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.

 

Jordanian king warns against strike on Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
some people say that the whole world is telling iran to stop its nuclear program yet at the same time the whole world is warning US of an attack, lets stick to negotiations please and work it out ....

edit: looks like its on the wrong thread, sorry for the accident. should be on WOT forum.




Jordan's King Abdullah II warned that a strike on Iran would cause the region "to explode" and deplored Israel's raid on a Palestinian prison, in an interview yesterday with AFP. "A strike against Iran would cause the whole region to explode," the Jordanian monarch said in comments on the crisis between the West and Tehran over its nuclear activities.
"The threat to regional security and stability will be grave if force is utilised to resolve this problem. Dialogue, patience and diplomacy are the only solution," he added. He likewise deplored Israel's raid Tuesday on a Jericho prison to seize Palestinian militants wanted over the 2001 murder of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi. "What happened is a threat to the future of the peace process and to security in the region. It is an unfortunate escalation," he said. "It would have been better for the parties concerned to find another formula to deal with this issue. They created tension and lessened the chances for an adequate climate to forge ahead with the peace process." King Abdullah II also urged the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which won an overwhelming victory in January elections, "to deal with regional and international realities" as it prepares to form a government.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I would agree with the King that diplomacy is the best option but with a man like Ahmadinejad in charge there has to be a cut off point. Secretly I think all the Sunni rulers of the region are however hoping for a strike to occur because they are all very afraid of a Shia regional superpower arising. Remember Iraq is now Shia Dominated as is Iran and with Hezbullah in the Lebanon the Kings fear of "Shia Crescent" have now come true. I think deep down they would all like a strike to cap Irans power a bit....

As far as the Western powers go...

I believe a hard stance should be taken against Iran when it comes to enrichment. I beleive they should have nuclear reactors but they should proove to the international community that they want it for peacfull purposes. That seems to be a major sticking point for them at the moment.

There are several factors which suggest that this would never be the case.

1) Massive oil and gas reserves in Iran mean that there is no need for Nuclear power
2) They want to enrich Uranium. While this allows you to make Fuel for Reactors (enriched to about 20-30% if memory serves) it is also the same process which allows you to make bombs (enriched to 95-99% if memory serves). Iran could export this nuclear fuel but in economic terms it makes little sense because they already have oil and gas, hence one could ask why is the government so keen since it is a relatively insignificant economic comodity.
3) The Mullahs. They want the bomb. Simple as that. They want IRI to be a regional superpower and they feel this is the best way to do this.

My personal opinion is that the governement in Iran are making such a big deal of the nuclear issue to distract from their constant failings. Unemployment is high and people are fed up. The Islamic Revolution needs a little life breathed back into it and what better way than a good old confrontation with the US and the UK. (Heres chants of Death to the US, death to the UK, they are the ones to blame for all our woes!)

If the US and UK want to resolve this issue they should do it peacefully. The last thing they should do is drop bombs becuase this will play right into the hands of the Mullahs. Give it a few years and who knows maybe the Mullahs will be gone because if anyone is going to get rid of them it must be the Iranian people.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Maybe the Jordanian King can become a Peace Broker in the region.

The trouble is now that whatever the west may say to Iran it is going to be viewed as hostile and vice versa.

I agree that it is really important that Iran does not get to have nuclear weapons and I think that the UN is viewed by alot of countries (and probably this includes the Iranians), as alligned to the west.

I think the King is right in saying that as attack on Iran would ignite a powder keg in the middle east.

Its a very tricky situation and really does need a Muslim Leader of some sort to act as the 'Honest Broker' to negociate between the two sides.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
i really think it will spill into the richer arab countires and then there is gonna be a real western problem.u.s looks around and finds the stock market has gone with the euro dollar.i think north and south america better get ready for the change in the stock markets.iran can have there power stations the king is right let peaceful talks go ahead.....



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
The King of Jordon is spot on - the region would explode. A wider regional conflict would be catastrophic on a number of levels, including horrendous loss of life, an oil shock that could ruin the world economy, the possible use of nuclear weapons, and the potential to start a wider international conflict.

It's unfortunate that Western intelligence agencies have been unable to manipulate the political landscape in Iran so that the vast progressive young majority of its citizens could actually vote for the pro-Western government they want. Iran has one of the youngest populations in the world who'd dispense with their current unfortunate and unstable President in an instant at the ballot box in any free and fair election.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by JamesinOz]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Remember, earlier in the month Hosni Mubarak of Egypt adviced against an attack on Iran. Now it's the King of Jordan. The billion dollar question is will the US/Israel listen to their advice, or will they act unilaterally... again?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Kind Abdallah II has a responsibility to periodically say things to appease the masses of pro-Palestinian Jordanians that reside in his kingdom. This ensures his popularity, and allows those Jordanians to have a voice, and a non-violent outlet for their hostility.

If you think for a moment that the King savors the idea of a nuclear-capable Iran ruled by the mad mullahs only a hop, skip and a jump away from his kingdom (especially since Jordan sits between Iran and Israel).....you are very much mistaken.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Mehran,

The questions to ask are simple:

1. If you don't need it for power, why do you need it?
2. If you -want- it for power, why can't some other nation do your refining?
3. If you want it for weapons, why have you not been overt and honest in your attempts thus far to justify their gain?
4. WHY do you want them for weapons if you are not threatened by the like?

Israel may be seen as something between a Mad Dog and Satan by the Arabs. But it should be remembered that except when threatened by an unbalanced regime in Iraq. Or in Ethiopia. Israel has not made any overt attack on the Arabs since 1982.

Indeed, it is _Islamic_ peoples who war among themselves. Breaking a key tenet of The Faith. And the chief party responsible for the majority of Iran's misery in the 1980's is now no longer a threat.

Does Iran seek a 'strategic counterforce' against Afghanistan? Russia? Saudi Arabia?

One of the things Iran forgets is that when you are surrounded by barbarians barely able to rub two sticks together to create fire without international technical assistance, ANY attempt to acquire WMD can only be viewed as but a desire to have COUNTER VALUE with which to threaten the wealth of those nations which are in fact responsible nuclear powers.

I say 'responsible' because not only do they have tactical means to avoid the necessity of first use. But they also have sufficient (vulnerable) mass to not want to get in a potshot war with a low-rend sandbox like Iran.

Nukes are a waste of time if you are not facing a nuclear threat state. They have /enormous/ waste management and stockpile renewal problems inherent to their maintenance. And, at least for a responsible state, they do not lift from the shoulders the burden of a conventional defense. But merely add to it.

Conversely, I think the U.S.' biggest problems are-

1. The Iranians are ten times smarter than the Iraqi's were. If only by virtual of witnessing Osirak's demise.
2. The idiocy of 'WMD in Iraq' has forever poisoned the cup of trust inherent to our military action there rather than in continued pursuit of UBL.
3. The Saudi's have East Wind MRBM with nuclear tips.
4. The Israeli's are seen as slavering monsters whose removal from the ME is a matter of pride. Their strength in turn being that of purely U.S. funded assistance.
5. If we attack Iran, we rob them of a /pride/ (nationalism being the hubris that is 'a wealth of belief' in something bigger than yourself because your personal existence is so excremental) inherent to think Arabs are someone. When in point of truth, by the actions of their own leadership, they remain among the poorest of the rich nations on the planet.

CONCLUSION:
This is not Austria or the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia people. The reason we 'do not want to be seen to be negotiating' is because ultimately we cannot give legitimacy to a threat that has been allowed previously to sponsor terrorism throughout that part of the world (Lebanon, both the Barracks and the Embassy were Iranian bought and paid for).

But nor can we wait until Hitler has his tank divisions lined up on the Ardennes border before deciding to eliminate the threat. If it's going to be done, it needs to occur before the Iranians think "If only we push a little harder..." as a fucntion of 'sporting' psychology. Indeed, it has to be done before we blow radioactive yellow cake and steam all over their North 40.

And that means adopting a policy which says that the Iranians don't deserve to have Nuclear Weapons because of 'who they are right now'. Rather than what their previously unacknowledged activities for the past 20 years have made them.

Because that history is not known. And labelling them savages unfit for a Promethean Gift of Nuclear Fire will not go down well with a world that has traditionally seen U.S. as advocates of the underdog.

The only thing those people respect is force. How many feet per second worth of hot air do you think 'the whole world telling them otherwise' is worth to the Iranians compared to 16 JDAMs falling where they are most needed?


KPl.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Kind Abdallah II has a responsibility to periodically say things to appease the masses of pro-Palestinian Jordanians that reside in his kingdom. This ensures his popularity, and allows those Jordanians to have a voice, and a non-violent outlet for their hostility.


Exactly! There's no way he could say anything else publically. I'm sure he's just as afraid of a nuclear-armed Iran as anyone else though (including Israel).



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Whether or not he's playing to any audience, I believe Jordan's King is telling the truth- the region will explode if Iran is attacked. The Middle East is like a tinderbox. It's unfortunate because given half the chance the young population of Iran would elect a relatively pro-Western government and this avoid any need to neutralise the Iranian nuclear programme.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Considering i'm playing the nation of Iran in the BTS wargames i've been having to do allot of studying on the subject. YES, Iran wants nukes and has good reason to want them.

Iran may appear to have a decent military but the equipment it has is old and dilapidated. It has trouble getting spare parts and even new equipment. The purpose of most of its hardware is for the parades and even then they have problems. Sure, they have the Shahab 3 that was built using North Korean tech, but that isn't going to help them too much in a serious fight. Even if they shot them at Isreal they will only have conventional warheads. Besides, the results would be like pee wee Herman slapping the fire out of Hulk Hogan. It would not be pretty when Isreal got thru with them

A nuclear arsenal is the fastest and even the cheapest way to become the imposing regional superpower they dream of becoming. I don't blame them a bit either.

Some of the main assets iran has is its chemical and biological weapons. It has the largest stocks of those in the region. It also has one hell of a human reserve to call upon. The basiji militia alone is 7 million strong.

Nukes for Iran is the fastest and cheapest way to insure its world status and ward off attack. If I were them i'd be scrambling for nukes too.

Wupy



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join