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’s nuclear issue becomes a hornet’s nest
By Linda Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jan 27, 2006, 21:54
Email this article
Printer friendly page
While there are few nations in our region that welcome a nuclear Iran, it must be stressed that Iran has the “inalienable right” as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran says that’s exactly what it’s doing. The US, Israel and Europe suspect the Iranian government of hiding a weapons program, but they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims. The question is why should we believe the West over Iran, bearing in mind the intelligence fiasco vis-à-vis Iraq and the terrible consequences emanating from that?
Iran and Syria, which appear to be showing a united front in adversity, are currently being demonized and threatened. Just to be clear, these countries, which Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz refers to as the “Outcasts Alliance," are not the bullies here. Yet, just as it did with Iraq, the West works hard at painting itself as the “good guy” fighting evil influences and just as happened with Iraq, Western publics merrily lap up the propaganda uncritically.
Almost every US government official refers to Iran’s deceit and urges Iran to live up to its international responsibilities under the NPT. Sounds good until one realizes just how laced with hypocrisy these statements really are.
Israel, India and Pakistan are all nuclear powers that haven’t bothered to ratify the NPT and consider IAEA inspections a violation of their sovereignty, yet they are in no danger of being dragged before the UN Security Council to be rapped over the knuckles, slapped with sanctions or ultimately bombed.
At the same time, North Korea, which admits to having a nuclear weapons program and a long-range missile delivery system, is being handled with kid gloves. So what kind of message does this send to Iran, which has thus far played by the rules?
onlinejournal.com...
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Yet it never seems to enter the equation that if they were as crazy as you claim they would have launched their missiles with the WMDs they already have, long ago.
They have not.
Like I said, the concept of a genuinely suicidal national leadership (which for all these years has shown no inkling of its alleged nature despite already being armed with WMDs and the means to deliver them for many years) requires so many people to be of a like mind and willing to take that insane step that serious consideration of it as a likely possibility is IMO itself insane.
- I agree.
I also find it incredible and deeply worrying that Bush consults with evangelical fundamentalist 'pastors' on policy.
- Why not raise it?
Are you really saying that 'those crazy fundamentalist Islamics' has not been a part of all this at all, anywhere?
- But that is an entirely different concept than the present one of the 'no nuclear weapons Iran' starting that kind of nuclear exchange.
Originally posted by 27jd
That's not to say they won't by any means.
Besides, chem and bio weapons are not an iron clad a guarantee of destroying Israel, there would be many casualties yes, but also many survivors. Iran would be destroyed, without the knowledge Israel would as well. It could very well survive. Not so with nuclear weapons.
Iran has been speaking of the 'death by fire' of it's enemies for a long time, I don't want to see them get a match.
To you it's insane, it is to me as well, it's a concept we can't grasp because we don't believe in fairy tales like they do.
My worry is that I don't know what really goes through such minds, I suspect you don't either. You're assuming they think rationally like you, I'm not willing to make such an assumption with such grave consequences for being wrong.
Please! Bush is about as religious as my left ball, and you for sure won't see it sitting in church on Sunday. They played the religious people of America like a video game. Any consultation with pastors is purely for show, and Bush is sitting there thinking of money as their words go in one ear and out the other.
Of course it is
but not in an attempt to paint the Iranians as a whole as less human. It's to call out it's leaders for what they really are, 'crazy fundamentalist Islamics'.
Unlike Bush, they're not pretending to be something they're not to win votes.
Bush prays to money, and only money.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by this, maybe it's just too early in the morning, lol. Please elaborate if you would.
Rank Ignorance Reigns
by Paul Craig Roberts
In keeping with its established role as purveyor of disinformation, Fox "News" talking head Brit Hume misreported Fox's own poll. On Special Report on Jan. 26, Hume said that 51 percent of Americans "would now support" air strikes on Iran. What the poll found is that if diplomacy fails, 51 percent would support air strikes [.pdf].
Can we be optimistic and assume that the American public would not regard an orchestrated failure by the Bush administration as a true diplomatic failure? Alas, we cannot expect too much from a population in thrall to disinformation.
www.antiwar.com...
Originally posted by UnconciousSelf
As the realization of nuclear weapons grew near, Einstein looked beyond the current war to future problems that such weapons could bring. He wrote to physicist Niels Bohr in December 1944, "when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life." (Clark, pg. 698).
Old Einstein was one smart cookie.
We must not forget that Ahmadinejad is a man who financed the establishment of a suicide unit in Iran. Two weeks ago, several Revolutionary Guards commanders convened, and now there are more than a thousand volunteers for suicide operations in Iraq, in Arab countries in the Persian Gulf and in other regions.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Einstein probably supported (like Reagan and Eisenhower) complete disarmament, putting nuclear power/uses into the hands of the UN for world-wide regulation.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I agree with the writer of this article. It's amazing how many people in this country are still so deceived by this administration. With our access to technology, it's scary and its sad that so many people are so in the dark.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- along with Germany, agreed Monday night to report Iran to the Security Council over its nuclear program.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You mean Russia and China agreed to this? But, ECK suggests that the U.S. is in this alone.
And he's getting his info from antiwar.com, the pinnacle of unbiased news, how dare someone else suggest the UN is in on this!
Iran has warned it will resume suspended nuclear activities and halt surprise UN inspections if it is referred to the UN Security Council.
The warning, issued by chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, follows an agreement by six key powers to report Tehran to the council.
Top officials from two of the powers, Russia and China, will travel to Iran to urge it to back down in the row.
Iran denies Western claims that it is aiming to build nuclear weapons.
Mr Larijani said: "In case of referral... we have to start all nuclear work that has been voluntarily suspended and stop implementation of the Additional Protocol."
The protocol, part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Tehran has signed but not yet ratified, allows UN inspectors access to Iranian sites with as little as two hours' notice......
......The Americans and the Europeans had been pressing for formal referral - a move that would normally lead to sanctions - but settled for the less formal option of "reporting" Iran's activities.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Er, by any reasonable reckoning you'll find that neither Russia, China nor 'Europe' are as belligerent over this as the USA (or Israel).
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I have yet to read a real article where the US is talked about more than the EU when discussing Iran.
If you have any proof the U.S. is taking a harder stance than the EU than I'd like to see it.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Of course not.
Taking a back seat (but keeping up a constant barrage of criticism and intimidation) is all part of the American 'game' in this......you don't really think it's kidding anyone do you?
- Oh come on, get over yourself, go look at the US media and the terms of it's debates about Iran and even American comment around this place. They are falling over themselves to talk nothing but war war war.
Check out the way reports that Europe might agree to formally 'report' Iran to the UN SC is widely being taken to mean OK another idiotic ME war.
Mind you all that UN Security Council stuff will change rapidly when the impossibility of getting a resolution making such a war legal becomes clear.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Just curious...
Why is the international media playing this game?
Care to cite examples?
Eur
ope was pushing for Iran to be referred to the Security Counsel. It's China and Russia who have finally agreed to report Iran.
And again, could you cite examples of people believing this is the OK to start a war?
Russia and China wouldn't have agreed to this if this was for a resolution making any war legal.
If anything, this is just paving the way for sanctions.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why are you such a slut to the propaganda? You seem to be smarter than that. Maybe I'm wrong.
Look matey I am in Europe and have access to Fox, CNN, CNBC and NBC daily and I have seen umteen prominent US politicians sit and do the talking heads routine where major chunks of comment shows (cos that's what we have now with 24hr rolling 'news' - I'd hate to actually call them news shows these days) are devoted to wringing hands and talking about the region and the 'need' to go in and sort out Iran if they won't comply.
The last guy I saw was J. McCain talking about the 'need' to keep the military option open at the World Economic Forum in Davos, after talks with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei on the 28/01/06.
Well, you might prefer to believe that.
I think it's obvious the US is pushing this from the back seat.
Europe and everyone else is desperately trying to find a way through the US desire to force Iran to act in the manner they want and Iran's determined natural resistance to that.
But I have seen (and I know lots of others here have seen) the 'news' shows that have spent hours 'agonising' over what to do and examining the 'options' etc etc.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
So...you've heard politicians say that we should keep all options on the table. How is this "falling over themselves to talk nothing but war war war."
Again, maybe I'm missing it, but I'd like to see where anyone has talked of anything other than airstrikes.
Oh. So you're basing your statements of your understanding of what's going on, not on any credible evidence or anything like that.
That's cool. Nothing wrong with that
Can you name an issue that they don't do that with?
That's their job.