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.

 

Reminder: Iran Warns of Preemptive Strike to Prevent Attack on Nuclear Sites

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

the US will not invade Iran; the US is not seeking to invade Iran.


We got you on record now.

When it happens be prepared for the 'I tolja so' remarks.

If the US bombs Irans nuclear sites and leaves the gov in place they will seek revenge.

Invasion will be sold as the lesser of two evils.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

the US will not invade Iran; the US is not seeking to invade Iran.

We got you on record now.

When it happens be prepared for the 'I tolja so' remarks.

What are you anyhow...a kid on steroids or something?
Like who gives crap if you got me on record. Big deal.
Want a lollipop?
Tricks are for kids, ArchAngel, as such, do me a favor and save your childish rhetoricals for them.

At any rate, your buddy Scott Ritter predicted a US invasion in June of 2005 on Iran. You got him on "record", as well.





If the US bombs Irans nuclear sites and leaves the gov in place they will seek revenge.

Umm, thats a given, but I often wonder if that revenge will be the same as when Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear facility....





Invasion will be sold as the lesser of two evils.

I highly doubt it.







seekerof



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
This threat from Iran has just as much teeth as my 80 year old grandmother.
Goodnight folks



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
deltaboy yet you forget the iraninan president is nothing and holds no true power so no matter how stupid he is in the end he is just mouth unlike another retard of a president who does hold greater power
and you forget to mention he doesnt speak for all iranians

so easy with their goal to destroy isreal


[edit on 19-12-2005 by bodrul]


The phrase which I highlighted right there just completely undermines any argument you try to make. Thats assuming your run-on sentence hasn't done so already. How can you expect to engage in intelligent dialogue and debate when you call someone a "retard"? It's not 1970, pal. That term shouldn't be used to describe people with downs syndrome, nor to describe people who you disagree with politically. In addition, I wouldn't call someone a "retard" who has far better grammar skills than yourself and managed to gain a majority of votes in a national election.

Moving on to the subject at hand... I think it would be insane for Iran to launch a "pre-emptive" strike on Israel or the United States as it guarantees a military conflict with one or both of those nations. Iran doesn't have the military strength to eliminate enough of their enemy's forces and hardware in order to ultimately defeat them. Iran is not Japan, it's not 1941, and we don't have our entire Pacific fleet sitting in the Persian Gulf docked in easily targetted rows. Any gains that Iran could hope to make with a pre-emptive strike would not be worth the retaliation from either nation.

Iran's best bet would be to awaken all of their Hezbollah sleeper cells here in the United States and give them orders to attack. Apparantly they have far more terrorists here in the US than any other group, including al Qaida. And they've had over 20 years since the Revolution to plan, fund and coordinate attacks here in the US. I heard a while back that a member of Iran's government claimed to have countless vital US domestic targets lined up for terror attacks. I think a massive Hezbollah terror campaign paired with al Qaida and other terrorist groups here in the US would be a far better bet than any pre-emptive strike on US forces in the Middle East.

They could take that one step further if they were able to detonate an EMP device over the US, fired on a Shahab-3 missile from a freighter out at sea. This would cause even more chaos here at home with multiple terror attacks taking place simultaneously. Now, a pre-emptive strike on US forces and ships in the Middle East region at the same time, or just prior to, would be the icing on the cake. If we had to declare Martial Law here at home because of all the chaos then our forces and military hardware would be spread even more thin. With a successful EMP attack, the ability for our military to communicate, plan and coordinate any response or defensive posture in the Middle East would be greatly limited. As would organizing anykind of law and order here at home.

Managing the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan while all of this is going on would be next to impossible. Our response to all this would likely be nuclear, assuming we're able to link it directly to Iran in a timely matter. That could open the floodgates for Armageddon!

Sorry if I rambled on too long here and I hope I made some sense. Of course it would take brilliant planning and execution on Iran's part in order to pull any of this stuff off, as well as a complete and utter failure of our intelligence system even greater than that prior to 9/11.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

I think it would be insane for Iran to launch a "pre-emptive" strike on Israel or the United States as it guarantees a military conflict with one or both of those nations.


If it does come to a point where Iran feels an attack, and maybe 'regime change' are inevitable they could very well strike out.

Hoping they just sit back, and get run over like Afghanistan and Iraq would be foolish.

Without saying it in so many words America has been threatening Iran with invasion for quite some time.

Put the shoe on the other foot.

Would you let your advanced anti-ship missiles just sit on the ground waiting for America to bomb them?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Without saying it in so many words America has been threatening Iran with invasion for quite some time.

Then simply provide said links and/or sourcing to make your point, like the above underlined assertion, for example?
Definately serves the case better than conjectured assumptions and conclusions, wouldn't you think?






seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   


Without saying it in so many words America has been threatening Iran with invasion for quite some time.


Like Seekerof said, show us some proof of this. Because I think you're completely wrong. I've yet to hear a US government official threaten Iran with invasion. But there were many points in time when we probably should have threatened Iran with invasion, going all the way back to the US embassy hostage situation. And lets not also forget Iran's complicity in the truck bombings of our marine barracks in Lebanon. Iran has done more than its fair share to warrant the threats of US invasion, but America has taken the higher road and hasn't resorted to threats of invasion.

Iran, on the other hand, for the past 25+ years has preached for the elimination of Israel and the United States. Government sponsored rallies with cries of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" take place on a regular basis. The Iranian media produces countless propaganda pieces, commercials, music videos, movies, etc. depicting the evilness of America, calling for its demise, and comparing it to Nazi Germany.

It almost seems as though Iran is doing everything it can short of firing the first shot (even though it technically has through Hezbollah terror attacks over the years) to provoke an American and/or Israeli military attack. Their sponsorship, exportation and planning of terrorism, their repressive Islamofascist government's treatment of its people, their quest for nuclear weapons, and so much more has already more than justified some sort of military action from America, Israel and even European nations.

And what you're failing to realize when endorcing a pre-emptive Iranian attack on US forces is one major thing: such an attack would rally the American people, the American military, and even the free world behind the United States and its invasion of Iran. It would be nothing like the Iraq situation where we are seeing popular anti-war sentiment amongst millions of Americans, as well as millions throughout the world. Support for an invasion of Iran would be on levels this nation hasn't seen probably since Pearl Harbor. Iran wouldn't have the huge ally that the insurgency in Iraq currently has- and that is the impatient American citizens and a majority of Democratic political figures.

So in closing, any attempted pre-emptive sneak attack on America would be a suicide mission for the Iranian government. And if we reach such a point that it is obvious to Iran and the rest of the world that we are planning an invasion or attack on Iran, then you can bet our forces in the region will be on high alert to defend against and respond to any Iranian attack. So the results right there would be limited. And launching a pre-emptive strike at any point before such a time would be a major gamble on Iran's part that would guarantee a military conflict with the US that as of right now doesn't have a strong chance of taking place.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

For example banning the music like in my post at current invents.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here. Sorry typing to fast. "my post at current events."

[edit on 20-12-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, Harlequin, something like that. Hit the link I provided with the word sneak attack, then associate it with how ArchAngel plays with words [semantics] in relation to Iran then in relation to Israel, k?



the linkage wasn`t working when i hit quote
- but i do see what you mean..... hey does that mean everyone does `pre-emptive strikes` now



just joking of course.


isn`t it called `offensive defence` or do it to them before they do it to you



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

www.turkishpress.com...

CIA’S GOSS REPORTEDLY WARNED ANKARA OF IRANIAN THREAT

During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara. Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey. Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria. Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Mueller’s visit, brought up Iran’s alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region. Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies. The second dossier is about Iran’s stance on terrorism. The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda. The third had to do with Iran’s alleged stance against Ankara. Goss said that Tehran sees Turkey as an enemy and would try to “export its regime.”


Not only are we running around the world threatening Iran we are also telling people that they already have nukes.

How poor.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Without saying it in so many words America has been threatening Iran with invasion for quite some time.

Then simply provide said links and/or sourcing to make your point, like the above underlined assertion, for example?
Definately serves the case better than conjectured assumptions and conclusions, wouldn't you think?


For someone who likes to point out other's semantics, I find it funny how much you like to play them yourself. Whilst we both know that the US has never opnenly mentioned invading Iran, it can not be denied that the rhetoric coming from the U.S concerning Iran has gotten stronger and stronger over the past few years. IMHO-This is what archangel was speaking of, and I think you and I both know it.

I have shared my thoughts with you several times about how, and why I think we will be involved in a war with Iran over the next few years (if not decades), but that is neither here nor there.

To stay on topic somewhat--It would be foolish of Iran to not take this opportunity to strike at America. Think about it. We have most of our forces in the region. We show no signs of leaving. The rhetoric concerning Iran is getting more and more threatening. If you had an anemy at the gates would you not strike while you had the opportunity?

If Iran develops nukes it would be assenine for them not to strike the U.S. Hell, when will they ever get a better chance? They could hit us hard, and whilst our forces are condensed, thereby sending us in retreat, not unlike sending a dog home with his tail tucked between his legs. Not only would it be a win for Iran, but it would send a message to the world that U.S Hegemony is not as unrivaled as the world thinks.

If Iran does not strike, then they will deserve everything that we give them. Similar to how I spoke of the need for Iran to develop nukes despite international pressure.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by bodrul

For example banning the music like in my post at current invents.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here. Sorry typing to fast. "my post at current events."

[edit on 20-12-2005 by deltaboy]



thanks just read this on the bbc
just reading the headline made me laugh

what a crap thing to do

guess he does have alittle bit of power



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

www.turkishpress.com...

CIA’S GOSS REPORTEDLY WARNED ANKARA OF IRANIAN THREAT

During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara. Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey. Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria. Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Mueller’s visit, brought up Iran’s alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region. Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies. The second dossier is about Iran’s stance on terrorism. The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda. The third had to do with Iran’s alleged stance against Ankara. Goss said that Tehran sees Turkey as an enemy and would try to “export its regime.”


Not only are we running around the world threatening Iran we are also telling people that they already have nukes.

How poor.


I'm sorry but the alleged private conversations between the head of the CIA and a Turkish government official are not "threats to Iran." I like how you completely overlook the word "reportedly" in your own link.




Whilst we both know that the US has never opnenly mentioned invading Iran, it can not be denied that the rhetoric coming from the U.S concerning Iran has gotten stronger and stronger over the past few years.


And what of the rhetoric that's been coming out of Iran on a regular basis for the past 25 years? Would you prefer it if we spoke softly to Iran and cuddled them until they voluntarily give up their quest for nuclear weapons and their support for terrorists? As if history hasn't proven the deadly results of pascification enough already.



To stay on topic somewhat--It would be foolish of Iran to not take this opportunity to strike at America. Think about it. We have most of our forces in the region. We show no signs of leaving. The rhetoric concerning Iran is getting more and more threatening. If you had an anemy at the gates would you not strike while you had the opportunity?


I think it would be foolish for Iran to attack US forces. I think it would be foolish for Iran to continue their attempts at developing nuclear weapons against the will of the free world and the non-proliferation treaty they signed. I think the Islamofascist regime in Tehran's best chance at continuing to exist and continuing to live in peace is to permenantly hault their unnecessary nuclear ambitions, dismantle their state-sponsored terrorist groups, stop funding and arming terrorists, and turn over all al-Qaida suspects who are in Iranian custody or who's location is known by the Iranian government.




If Iran develops nukes it would be assenine for them not to strike the U.S. Hell, when will they ever get a better chance? They could hit us hard, and whilst our forces are condensed, thereby sending us in retreat, not unlike sending a dog home with his tail tucked between his legs. Not only would it be a win for Iran, but it would send a message to the world that U.S Hegemony is not as unrivaled as the world thinks.


I think your logic here is really flawed. It assumes that the US, Israel and the free world would actually allow Iran to develope and stockpile numerous nuclear weapons. It's already been stated, especially by Israel, that such a situation will not occur and that pre-emptive action would be taken. So how would Iran launch a nuclear pre-emptive attack to pre-empt the Israeli pre-emptive attack, with nuclear weapons that they are being attacked to prevent the existence of? Does Iran have a time machine that you know about and we don't?

You also act as though we have 150,000+ US troops stacked in a giant pyramid in Iraq, just waiting to be taken out with a single weapon. Our troops at any given moment are spread throughout the country at many bases and on many missions. Assuming Iran even had nuclear weapons, it would take quite a few delivered extremely accurately (without being intercepted) to take out any large number of troops. You're also overlooking the fact that this would constitute Iran launching nuclear weapons, unprovoked, on its Arab neighbor and virtually killing millions of innocent Iraqis in the process. That alone would turn the world against Iran.

And how you can claim that such a single attack would be a "win" for Iran just completely boggles my mind. We have enough nuclear weapons, and the systems to deliver them, to send Iran even further back into the stone age a million times over. There would be no more Iran, no matter how you want to look at it. And if for some odd reason we decided not to respond with nuclear weapons, and if Iran had an extremely large stroke of luck in taking out a majority of our troops in the Middle East, we would still be able to defeat Iran. We would have most of the civilized world as part of our coalition. Troop numbers would be the least of our concerns, and a draft would address the problem otherwise. Most nations would cut off trade to Iran, and those who didn't would have their exported goods blocked by the US navy to the south and troops on the borders.

This would strangle Iran and leave them unable to repair their jets (if we haven't destroyed them all already), feed their troops and their people, and conduct anykind of effective war against the world's lone superpower and its allies. And if you think the young generation of Iran (which is the large majority) is going to lay their lives on the line and fight for the same Ayatollahs that repress them then you've got another thing coming.

I mean, I could honestly sit here all day long and tell you why your argument is wrong and why any pre-emptive attack on the US or Israel would be a guaranteed death sentence for Iran. But I'm starting to even bore myself, I can't imagine how you guys feel at this point of my post! LOL

Thats all I'm really going to say on the subject right now. If you don't get it at this point then there is no hope in convincing you of anything. Hopefully for Iran and the Islamofascists' sake they won't take your advice and effectively put the nails in their own coffins!



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
If a strike on Iran was imminent I could see them thinking they might gain some degree of tactical advantage by striking first. It remains to be seen whether they really have any practical means of doing so, I tend to doubt they could accomplsh much. It's not entirely unrealistic to think they could take out a carrier in the Gulf actually, they have a few Kilo SSK's in service and if a carrier is vulnerable to anything, it's a sub - allied diesel subs have scored simulated "hits" on CVN's more than once in exercises.

Even if they succeed though, they run the risk of turning a limited strike on their nuclear facilities into a full-scale war, one which would probably not end to Iran's advantage. The same applies if they launch a preemptive strike on US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

My bet would be that this is simply more purely political saber-rattling, and doesn't give us much of a hint as to what Iran will really do in event of a conflict. The best policy for Iran would be to absorb the strike, launch some kind of token retaliatory strike that isn't likely to escalate things much, and reap the political benefits of playing to nationalist sentiment at home and playing the victim card internationally.

[edit on 12/20/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13

And what of the rhetoric that's been coming out of Iran on a regular basis for the past 25 years? Would you prefer it if we spoke softly to Iran and cuddled them until they voluntarily give up their quest for nuclear weapons and their support for terrorists? As if history hasn't proven the deadly results of pascification enough already.


And what of it? I have said nothing in regards to what I think the US should do, be it speak softly, or cuddling.



I think it would be foolish for Iran to attack US forces. I think it would be foolish for Iran to continue their attempts at developing nuclear weapons against the will of the free world and the non-proliferation treaty they signed. I think the Islamofascist regime in Tehran's best chance at continuing to exist and continuing to live in peace is to permenantly hault their unnecessary nuclear ambitions, dismantle their state-sponsored terrorist groups, stop funding and arming terrorists, and turn over all al-Qaida suspects who are in Iranian custody or who's location is known by the Iranian government.


Which is fine, you can think what you want, just as I do. I personally feel that it would be foolish for them to cease all attempts at gaining nuclear weapons though. As far as the non proliferation treaty is concernend...To quote De Gaulle -- Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last



I think your logic here is really flawed. It assumes that the US, Israel and the free world would actually allow Iran to develope and stockpile numerous nuclear weapons. It's already been stated, especially by Israel, that such a situation will not occur and that pre-emptive action would be taken. So how would Iran launch a nuclear pre-emptive attack to pre-empt the Israeli pre-emptive attack, with nuclear weapons that they are being attacked to prevent the existence of? Does Iran have a time machine that you know about and we don't?


Which is fine again. I think your logic is flawed by assuming that the U.S and Israel, depite the rhetoric, has any chance of derailing Iran from it's present course. That being said, I find it highly feasible that Iran could strike the U.S while we are sitting ducks so to speak.


You're also overlooking the fact that this would constitute Iran launching nuclear weapons, unprovoked, on its Arab neighbor and virtually killing millions of innocent Iraqis in the process. That alone would turn the world against Iran.


I am not overlooking the possibility, I just do not think that such a course of action has the ramifications that you speak of. Iran has attacked its "arab neighbor" for quite some time now (most of which was backed by U.S support) I don't think they would be viewed any differently than they are now, that's all.


And how you can claim that such a single attack would be a "win" for Iran just completely boggles my mind. We have enough nuclear weapons, and the systems to deliver them, to send Iran even further back into the stone age a million times over. There would be no more Iran, no matter how you want to look at it. And if for some odd reason we decided not to respond with nuclear weapons, and if Iran had an extremely large stroke of luck in taking out a majority of our troops in the Middle East, we would still be able to defeat Iran. We would have most of the civilized world as part of our coalition. Troop numbers would be the least of our concerns, and a draft would address the problem otherwise. Most nations would cut off trade to Iran, and those who didn't would have their exported goods blocked by the US navy to the south and troops on the borders.


If it happened I would call it a "win" for the very fact that Iran had the balls to stand up to the "great satan". I think such an actio nwould send a message to the world that the great U.S is not as powerful as it seems, and that message, in and of itself, would be a win.


This would strangle Iran and leave them unable to repair their jets (if we haven't destroyed them all already), feed their troops and their people, and conduct anykind of effective war against the world's lone superpower and its allies. And if you think the young generation of Iran (which is the large majority) is going to lay their lives on the line and fight for the same Ayatollahs that repress them then you've got another thing coming.


Sure the reprecussions would be great, but that is neither here nor there. As for the whole younger generation issue, seems like you have bit the bait, hook line and sinker, as far as Irans's political climate is concerned.



Thats all I'm really going to say on the subject right now. If you don't get it at this point then there is no hope in convincing you of anything. Hopefully for Iran and the Islamofascists' sake they won't take your advice and effectively put the nails in their own coffins!


Ditto--That is all I am going to say on the subject as well. If you choose to believe the popular held view that Iran is weak, or has no choice in defefnding itself, then fine. Just don't act surprised though when it is your child dying in Iran come twenty odd years from now.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I would'nt be surprised if the US gave Iran forewarning of attack seen as the only objective would be to destroy Nuclear sites.

I can see it now GW phones them up, you have 1 hour to evacuate your people from your Nuclear plants then hell mary will rain down.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   


I am not overlooking the possibility, I just do not think that such a course of action has the ramifications that you speak of. Iran has attacked its "arab neighbor" for quite some time now (most of which was backed by U.S support) I don't think they would be viewed any differently than they are now, that's all.


I really don't get what you're referring to here. Are you talking about the Iran/Iraq war? If so, it was Iraq that attacked Iran. We backed Iraq a hell of a lot more than we did Iran, and if anything we only sold weapons to Iran so we could support the Contras in Nicaragua. We have a long history of playing both sides in a war for profit. To say that Iran wouldn't be viewed any differently now than back then is comparing apples to oranges. Iran was conducting a fairly ethical war, one which it did not start. You're comparing that to Iran launching nuclear weapons into Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands to millions of Iraqi civilians. Do you really believe that they won't be viewed differently?

As for all your arguments, which I won't go into individually as I have neither the time nor the patience, you seem to be acting like the ramifications of an Iranian pre-emptive strike either don't exist or don't matter. And that could be further from the truth. Sinking a carrier and/or killing a few thousand US troops is by no means a "win" if you're completely wiped off the face of the Earth after the fact. If anything it'd be considered a major blunder and suicidal.

For the record, I never said that Iran was "weak" and I don't consider her to be. Aside from Israel (since they have the nuke advantage), I would say that Iran is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, militarily. Defeating Iran would be no easy task. But I think you grossly underestimate the strength and resolve of the American people and their military after they've faced a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Iran. Nuking American forces would basically give our President a blank check to conduct the war against Iran as long and as brutally as he sees fit, with continued support from our people. Iran would wake a sleeping giant. If us or our forces were nuked by Iran, we would respond with the full capabilities of the US military, as well as that of our allies. And believe me, in the case of an Iranian nuclear attack we would have just about every ally in the world that we want.

So you have one weird definition of a "win." Now THAT is the last I'll say on the subject! LOL



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Looks like they are already preparing to explain why no nukes were found after we invade Iran because they have nukes.

Its the same as with Iraq, they went to Syria.

Then everything is laid out to invade Syria so the trans-Asian pipelines, and railroads can begin.


Syria has signed a pledge to store Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles.

The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly reported that Iran and Syria signed a strategic accord meant to protect either country from international pressure regarding their weapons programs. The magazine, citing diplomatic sources, said Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions.

Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon. Five Syrian officers have been questioned by the UN regarding the Hariri assassination, Middle East Newsline reported.

"The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis," Jane's said.

Continued....


The only thing left to do is have the IAEA hand the case over to the UNSC.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by ArchAngel]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join