Ahmadinejad Demands U.S. Stance on Israeli Arsenal

Ahmadinejad Demands U.S. Stance on Israeli Arsenal

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday reaffirmed his nation's call for the United States to detail its stance on Israeli nuclear policy before Tehran joins new negotiations over its own atomic work, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 8).

srael is the only Middle Eastern state believed to hold nuclear weapons, though it refuses to confirm or deny the existence of its presumed stockpile. The United States and its allies, meanwhile, have for years sought to halt Iranian nuclear activities they suspect are geared toward weapons development; Tehran has insisted its atomic ambitions are s

(visit the link for the full news article)

In the face of apparently blantant hypocrisy in the U.S.'s stance on nuclear weaponry and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Ahmadinejad does of course have a right to ask and receive an answer to this question.

We all know that he damn well knows what U.S. stance is. However, his demand here is to focus the world's attention on the issue, which is one of the key issues at the core of the whole volatile situation between Israel, it's proxy the U.S., and Iran.

I doubt he'll really receive a reply, but then I doubt he expects one.

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Love him or hate him, you have to admire his willingness to expose the hypocracy of Western Nations. Hilary Clinton just last month expressed that there is a desire to have a nuclear weapons free Middle East. I didn't hear Israel included in that comment and last I checked Israel is in the middle east unless I've experienced a timeline shift? LOL

I think Israel should have to participate in the NPT with IAEA inspections of their stockpile. It's hypocritical of Israel to demand that Iran abide by the NPT while they have avoided all attempts to document their own arsenal.

So far I haven't seen one shred of proof showing that Iran is building a bomb. Until I do, I'll keep an open mind about this situation.

If I were a betting man, I would say that the only response Ahmadinejad will receive from the US will likely be in the form of more sanctions or threats.

You know, in a way diplomacy is like a marriage, you have to communicate with each other and the US is still pouting after all these years and refusing to sit down and talk with Iran and possibly work some things out. Reminds me of a 3 year old sometimes not getting their way. Don't get me wrong, I still love this country, but there are times that I wonder what the heck are they doing. And I ask that question a lot more frequently lately.

(I wonder if heck is censored?)

Yes, I agree. He may act crazy, but I believe he's far from it. As of yet, there's really no hard proof, just the word of some very, very persistent people with seemingly contradictory agendas. Keeping an open mind and giving someone the benefit of the doubt might be the wiser course here. When you look at the hard push on Iran about nuclear weapons over the past what 10-15 years at least, as they seemingly do not treat others the same way, you have to wonder just what these people are really after.

The newest complications to this whole issue are Jordan going for nuclear energy and the rumor that Saudi Arabia may well have nukes.

With Jordan, it appears Israel and the U.S. are trying to limit their suppliers, for one thing and may also be alluding to similar concerns as they have about Iran. I posted a topic about it the other day and am still trying to understand all the ramifications of the words myself.

The Saudi Arabian thing is from a book written by a former U.S. spy. Pretty interesting stuff.

reply to post by Wayne60


Thing is, they're not interested in communicating with Iran. This path was predetermined long ago, I fear.

Nukes most likely aren't the issue at all.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday reaffirmed his nation's call for the United States to detail its stance on Israeli nuclear policy before Tehran joins new negotiations over its own atomic work, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 8).

Why?

It's a good thing the US isn't running the planet. Why don't they ask the French or South Africa how Israel got those supposed nukes in the first place? Maybe they should work a deal with them for their own projects.

This reminds me of a spoiled child who stomps their feet whines and points their finger at somebody else instead of copping to it's own activities. What bearing does this have on their own program? Nothing, that's right absolutely nothing.





[edit on 9-7-2010 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Wayne60

 

Thing is, they're not interested in communicating with Iran. This path was predetermined long ago, I fear.

Nukes most likely aren't the issue at all.

Absolutely! If they wanted to talk with them they would. I think the last time the US and Iran formally sat down was in Iraq in 2008 if I remember correctly and I don't think it was fruitious.

Many of the words and actions that I keep observing seems a lot like a grudge. That may sound simplistic, but sometimes things are simple. After all, Iran is the only nation in recent memory that was able to hold the US hostage, literally. A lot of that was grossly mishandled, but that's another story.

I do not think the US is going to drag sanctions out for 10+ years like they did with Iraq before either Israel or the US takes some sort of action. There are times it seems like they are pressed for time and are trying to rush this.

reply to post by SLAYER69


If I were a country like Iran or Jordan or any other country in that region with aims toward nuclear power or medicine, I guess I'd want a clear stance on the U.S. and world position too about Israel, Pakistan, India, N. Korea, and the like, so I knew what the rules were and what I was up against.

I'd want to know why these same issues don't exist with countries like Pakistan, already armed and far more dangerous that Iran might be someday if... And then there's the issue of the U.S.'s own missing nukes and Ukraine's missing nukes as well, which seemingly defuses the argument that Iran is apparently the only nation in the world who might get nukes into radical hands.

I think it's perfectly fair for the U.S. to have to explain its reasoning and justification and rules to the world and to Iran before sitting down to talks.

In fact, because it lead this world in sanctioning this country, I would have thought they must have already done that. Surely the world would have demanded this answer as well before agreeing to the sanctions. For them to be able to make a fair and logical decision, this would seem to have been pretty key.

And I'd be willing to bet the questions about France and South Africa would be follow ups to any potential response from the U.S., should that be left out. Iran is no doubt well aware of the history there.

reply to post by Wayne60

Netanyahu said in an interview, I believe it was either in 2007 or 2010, that he's been after the nuclear Iran for 15 years now. Or over 15 years. The year 1995 sticks in my mind, but I'm not sure why. I'd have to look it up. The mind is the second thing to go....

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I'd want to know why these same issues don't exist with countries like Pakistan, already armed and far more dangerous that Iran might be someday if... And then there's the issue of the U.S.'s own missing nukes and Ukraine's missing nukes as well, which seemingly defuses the argument that Iran is apparently the only nation in the world who might get nukes into radical hands.

In a nutshell the US/West will not allow a regime the possible ability to bottleneck the gulf. Hold a strangle hold over the worlds oil supply. Even the Russians and the Chinese albeit grudgingly require the Iranians to comply.

This isn't just a US/Iran/Israel issue it's an issue with the UN and their neighbors. I wonder how many here have even bothered to actually read the resolution coming from the UN?

Security Council
SC/9948

Expressing deep concern about Iran’s lack of compliance with its previous resolutions on ensuring the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, the Security Council imposed additional sanctions on the country today, expanding an arms embargo and tightening restrictions on financial and shipping enterprises related to “proliferation-sensitive activities”.

Adopting resolution 1929 (2010) by a vote of 12 in favour to 2 against (Brazil, Turkey), with 1 abstention (Lebanon), the Council also requested the Secretary-General to create a panel of experts to monitor implementation of the sanctions.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You know that and I know that, so why can't they just say that? Why must they use ths nuclear issue, which most of the world is pretty suspicious about anyway, to keep pushing on?

The Russians and Chinese are expressing second thoughts about the resolution, as is India, though they are not on the security council.

"...lack of compliance with its previous resolutions on ensuring the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme..."

This is the key here. They have not proved that there has been a lack of compliance. I have to at this point, ask myself, what would compliance actually be?

Iran has pretty much done what has been asked of them by the IAEA. On occasion they question. They have even gone to the lengths of allowing other countries to store materials for them so as to comply with the rules of not having enough available to build weapons.

The CIA says they're still two years away and that there is no hard evidence. It's speculation.

What does the "world" actually want them to do? What rules really apply. If the "world" is using this as an excuse to sanction them, maybe they better define what the freaking end is. Iran giving up control over the chokepoints? What?

reply to post by SLAYER69


While the Russians and Chinese did go along with the UN sanctions, both of these parties have recently been expressing objections to the unilateral US sanctions, as presented here. It does seem that when we, meaning the US, take things upon ourselves to extend sanctions, that it does tend to make other countries a little nervous, especially when these sanctions are above and beyond what they voted for at the UN.

Also, to further exasperate sanctions, and yes I realize this is another instance but bears mentioning here, is that many of these same tactics that are being used on Iran have been used on Iraq as presented here, and it took around 10 years of sanctions on Iraq before the decision was made that they were not working and other steps had to be taken. And yes, we also added sanctions on top of the UN sanctions there as well.

So how long will Iran be under sanctions before a US/Israel attack begins? If oil is the primary objective, then I doubt Iran has 10 years as Iraq did. I think that the next new moon is coming in the next couple of days, so we shall see.

Just to add that I think what makes so many people leery of our intentions and the information being provided, is the lies we were told in the past in order to justify a war(s).

Originally posted by Wayne60
So how long will Iran be under sanctions before a US/Israel attack begins?

You see that's just it....

I've been reading about this coming attack on Iran for years. It's just around the corner like every second. It hasn't happened. It's almost as if ATS has a cheering section for war against Iran.

This is a bit dangerous and Naive. The US and Israel have been already prosecuted for a crime that neither of them have committed. So just exactly how sure are you that there will be an attack on Iran? Wouldn't one think that if it was going to happen that it would have already happened?

I mean, who is more of a warmonger Bush or Obama?

reply to post by SLAYER69


I'm with you my friend.

Personally I would rather everybody play nice, but as we both know that doesn't always happen.

I've been hearing war drums with Iran for a very long time. I was a couple of hundred miles off the coast of Iran in 1980-81 waiting for orders for us to bomb them back into the stone age, but those orders never came and the hostages were released after Reagan took office.

As far as whether it would have already happened or not, who can say for sure? The last thing I read one of the reactors in Iran won't be completed until September, so we have a couple of dark night periods to go between now and then.

I read somewhere last night that Iran's actually HAD a reactor for decades. I wonder if I bookmarked that...

As for this constant teetering on the edge of war...yeah it goes in cycles...almost the same exact sequence of events every time, or maybe it just seems like a cycle to me and it really just never ends.

If it ever does step off into a war, it could be either very anticlimactic or very bad.

One thing I take real issue with is Israel taking out the nuclear sites. First of all, what right do they have to really do that? And second, if they do, we'll never really know.

Then what happens? I guess I'm really wondering what the "world" wants here.

By the way, here the thread on Jordan and what's going on with its nuclear aspirations.

And here is a thread I tried to start about the edge-of-war cycles of this whole Iranian situation.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by SLAYER69


This reminds me of a spoiled child who stomps their feet whines and points their finger at somebody else instead of copping to it's own activities. What bearing does this have on their own program? Nothing, that's right absolutely nothing.

Slayer ......... come on man , i enjoy reading your input on these matters but i find it hard to believe you actually think Israel's possession of nuclear weapons has no bearing on the issue.

Not when the very nation- Israel- threatening war with Iran , is in procession of nuclear weapons. Something they themselves developed covertly .

Obviously no country wants to give up a strategic advantage , especially when your country is a small as Israel happens to be.
I get that .......but such glaringly-obvious double standards, do not inspire confidence in `The West` particularly its chief agent and military enforcer the U.S .

This whole debacle may even go so far as to convince non-nuclear nations to seek a nuclear deterent of their own in the interest of their own safety. There is plenty of precedents set already .

Here's some ground rules:

1) If you don't want to be held to a treaty obligation, don't sign the treaty.

2) If you don't want to be held to an agreement, don't agree to it.

3) Israel didn't.

4) Iran DID.

Therefore, Israel has only a tangential bearing on this situation, Iran has no business requiring that Israel live up to an agreement it never made.

Iran DID make that agreement, hence the sanctions.

Personally, I'm all for letting them build as many nukes as they want, but ringing the entire country with ABMs. Then, they can play with nukes all day long, to their heart's content. First nuke crosses their border, flash it.

Then start glassing Iran until the people get tired and hang the mullahs.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I've been reading about this coming attack on Iran for years. It's just around the corner like every second. It hasn't happened. It's almost as if ATS has a cheering section for war against Iran.

You and I are on the same page here. It is clear that neither the US or Israel intend to attack Iran now, especially after the US got what it wanted from the UN in the form of Iran sanctions. The US added its own sanctions on Iran. Iran denies that any sanctions will have the least effect on Iran anyway.

And both the US and Israel are heavily involved in crisis and negotiations of their own, the US in Afghanistan with the Taliban and the August withdrawal of troops.

And Israel with the Gaza crisis, embargo and being pressured into negotiations with the Palestinians by the US and the rest of the world. Negotiations that will go no where almost by design.

But we have a President that likes to talk and wants other leaders to talk also even if it is all grand rhetoric!

The Iranian demand concerning Israeli nucs is not a world issue, rather a talking point for the Iranian leader. Iran can and will probably make many more conditional demands for negotiations as they always have.

[edit on 10/7/10 by plumranch]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I mean, why does it matter? If Iran manufactured even one, we would be able to make 10 more with or 2300 something or so more. If Iran mass produced them, by the time they had enough resources to do it, we'd probably have a moon canon and a star wars laser program.

So remind me again why I should care?