattern here? Almost like a countdown....

[edit on 4-11-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The first thing I would do before I attacked or started agression would be to recall my diplomats....


Is it only me and skippytjc that notices this? I'm still wondering why the western world hasn't done anything yet.


Mod Edit: to remove big quote


[edit on 6-11-2005 by kinglizard]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt

Originally posted by skippytjc
The first thing I would do before I attacked or started agression would be to recall my diplomats....


Is it only me and skippytjc that notices this? I'm still wondering why the western world hasn't done anything yet.



I don't know that that is actually true-though I have no actual proof.
Lets think about this for a sec.
Lets say that the US/allies were peparing to do something of a military nature to Iran.
Would we want to warn Iran we are preparing and what we are doing, exactly?
NO!
Just my thought on the subject.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The first thing I would do before I attacked or started agression would be to recall my diplomats....

Lets recall the last few months timeline:

- Iran announces breakthrough in solid rocket tech. Israel now within missile range
- Defies the world and pushes forward with uranium enrichment
- Irans President calls for the nation of Israel to be "wiped off the map"
- Calls for the death of America
- Starts to recall diplomats

Anybody see a pattern here? Almost like a countdown....

[edit on 4-11-2005 by skippytjc]


Is more a pettern of a cornered animal, they know that US is going after them, and they are ready to fight not to flee.
Its all in the neocons plan to take Syria and Iran, whether they make that nuclear facility or not.
The US is excellent in manipulating certain governments to react on false or true threats or misinfo, and then use it against them.
Happend to Iraq in Golfwar 1 and now to Iran and Syria.

Could possibly well be that CIA leaked info on plans of the US to invade Iran in the future, after all they are at their doorstep.
And Iran reacted by turning to Russia to build a nuclear reactor to try to scare off the americans(among other things like signing major oil and gas deals with powerfull countries) which was possibly anticipated by the CIA.
This is not fiction, this happens alot behind the screens.
One big chess game it is, and terrorists are being played as pawns in a chessgame that is still in the opening fase.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
LA_Maximus has a good point. Israel is the wild card in this scenerio.
Although it can be argued that a country planning an offensive would
not be so vocal, it isn't unheard of. With world opinion decrying
America's attack on Iraq, it is unlikely that America would be interested
in creating another campaign at this time. Not saying that they wouldn't
jump at the chance to take advantage of Iran's foot-in-mouth bantering. Israel really has the most to lose from Iran obtaining nukes. Israel has already stated that it is more than willing to take out any nuclear facilities
Iran has once it deems the threat sufficient. Now with Iran's President
increasing the precieved threat of a 'First Strike' on Israel it is just a matter
of what Israel considers the 'Point of No Return'. Iran may only be playing the 'Crazy Kim' game of nuclear blackmail, but simply put, Iran doesn't have a China to counter it's big boy rhetoric. It is safe to bet that both the USA and Israel are both elated with the Iranian Presidents bad habit of tough talk. The whole world is holding it's collective breathe.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I hate war i thinks is dispicable and should be avioded by all cost but i think the only one now to stop iran is the USA now dont dont get me wrong the USA really did cock things up in iraq but thats because they can invade and win but they just cant ocupy but in this case i think USA should just attck iran now and get it over with better to attck them now than when they have nukes Right?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE
I hate war i thinks is dispicable and should be avioded by all cost but i think the only one now to stop iran is the USA now dont dont get me wrong the USA really did cock things up in iraq but thats because they can invade and win but they just cant ocupy but in this case i think USA should just attck iran now and get it over with better to attck them now than when they have nukes Right?


Thats the problem, we should just kill them all. They have somthing we want and they dont wana give it to us...then die!



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Hey All,

I could be hopelessly naive here (wouldn't be the first time...) but couldn't this simply be more of an old fashioned "purge" , if you will, aimed simply at bringing things more into line with the new Hardliners?

Iran's official public attitude towards Israel is well known. It threatens Israel with rhetoric periodically, and by funding Hizbollah constantly. But does anyone think they really want Israel gone from the Middle East badly enough to lose their country over it?

I pretty strongly suspect that if Iran made a nuclear strike on Israel, Iran would quite rapidly become a place good only for parking cars...after it cooled down, that is... .

Sure, radical Islam has demonstrated over and over it's willingness to take the "suicide-bomber" approach to things, but I doubt that the Mullahs are willing to sacrifice their own "prescious selves", as well as their "feifdom", as it were. This doesn't mean I don't think they have a capacity for suicidal tactics; the Iran/Iraq War demonstrated that they do. I just don't believe they do on this scale.

I think the whole issue of "Israel's existence" has become much too convenient of a political tool for the hardliners to get rid of it. I suspect Israel's existence has become a means to turning underlying radical energies throughout the Middle East away from directions it otherwise might go.

Plus, they probably figure they get a better rate of return by funding and supporting terrorism against Israel and the US forces throughout the region, and especially in Iraq.

This doesn't mean the hardliners don't hate the Israeli's; I'm positive they do: both their words and historical actions have shown it. I just don't think they are ready to lose their nation over it---just my opinion.

I suspect the whole nuclear issue is aimed more at trying to give themselves some kind of advantage in the face of American sabre-rattling, and any future plans they may have regardings influencing things in Iraq.

I guess what I am saying is that to be able to threaten the destruction of Israel is probably worth more to them than to actually attempt it.

It seems to me more like the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction writ small; in other words, "I may not have enough nukes to assure your destruction, as in the case of America vs. the now defunct Soviet Union, but I have enough to wreak some serious havoc around my own neighborhood if you attack me.

I sure don't blame the Israeli's for having their finger on the trigger though.

And I sure wouldn't want to be wrong... .


...just my thoughts...




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Senser

The US is excellent in manipulating certain governments to react on false or true threats or misinfo, and then use it against them. Happend to Iraq in Golfwar 1 and now to Iran and Syria.



In the Gulf War
Saddam invaded another nation Kuwait with the fourth largest army in the world putting him on control of a large chunk of the worlds oil.

Bad example should have used Operation Iraqi Freedom.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Could this be in fact that they perhaps may intend to get something started over there or perhaps over here? What ever their supposed reasons are, I vote to remove them all from the U.S.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join