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.

 

The Iranian Threat Conspiracy

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
it isn't news that Iran is a direct and immediate threat to the welfare and safety of not only the U.S. but also to the whole Middle East.

at least that's what we are told, over and over and over again.
this has been going on ever since i can remember, since the Iranian hostage crisis when i was about 12 years old. it might have been going on before that but i don't recall. 29 years is plenty long enough, as it is.

especially for an idea that isn't true.

not in the least.

if Iran has ever posed a threat to the U.S., it is only in these most recent years and it is in direct response to the careless generalizations and egoistic threats made by our very own leaders, namely GW back in 2002 with his "Axis of Evil" declaration. he grouped Iran with Iraq and N. Korea which didn't make sense even to many of his advisors.

Iraq attacked Iran, leading to the Iran-Iraq war in which many Iranians suffered and died. Since WWII ended, i don't find any evidence of Iran being involved in war other than their own Revolution and the war with Iraq. they have not been the aggressor in any modern war or battle, as a nation.

it is silly to assume that Iran and Iraq would be in cahoots, just by virtue, perhaps, that they are both Muslim nations, or at least Iraq is largely Islam and Iran is officially an Islamic State.

and that very fact, that they are formally declaring their religious affiliation as being Islam, that makes the so-called continued urgent threat of Iran's alleged clandestine nuclear weapon-building more than unlikely but darn near not even a possibility.

nuclear warfare is against Islamic doctrine.


Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."



Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, one of the highest-ranking clerics in Iran, said in an interview: "There is complete consensus on this issue. It is self- evident in Islam that it is prohibited to have nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because the basic function of these weapons is to kill innocent people. This cannot be reversed."



"There is room for maneuver in Islam. Things can be haram (forbidden) one day and halal (acceptable) later on. But this takes time," he said. Whether Iran's apparent restraint on nuclear weapons development will continue is an all-important question as the West monitors Iran's compliance with the agreement.


source

what's more, the UN sanctions against Iran are affecting its health-care system, in particular radiation therapy for cancer patients!


Iran has said that U.N. Security Council sanctions aimed at curtailing its uranium-enrichment activities unfairly target its medical sector. "We have thousands of patients a month at our hospital alone .. If we can't help them, some will die. It's as simple as that," said an Iranian nuclear medicine specialist. An Iranian Jew from California claimed "I don't believe in these sanctions... They hurt normal people, not leaders. What is the use of that?" Vice President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ghannadi framed the debate as a humanitarian issue, "This is about human beings. . . . When someone is sick, we should give medicine." Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that fuel obtained from Argentina in 1993 would run out by the end of 2010, and that it could produce the uranium itself or buy the uranium from abroad.

In February 2010, to refuel the Tehran Research Reactor, which produces medical isotopes, Iran began using a single cascade to enrich uranium "up to 19.8%", to match the previously foreign supplied fuel. 20% is the upper threshold for low enriched uranium (LEU). Though HEU enriched to levels exceeding 20% is considered technically usable in a nuclear explosive device, this route is much less desirable because far more material is required to achieve a sustained nuclear chain reaction. HEU enriched to 90% and above is most typically used in a weapons development program.


source

how is that promoting freedom and democracy?!?!

and it seems that the U.S. intelligence is not supplying any evidence or intelligence that is adequate in the eyes of the IAEA, who are overseeing compliance with the NPT. U.S. Intelligence is one of, if not the main source of criticism, of Iran's nuclear program, claimed without fail to be peaceful by Iranian officials, but has failed to provide any real evidence, in the last 8 years, of Iran doing anything to actual violate the treaty other than refusing to be bullied, perhaps, by those who have only suspicions in mind and accusations on the tongue.

source


(02-25) 04:00 PDT Vienna -- Despite growing international concern about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate, and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran, diplomats here said.
The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services have provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic republic is developing illicit weapons.
"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," said a senior diplomat at the atomic energy agency.
Another official described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now, (because) so little panned out."



its not simply a lack of intelligence. obviously they are providing some sort of information that the IAEA says has proved to be wrong.

NOT an absence of evidence
proven inaccuracies

that's pretty serious in a court of law, and i'd think in foreign affairs of such a delicate nature, especially!



The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the emerging regional power on multiple fronts: its expanding nuclear program, its alleged support for insurgents inside Iraq and its backing of Middle East militant groups.
The CIA still faces harsh criticism for its prewar intelligence errors on Iraq. No one in Vienna argues that U.S. intelligence officials have fallen this time for crudely forged documents or have pushed shoddy analysis. Officials at the atomic energy agency, who openly challenged U.S. assessments that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear bomb, say the Americans are much more cautious in assessing Iran.


once bitten, twice shy!
or at least, you'd think so


U.S. officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.
The atomic energy agency has its own concerns about Iran's nuclear program, although agency officials concede they have found no proof that nuclear material has been diverted for use in weapons. Iran's government began enriching uranium in small amounts in August in a program it insists will provide fuel only for civilian power stations, not nuclear weapons.


and the following would be almost laughable if it weren't so serious an issue:


Diplomats in Vienna were less convinced by documents recovered by U.S. intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran.

American analysts first briefed senior atomic energy agency officials on the contents of the hard drive at the U.S. mission in Vienna in mid-2005. The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research into uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during uranium enrichment.

Agency officials remain suspicious of the information, in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Farsi, the Iranian language.

Iran's representative to the atomic energy agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, dismissed the laptop documents as "fabricated information." Iran, he said, has produced 170 tons of "green salt" at a uranium conversion facility in Esfahan that is monitored by the energy agency.

"We are not hiding it," he said in an interview. "We make tons of it. These documents are all nonsense."


not even in Farsi!
what idiots.

:shk:




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Once again Queen Annie you are spot on. I seem to remember the Iranian government originally helping the US after the invasion of Afghanistan and offering to help rebuild the war torn country, relocate refugees etc. At this point ties between the US and Iran were the best they had been for years.

2001: Post-9/11 Cooperation on Afghanistan Like nearly all world leaders, Ayatollah Khamenei condemned the attacks of 9/11. After the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan toppled the Taliban government, American and Iranian diplomats met together in Bonn, with a handful of representatives from other UN members, to form a new government and constitution for Kabul. “None was more [helpful] than the Iranians,” said James Dobbins, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan at the time, writing in the Washington Post. “The original version of the Bonn agreement ... neglected to mention either democracy or the war on terrorism. It was the Iranian representative who spotted these omissions and successfully urged that the newly emerging Afghan government be required to commit to both.” Iran also cooperated with the United Nations to repatriate nearly one million Afghan refugees residing on its soil and—working with United States, Russia, and India—provided support to the Northern Alliance. Flynt Leverett of the Brookings Institution tells CFR.org's Bernard Gwertzman, “I think at least some Iranian officials were hoping could get leveraged into a broader strategic dialogue, but that channel was effectively foreclosed when President Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address labeled Iran as part of the ‘Axis of Evil.

Then of course as you mentioned Bush did the whole axis of evil thing like the cartoon character he is, and it was all undone in a heartbeat.

Imagine the arrogance and ignorance involved in such a statement? Lumping the Iranians in with Iraq a country they fought a brutal war with and their sworn enemy. I might add it's well documented, as we all know that the US helped arm Iraq against it's neighbour in a war in which over a million lives were lost.

Still even now Iran offers a helping hand when it can, knowing full well the US will reject it, and anyone with any sense will know the Iranian's will come off better in such a situation.

They comply with the NPT, they comply with IAEA, they offer to help the US a country who has caused massive headaches for the Iranians yet this is still not enough. They perpetuate for years the misquotation of Ahmadinejad wiping Israel off the map, something only a movie villain would say.

They are no angels certainly but they do not deserve to be bombed back to the stone age, something which is looking increasingly likely.

I keep thinking why doesn't Iran call everyone's bluff with the renewable energy development? Parallel to developments in nuclear energy, they should be looking to develop other sustainable resources, solar, wind, and tidal. They could then prove their true commitment to increasing exports of oil based commodities by increasing national energy production using clean methods.

This would surely relieve some of the pressure and perhaps they are doing this, and it is simply overlooked by MSM. I will have to do some digging and get back to you. Starred and flagged.

www.cfr.org...
www.guardian.co.uk...
uk.reuters.com...

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Big Raging Loner]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Big Raging Loner]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Your Source
reply to post by queenannie38
 



Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has exploited the growing confrontation with Washington to gain much needed political support at home. Nationalist sentiments run deep in Iran, and the claim that Tehran has the same right to nuclear power as other nations has become a rallying cry that undermines the government's domestic critics.

"None of us can accept the suspension of these activities because people consider this our legal right," said Akbar Alami, an independent lawmaker. "All the political parties agree with this. We cannot stop."

Iran's growing power, he said, "threatens every existing political order in the region."



Interesting to cherry pick from your own sources. Turn about is fair play. Personally I hear more about War with Iran just about everyday here on ATS than I do from the MSM. Whenever Israel or Iran fart it's going to touch off WWIII
.

It's as if ATS has it's very own Cheering section for war. Just read the latest ATS threads from the past Two or Three years. [Or More] War with Iran is just around the corner.


I'm no fan of Israel or what comes out of Tehran but if we the reader were to believe everything posted here then the ME should have been a nuclear wasteland years ago. It hasn't happened. I'm sorry if I sound a bit callous but it seems that everyday war is about to break out any second and yet it hasn't.

Sooner or later something MAY happen and in which case people will come crawling out of the woodwork like roaches and state [See we were Right] Meanwhile the law of averages played in their favor.

I honestly believe that many here believe their own propaganda and or rhetoric not to mention their own interpretation of world events. I read and hear more warmongering from ATS members on both sides of the ME fence then I do from any state run media.


Just an observation

PEACE

Slay



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


thank you - i didn't realize that Iran had been helpful after 9/11 - that makes it so much worse what GW said!

i have to admit, i kind of miss the guy - he always makes me laugh even if it's a bumble that's gonna cost us.

but a diplomat, he is not!

as far as the rest of the renewable energy, i agree that would be a wise move in more ways than one.

i don't think it's economically feasible for them, right now, perhaps.

they've been repeatedly stymied, too, with attacks on their nuclear reactors and sanctions and denial of necessary resources.

i'd be one mad mullah if i were he (the Pres) but he obviously has more composure than most of us, under pressure!



thank you!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Interesting to cherry pick from your own sources. Turn about is fair play. Personally I hear more about War with Iran just about everyday here on ATS than I do from the MSM.


i knew someone would say something to that effect.
at least you read the links!

and i *cherry picked* on purpose - i'm tired of hearing just the ONE side of the argument!

everyone else, that posts all the negative stuff, cherry picks, too, so i had no qualms about it at all.

i don't watch media but prefer to read it all, or otherwise, on the internet.
there's a lot about this online.

at any rate, it is definitely getting OLD. it's a situation of our own making, more than it's not, and i'd like to see our Gov. grow up and make friends with its neighbors.

the world gets smaller every day and the weapons bigger.

it's nonsense!

thank you for your input!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


that letter, mentioned in your first link, is what made me see that maybe there was another side i needed to investigate, in this situation.

it wasn't a threatening letter in any way - just questioning and the questions were much the same as i had hypothetically asked our President, too, in my head.

but the White House just IGNORED the letter as far as even acknowledging it, and the very little mention was always to the effect that it was threatening.

i didn't see it and i still don't!

i'm a libra and its against my nature not to weigh both sides of the argument!

the U.S. has repeatedly threatened to nuke those who give us any "trouble" of the slightest bit - ever since Japan, we use that as a big ugly stick and i, for one, view that as both shameful and empty. surely American leaders know more than others how devastating and IRREVERSIBLE a nuclear bomb is.

[edit on 6/30/2010 by queenannie38]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


I sort of agree with you insofar as I believe that the Iranian threat is being exaggerated but there are some problems with your thread. Mainly the claim that they have not been involved in any war other than the Iran-Iraq war. You pointed out the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis (they were allies to the west before the Iranian revolution in 1979) this is a act of aggression following on from this we have had other instances were Iran has been aggressive. Most recently supporting insurgency groups from Iraq in designing new more complex IED’s which are killing troops. They also support Hezbollah and I hold the belief that it was Iran who were behind the pam am 103 bombing and the hostages taken during the hostage crisis in Lebanon.

Although i agree wit you that the thread is being exaggerated, this does not mean there is a threat and it may be dangerous to argue that there is no threat. Iran do have a nuclear power program and in the past have attempted to produce nuclear weapons. They also have some very controversial foreign policy such as the destruction of the Israeli state. In all honesty however this topic is far to complex to articulate in this one post.

Despite my criticism i do think this is a good thread and found it very interesting



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


I think either side would definitely be foolish to let their guard down certainly, and as I said Iran is definitely no angel, but we could talk about which side funded which terrorist group/ act of terrorism until the cows came home

However I do see the US as the main aggressor in this situation, and I'm not generally an America basher, I owe a lot to the US. But you can't keep applying pressure continually and not expect something to happen, I think you have a point Slayer, but eventually somethings gotta give. Doom porn is very 'in' on ATS, and the 'Iranian Threat' is the current poster girl!

Queen Annie I agree with you in a way about George Bush at least with him you knew what you were getting, he wasn't clever enough to hide his true intentions. With Obama I'm completely unaware what he will do next he's a bit of an oddball for sure. I do believe that without him though this whole Iranian stand-off would have come to a head long ago, everyone else involved in the latter stages of the presidential run seem to have a sociopathic distaste for the Iranians. Hillary for example, I really believe she could turn me to stone.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
According To Lindsey Willams he has said the Illuminati have told him they have no reason to go war with Iran in the next 18 months and if anybody attacks Iran it will be Israel. So if the US attacks Iran it is not going to happen for at least 18 months.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thetiggler
 


who is Lindsey Williams?
i've not heard that name before.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It is not the U.S. that is worried about Iran building nukes, it is Israel. However, the U.S. and the U.K. back Israel because of the available resources in Iran that we zero control over.

Check out the history of Iran.

Quoting myself from this thread - (The Beautiful Iran You Weren’t Aware Of!) www.abovetopsecret.com...


In 1901, the first OIL discovered in the Middle East was in Persia which is now present day Iran. But more importantly the exact spot it was discovered in was Masjed-Soleyman. M-S is located in the Khūzestān Province, which just happens to be the same port province where BP (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) had their Iranian headquarters, and same port province Sadam tried to take from Iran in the Iran-Iraq War beginning 1980.

Can you see the pattern?

-1901, first OIL in Iran.
-Under British control

-1951, Mosaddegh nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with near unanimous support of Iran's parliament.
-The West loses control of OIL.

-1953, the U.S. and Britain organize the Iranian coup d'état to regain control of Iran's OIL.

-1953-79, 25+ years of a ruthless U.S. and Britain backed dictatorship to suck every drop of OIL out of Iran.

-1979, the Iranian Hostage Crisis and Islamic Revolution.
-The U.S. and Britain lose control of Iran's OIL. People of Iran are finally in charge.

-1980, the Iran-Iraq War. Sadam invades the Khūzestān Province, his army financially backed by the U.S. and Britain.
-Iraq has also been under British control since it was captured in WWI, and was granted its independence in 1932 under a British backed King. Hrmm, wonder who ordered that?

-2010, Iran believes it has little oil, and is seeking to build a nuclear program to sustain its people into the 21-century.
- U.S. and Britain want war to regain control of the Khūzestān Province because they know something the Iranians do not.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE OIL IN THE IRAN!


The conspiracy is we want the resources back that Iran smartly nationalized away from us. The nuclear issue is being played by Israel for their safety, as Iran is the greatest threat to their country. The U.S. backs it because we need an excuse to go to war in order to regain control of one of the world's biggest oil fields.

news.bbc.co.uk...

1953_Iranian_coup
en.wikipedia.org...'%C3%A9tat

[edit on 1-7-2010 by tooo many pills]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by queenannie38
 


I sort of agree with you insofar as I believe that the Iranian threat is being exaggerated but there are some problems with your thread. Mainly the claim that they have not been involved in any war other than the Iran-Iraq war. You pointed out the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis (they were allies to the west before the Iranian revolution in 1979) this is a act of aggression following on from this we have had other instances were Iran has been aggressive.


do you know what events and participants in said events led to not just the hostage situation but also to their Revolution?

if they were aggressive, then they were only standing up to the neighborhood bullies.

same bullies as every other time.




Although i agree wit you that the thread is being exaggerated, this does not mean there is a threat and it may be dangerous to argue that there is no threat.


sure, there's a threat.
but it is of our own making!
it has been provoked and instigated.
it goes all the way back at least as far as WWII!
with the U.S. and the U.K. being the instigators and provokers.
AGAIN.


Iran do have a nuclear power program and in the past have attempted to produce nuclear weapons.


yes, they admit this. but that was rectified and for quite some time, it was accepted as the truth that there were no longer working toward nuclear weapons.

and still, to this day, there is NO EVIDENCE of any materials being diverted from energy to weapons. and it isn't because they won't let anyone come in now - that is recent and as well, the IAEA still maintains there is no such evidence.

you can't antagonize other countries based on SUSPICIONS without there being any evidence!

the IAEA is in charge of treaty compliance and monitoring, not the U.S.

our intelligence has not only proved worthless, but it was actually said to be wrong by the IAEA.


They also have some very controversial foreign policy such as the destruction of the Israeli state.


that is a misunderstanding gone viral. compounded by language barriers.

also, i don't know of any more controversial foreign policy as ours, the U.S., of militarily supporting the state of Israel, including financially to the tune of 3 billion a year, while they fight over Gaza and commit murders.


(to the readers: in anticipation of anyone thinking about bringing up the guilt or whatever of the Palestinians...don't derail my thread. besides, we don't support Palestine at all, anyway.)


Despite my criticism i do think this is a good thread and found it very interesting


thank YOU!
i appreciate the criticism because it sharpens my sword!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


yes
i also read that 10% of the world's crude supply is under Iran.

i think that the situation has been greatly aided by our abnormal allegiance to the state of Israel - ruffling a lot of feathers over in that neck of the woods. and its something they know will largely be approved because of what people think the bible is about - blessing and cursing Israel, that is.

the war-making oil-addicts use that belief to their advantage and everyone but they (the wmoa) are the losers.

thanks for posting all that.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join