Arab media: 2 Israeli Navy ships passed through Suez Canal

Doesn't seem like much of a much to me: two missile boats mounting 2 4-missile Harpoon batteries each aren't that big a weight on the balance of power. Anyway, no telling where they're going yet. Seems more like a "show the flag" thing than a real military threat.

www.globalsecurity.org...

edit to add link

[edit on 7-2-2010 by apacheman]

reply to post by seattletruth


So 2.2 million barrels per day is a joke?? compared to Saudi's capacity to 3.2 million barrel, I would agree they can't sustain a country the size of the US but certainly they would be a very rich source given the Saudi's were taken out or reduced in capabilities.

Canada is far from the hostilities and easy to get too, unless of course something happened in BC.....HMMMMMMM

[edit on 7-2-2010 by svpwizard] spelling

[edit on 7-2-2010 by svpwizard]

Apparently, the current tally with the Iranian nuclear merry-go-around is the usual tone and rhetoric by all those involved.

MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 7 (Xinhua) -- While the United States and Germany said on Saturday they saw no sign of Iranian concessions on its nuclear program and might opt for added pressure, China and Russia once again cautioned against new sanctions.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran had failed to address the concerns held by Western countries and suggested it was time for more sanctions.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Iran had so far failed to dispel Western skepticism that it was prepared to make meaningful concessions over the country's nuclear program.

Top officials from the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany attended the Munich Security Conference on Friday to discuss how to better persuade Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment program which Western countries fear could turn to nuclear weapons production.

But Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi attending the meeting urged the international community to be patient and keep up diplomatic efforts with Iran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov said in Munich that any sanctions against Iran should focus on stopping nuclear proliferation rather than on targeting its economy.

Diplomatic efforts have been aimed at persuading Iran to send its low enriched uranium to a mutually-agreed third party for further processing into reactor fuel. There has been a proposal Iran send its low enriched uranium abroad in exchange for higher-grade fuel to be used in making medical isotopes.

news.xinhuanet.com...

So, as the diplomats bicker and banter in Munich over this potential agreement; a war machine is gathering steam in the Gulf. The Iranians are running out of time, and had ought to be dead-set on making some kind of agreement. They have had years to work out a deal to develop their "supposed," civilian nuclear aspirations, while easing the concerns of their neighbors about nuclear proliferation of Iran. Hopefully, a last minute agreement can be reached, because this crisis is looking to get nasty. Too many major players have something at stake if Iran is indeed attacked.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Another breaking news.

Ahmadinejad: Iran to start work on 20% nuclear fuel

President apparently rejects Western offer to process uranium for Teheran research reactor abroad.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday told Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation to start work on producing nuclear fuel for a Tehran research reactor, casting renewed doubt on the prospects for an international swap deal

Ahmadinejad's announcement is likely to irritate Western powers who want Iran to send most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad in return for higher-refined fuel for the Tehran reactor.

Iranian officials have repeatedly said the Islamic Republic can make fuel enriched to 20 percent itself if there is no agreement on obtaining the material from abroad.

source : www.haaretz.com...

So Iran did not accept offers for now. If I remember right they wanted 30% nuclear fuel for exchange of low-enriched uranium.
This could be another spark.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Zmurfix]

every one can guess and suggest possibilities about nukes being launched from here or there.
What about this idea
There is no need to launch a missile if you possibly have a ship in port or a container vessel sitting on the dock waiting for the detonation key to be punched in.
new satelites being sent into orbit and for all we know, there could be 101 dolphins trained by Iranain military to put explosives on navel vessels in the straight.

we can speculate about any scenario, what really happens is innocent people get killed by the lunatics running the show, peoples mothers, fathers and children die.
Do you want to know who's children don't die?
Those who run the war from the rear.

reply to post by Israel Versus Iran

headed to the Persian Gulf and may reach it within four days.

So that's the 11th Feb, and the day the regime will be humiliated when the opposition hijack their own rallies. If it makes the news the regime will probably use Hezbollah to give the media something else to talk about. These ships are in case a response is required. Hopefully they'll restrain from severe retaliation, and let Iranian's finish off the job.

reply to post by Jakes51

Hopefully, a last minute agreement can be reached, because this crisis is looking to get nasty.

Do you really expect this regime to be pragmatic at this stage. They've already made the same bad decisions over and over again, and now they're frightened, bankrupt, and fear their own security turning against them in 4 days time.

Even if they agree a deal, it won't prevent their collapse.

Originally posted by Misoir
I actually justify what Israel is about to do!:

The only way for Israel to destruct itself is by attacking Iran.

( I have just cause for my reasoning, let me state that I am more of a pacifist than a militaralist but I believe Iran knew what they were doing in the region and knew that Israel would not stand by even to allow Iran to build nuclear facilities for civilian use. They knew this, but now they have decided to align themselves with Lebanon and Syria into a pact that will drag the whole region into war.

Actually, there is no evidence in the public domain that Iran is currently testing a weapon, making a weapon or even enriching uranium to a level that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

*The conflict with Iran is not over any observable pursuit of nuclear weapons, but over its insistence on enriching uranium to low levels that are not suitable for weapons use at a declared facility under IAEA seal and surveillance.

* Iran insists that this enrichment is purely for nuclear energy use, and we have no clear evidence with which to refute that claim.

* Iran's enrichment is a valid concern because it will shorten the lead time for developing a nuclear weapon should Iran decided (or have decided) to do so in the future. But enrichment to low levels under safeguards is not the same thing as pursuing a nuclear weapon.

* For starters, countries have a right to enrich uranium for peaceful use, and Iran cannot be indefinitely denied that right.

Last but not least Iran as a signatory under NPT has fuull right to enrich Uranium in their nuclear reactors. Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to visit their site whereas Israel has not.

Iran knew the whole time what was going to happen, Ahmadinejad says that he is the Mahdi and they believe the only way to bring about their beloved Mahdi is to start a regional war with Israel the likes the world has not saw since WW2. This was intentional on Iran’s' part and Israel played hook-line-sinker! But also believe Israel thinks this is their prophesied war against Gog and Magog that will usher in their savior, both sides are saber rattling to bring out their saviors and obviously there can only be one savior. Russian roulettes anyone?

You cannot be further be away from truth as the recent history of Iran makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence - not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam - is Iran's main foreign policy goal. For example:

* In the 1990s, Iran chose a closer relationship with Russia over support for rebellious Chechen Muslims.

* Iran actively supported and helped to finance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and what they got for their assistance was a entry into 'axis of evil' by Bush.

* Iran has ceased its efforts to export the Islamic revolution to other Persian Gulf states, in favor of developing good relations with the governments of those states.

* During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran took the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public.

Bombing Iran would yield nothing because:
(1) Bombing Iran's openly declared and safeguarded facilities won't stop Iran's nuclear program. It will simply drive the program underground while creating or hardening Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.

(2) Bombing an open and declared facility that is enriching uranium to low levels under full IAEA safeguards would constitute a lawless act of agression that would isolate the United States and Israel, not Iran.

(3) Bombing Iran would cause massive civilian casualties, fortify the current regime in power and rally the Iranian people around the flag -- against the United States.

(4) Bombing Iran would unleash chaos throughout the region, putting our troops' lives at risk and undermine the war on terror.

(5) Bombing Iran would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

(6) Threatening force while lacking a credible scenario for using it would be self-defeating.

So go ahead and try attacking Iran, it's one step towards self defeating goal.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Jakes51

 

Hopefully, a last minute agreement can be reached, because this crisis is looking to get nasty.

Do you really expect this regime to be pragmatic at this stage. They've already made the same bad decisions over and over again, and now they're frightened, bankrupt, and fear their own security turning against them in 4 days time.

Even if they agree a deal, it won't prevent their collapse.

John, I don't expect them to be pragmatic. Personally, I can care less if the Iranian regime is ousted from power, and the whole lot of them thrown in prison. However, we can't afford for this mess to get hot, thus, losing any support the west may have in the Iranian opposition in the event they turn nationalist and side with the Theocracy to defend their country if attacked. That is why I hope an agreement can be met, because the Iranian regime will use an attack as an excuse to ratchet-up support from their countrymen for the greater good of the country. They will use it as an excuse to be the good guys again.

Originally posted by Zmurfix
Another breaking news.

Ahmadinejad: Iran to start work on 20% nuclear fuel

So Iran did not accept offers for now. If I remember right they wanted 30% nuclear fuel for exchange of low-enriched uranium.
This could be another spark.
[edit on 7-2-2010 by Zmurfix]

Yep instead of having 20% enrichment from outside it seems they themselves are enriching the uranium. Under NPT a signatory can enrich Uranium upto 20%. So nothing extraordinary about their decision.

Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.

An effective nuclear weapon have enrichment of 80-85% or above.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by December_Rain]

I started to worry about a real confrontation when Blair opened his mouth comparing Iraq to Iran... Now, the Tories (potential incoming UK government) have stated they would back a war with Iran.
Link

Seems they are setting up their pieces for a confrontation.. I hope one side backs down before we go over the brink.

Don't laugh, but just speculating here.
Remember September 22nd last year. Iran shoots down a U.F.O.
Well maybe they are the ones who are going to disclose. Now that would rock the world.
What would be the scariest? Proof of E.T or Iran having the bomb.
Well I'm out out of here before the flames start.

reply to post by semperfortis very nice reply, star for you. The war itself wouldn't last long but to occupy that would be where the trouble and deaths would happen! I am tired of war, to many people killed and families torn apart. I would have to say Iran scares me, it would start with them and end up being several countries involved. It might turn into ww3 in no time

reply to post by The Alamo Ripper


Do you really think Obama, that "closet Muslim " would actually do anything to save or help Israel? Give me a break, the man is already destroying the US, why on earth would he let our country help the only Western democracy in the Middle East....there will be a showdown in the Middle East, and our government will fiddle faddle around trying to decide what to do. Those who will want to act and will have a decisive plan will be blocked until it is too late for Israel.

reply to post by jeff68


I too am so tired of the death and war in general

Problem is that the people in power do not feel as we do

Semper

I'm glad the armchair generals are out telling us what to expect. Truth is no one knows what will happen.

Originally posted by Elienne
reply to post by The Alamo Ripper

 

Give me a break, the man is already destroying the US, why on earth would he let our country help the only Western democracy in the Middle East....

American backing is often justified by the claim that Israel is a fellow‐democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships. This rationale sounds convincing, but it cannot account for the current level of U.S. support. The United States has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance U.S. interests, and it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today. Thus, being democratic neither justifies nor explains America’s support for Israel.

The “shared democracy” rationale is also weakened by aspects of Israeli democracy that are at odds with core American values. The United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights. By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second‐class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them.

Similarly, Israel does not permit Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens to become citizens themselves, and does not give these spouses the right to live in Israel. The Israeli human rights organization B’tselem called this restriction “a racist law that determines who can live here according to racist criteria.”28 Such laws may be understandable given Israel’s founding principles, but they are not consistent with America’s image of democracy.
Israel’s democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Israel controls the lives of about 3.8 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, while colonizing lands on which the Palestinians have long dwelt. Israel is formally democratic, but the millions of Palestinians that it controls are denied full political rights and the “shared democracy” rationale is correspondingly weakened.

Far from democracy Israel is the only state committing apartheid on a major scale.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by December_Rain]

reply to post by antonia
[mor
When I read that Egypt allows, and protects, two Israeli missile ships going through the Suez, I can figure out that Egypt is worried about Iran. We can also deduct that if military action occurs, then yes, it can escalate. I personally do not want to see that happen in my lifetime or my grandchildrens' lifetimes....

reply to post by Elienne



You can "deduce" whatever you want but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. This may be nothing more than a training op.

Originally posted by December_Rain
Thus, being democratic neither justifies nor explains America’s support for Israel.

The “shared democracy” rationale is also weakened by aspects of Israeli democracy that are at odds with core American values. The United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights. By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second‐class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them.

Then what is the US rationale to defend Israel?
Does it go at least as far as 1948 or perhaps even more?